Nevoic

Knowledge isn't bad, and I'm aware of where I'm knowledgeable and where my limits are. I tend to be quite a bit more knowledgeable about philosophy than the average person, most people don't introspect or read about where truth comes from. They often don't even know or understand what an axiom is, even though they're foundational to how we live.

If that's all too much for you, you can literally just disregard my latter two paragraphs before you went into your defensive panic. I don't (usually) need to get into the idea of normative truths to justify veganism, because ironically we live in a country of "animal lovers", many of whom would happily literally kill dog abusers. I've unironically met non-vegans that advocate for the fucking death penalty for people who abuse dogs.

That amount of dissonance, to advocate for actual death for humans who abuse animals, while themselves literally paying for animal abuse, is sufficient to dismantle people's entire preconception of animal rights and worth. If we happened to live in a society without massive hypocrites, where people consistently held that abusing and torturing all "lesser" animals was okay, I'd have to get into more nuanced discussion about the nature of truth to help people get to veganism.

I understand this response, it must be emotionally hard to be challenged in such a concrete and decisive way, with no rational response available to you. I see this most commonly from carnists and religious people. In politics people don't tend to literally fall into "LALALALA" and plugging their ears like you have, but certain social conditioning (namely church and other forms of normalized structural violence) cause people to go into a defensive panic.

Good luck on learning anything in your life, honestly.

Dark humor is a real thing, and it's fine and even cathartic for a lot of people. Joking about fascists, genocide-enablers, etc. is something some people find in poor taste, while others find it cathartic. Neither is wrong.

I didn't force anyone to follow anything, but the state does and you view that as a good thing. It should be illegal to abuse and kill dogs & cats, we can agree on that obvious truth. Your inability to see how that translates to pigs/cows/chickens is just irrationality/stupidity, nothing else.

I've had a ton of conversations on the nature of normative truths. Rehashing it over and over again with pseudo-expressivists online is annoying, mostly because you all have actually no background in philosophy, so it's like talking to a bunch of philosophy 101 students who have never given this more than a cursory thought.

You should look into the basis of knowledge, study a bit of epistemology. You'll find the foundations for all truths, normative or descriptive, are quite similar. They're all fundamentally based in axioms.

Sometimes it's just venting, looking at vegancirclejerk groups/forums. Not every comment from a vegan about veganism is an attempt at activism, sometimes we're just fed up with carnist bullshit and vent. If a carnist sees it and it makes them think, cool, but that's not always the goal.

I've never understood why vegans, the ones the vast majority agree are doing something at least good (even if you don't understand it's a moral obligation), are the ones that have to cater to the genocidal masses.

Stop and think for a second, imagine you live in a wild, wild world where the vegan position is actually correct. Imagine that you're a vegan, and those around you are actually supporting an unjustified animal holocaust. Then think about how your critique of vegans comes off. It's the genocidal maniacs complaining about how they're treated unfairly on the internet because sometimes someone attacks their delicate sensibilities.

It's not my responsibility to engage with you in such a way that makes you a better person. Your own failings are your own, and my failings are my own. My failings are I sometimes make someone on the internet a bit sad, and yours are participating in a market demanding tens of billions of animal deaths every year, a quantitative level of suffering we've never seen before.

Do they keep the male chicks? This is pretty rare, the vast majority of "local" egg farmers either macerate baby males alive or sell them to someone else to raise for a few months before slaughtering.

Correct, notice my phrasing. They were third world countries, they became global superpowers. Never even used the phrase first world country.

Is this a joke?

The USSR and China were much more widespread examples of eliminating landlords, both were vastly successful. They were third world countries with terrible conditions, both became global superpowers, all-the-while providing housing at a vastly more reasonable rate.

China has since regressed on this, and they're starting to feel housing troubles as landlords destroy the housing market through scalping, but for a long period they were improving.

The best example is probably the USSR during the 70s. Still a country with vastly less wealth than America, recently developed into a global superpower, but still was providing housing to citizens at an average of 5% of their income. America has been operating very consistently in the 30-80% range for a long time.

825,000 chickens per year in the U.S are accidentally boiled alive or drowned before their intended slaughter. https://animalclock.org/ this isn't prevented because prevention mechanisms cost money, as in they eat into profits.

It's standard practice for male pigs to have their tails and testicles ripped out without pain relief https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23817808/pig-farm-investigation-feedback-immunity-feces-intestines this link also showcases how people abuse pigs for fun. Objectifying animals you kill is a coping mechanism for humans, engaging in that much killing is unnatural and unhealthy for humans, it also leads to vastly higher rates of domestic violence and crime, as it normalizes violence as a solution.

It's normal for foxes to have their skin ripped off while they're alive. Animals have their beaks ripped off so they can't kill each other in distress, as they go literally insane, abandon normal social hierarchies, and start simply trying to kill each other given the lack of space. http://www.nationearth.com/

I understand ignorance of how horrible the conditions are is a normal part of how humans justify our atrocities. However what always baffles me is people who appear genuinely concerned about animal welfare can be so absurdly uninformed on the practices that they directly support with their purchases, while criticizing practices that you have absolutely no influence over in a place on the other side of the planet.

What's the cat abuse situation over there? Is it worse than our pig/cow/chicken abuse situation?