I’ve had a certain debate a few times where you might say we argue over the “semantics” of the meat industry.

I am what you would call a vegetarian. While vegetarians won’t eat things that caused harm to produce, a vegan won’t eat anything having to do with an animal. A lot of those who would fall under the latter category hate us because they say anything that remotely resembles someone enjoying an animal product is supporting the meat industry which then kills animals, which means merely eating an animal product makes someone a murderer.

Meanwhile, there’s this concept many call piracy. It’s the idea that, as the meme proverbially puts it, “you can download a car”. The idea here, which I say in the way I do because there’s still an ongoing debate about it, is that it affects nobody. But then there’s the whole industry thing I mentioned. People on the other side of the debate often say “well what about the industry”. I’m not sure where on the scale in this topic you might put me, but I feel like there’s a glaring contradiction here. When it comes to animals, people think of the industry, but otherwise that’s not a factor.

My question is… why?

  • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The other is a group of people consuming arguably more goods than they (we tbh) deserve since we’re not willing or able to pay for it for one reason or another.

    This is a loaded way to phrase this.

    The other is a group of people consuming goods that they don’t pay for, for one reason or another.

    • harmonea@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hey man, I’m willing to be honest about what I do. I’m not entitled to consume that media just because it exists, and I’m not going to beat around the bush about that.

      • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You did leave out the lack of legal access being a motivator for piracy.

        Deserving is also an odd differentiation because people need to eat, and they have needs about participating in society. Maybe a movie pirate doesn’t need to access that particular movie but when their access is hampered in general, their ability to engage in discourse with their peers is hampered.

        • harmonea@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Okay but seriously, what is this pedantry even? I wasn’t trying to put forth some all-encompassing thesis of every reason people might pirate, nor do I accept that “needs to be in on all the current memes” is some reason one is entitled to media. And neither point has anything to do with the discussion we’re having with OP.

          Bizarre as heck tangent.

          • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The way you phrased your sentence about piracy was biased against pirates. You were saying these moral choices aren’t similar, I’m trying to refute that, and I’m saying they are similar.

            It’s not even current memes. If all my co-workers watched some obscure regional television decades ago, how am I supposed to understand the references they make without pirating the media? At what point do these creative products belong to society instead of a specific individual?

            OP is talking about how there’s a different perception of the morality of these things, and the lesser harm(pirating) is being viewed on more harshly than (not being a vegetarian). This is the core of that discussion.