• BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh boy, another dogshit kill animals hehe meme. Very funny maymay community. Psuedoprogressive animal abusers the lot of ya. There is not enough resources on Earth to quench your never ending demand for bodies. Just have ten trillion kids who all definitely have the opportunity to eat just as many animals as you do! Primitive zero brain cell fools. I’d throw you all out of Athens.

    • terwn43lp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      internet is filled with echo chambers who cant make ethical decisions of their own. veganism gets downvoted because it makes people question their morality & they have to make the effort of buying plant-based options. god forbid they eat food without cholesterol

      • Imotali@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        More than half of America lives paycheck to paycheck. Vegan options are more expensive. Until you fix the economic crisis and solve poverty you really can’t enforce veganism.

        This isn’t even getting into the fact that vegan options are literally nonexistent in many places.

        Oh but you don’t care about that because you only care about veganism because it allows you to feel morally superior to others.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Veganism gets downvoted for the same reason any other fanaticism gets downvoted: the vocal minority that talks about it does so with a hoiler-than-thou attitude, much like you are doing right now.

        • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The people who want me to stop punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked sure are smug about not punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked. They should stop telling me what to do. Live and let live. I am very intelligent. An enlightened centrist you might say! ☝️🤓

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s a false equivalence.

            The vast majority of the Western world does not consider farm animals to have the same rights as humans or pets. Equating the ethics of eating meat and battery is really reaching for an example to make me look stupid.

            But hey, if we’re playing that game, here’s some examples that demonstrate unnecessary and annoying proselytizing:

            The people who want me to {blank} sure are smug about how they {blank}. They should keep telling me how their lifestyle is better. My opinion isn’t as important as theirs. I am very happy to be talked down upon. An enlightened listener, you might say! ☝️🤓

            • Drive a Tesla
            • Drink Pepsi instead of Coke
            • Try homeopathy
            • Wear Versace
            • Own a PlayStation instead of Xbox
            • Cook with propane instead of charcoal
            • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              On the basis of their being conscious feeling thinking emotional beings I assert that there is no moral difference between violating the bodily autonomy of a non-human animal and a human. Given a no alternative hypothetical it’s fair to give preference for who to spare, but this is not the same as willful unnecessary violence and killing.

              If it’s false equivalency, demonstrate why it is permissible to kill non humans but not even permissible to punch humans in the face. What is the morally relevant difference? If you could apply that difference to a human, would you then justify doing to them all the things we do to animals?

              Your examples don’t have victims, this one does.

              • Imotali@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                See but you’re assuming that we agree to your axiomatic premise that there is no moral difference between the two.

                We reject your premise. Prove there’s no difference.

              • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                From the perspective of cultural relativism.*

                Insofar as our laws view animals, we do not afford them the same considerations or rights as we do our own species. I can’t speak for Europe, but in the legal systems of North American countries, animals are granted their own distinct protections separate from the protections given to entities with the designation of personhood (i.e. humans or service animals).

                For instance, with permits and barring species that are protected for conservation reasons, humans are allowed to hunt and kill animals for both sport and sustenance. In such cases, animals do not consent to their hunting.

                However, that does not mean that it is okay to hurt animals without cause. There are animal cruelty laws that cover unjustified and inhumane treatment of wild and pet animals.

                If it is legal to kill animals but illegal to be “cruel” to them, then the act of killing an animal is not, in itself, cruelty. If it was, then animal cruelty would unconditionally occur during the process of hunting, making the latter illegal.

                With these four points, and keeping in mind that laws are a reflection of the collective beliefs of society, we see that:

                1. Harming humans is viewed as a different act than harming animals, and is not generally permissible.
                2. Killing animals is permissible.
                3. Inflicting intentional cruelty on animals is not permissible.
                4. (2) is not precluded by (3).

                By (1) and that punching a human in the face is an act of harming them (and also illegal), I conclude that it is not morally permissible to punch humans in the face.

                By (2) and (4), I conclude that it is morally permissible to kill non-human animals.


                Just in case anyone thinks relativism is a cop-out answer because laws were written in the past and may not be reflective of society’s current moral views, I ask you to consider this:

                Laws are constantly changed to align with updated beliefs. Canada amended its laws to consider gender identity a protected class, which reflects the contemporary belief that transgender individuals deserve equality and freedom from being discriminated against. If society cared about not killing animals, hunting for sport would be unconditionally outlawed.


                Edit 1: I meant cultural relativism. Non-Western cultures have different (and in some cases, more progressive) views on animal rights.

                • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Foundationally we already disagree, as I’m a moral objectivist. To assert moral subjectivity is to assert that moral progress does not exist. But with your edit your argument is actually now even worse IMO, because instead of focusing on a moral relativist position you’re now basically saying morality=culture/law. i.e., since you have no say in what another society does without disrupting their agreed practice, all their actions are permissible. Bigotry is permissible. Slavery is permissible, hangings are permissible, genocide is permissible, etc, just so long as it simultaneously does not occur within proximity to you and rejects your preference. I think you are tolerant of intolerance.

                  • Imotali@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Moral objectivism is pretty much the argument that inevitably always ends with an authoritarian regime to “eliminate” the “unethical” people from society. Germany first, and all that.

                  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t think we’re coming to any sort of agreement here.

                    You believe there’s a universal set of morals, and I believe individuals’ morals are determined by environment (time, place, morals of others around the individual, etc.) and ultimately come together to form a collective understanding of morality for that point in time and those within that cultural environment.

                    That aside, concluding that I’m “tolerant of intolerance” is both disingenuous and incorrect. I believe that culture dictates morality, and I respect that other cultures are allowed to have their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I choose to agree with them. I don’t consider any of your examples permissible under my own moral code.

                    I also accept that I am not the universal standard, and that it would be hypocritical to impose my own beliefs on demographics with a different moral code. To override the moral autonomy of others1 in a crusade for moral righteousness would be an unjust act in itself. Or in layman’s idiom, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

                    1 Others, plural. Not individuals who are exceptional to the moral concensus of their surroundings (i.e. murderers)

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re not going to change any minds by shutting on the people you’re proselytizing to.

        Give it a few more years until lab-grown meat is cheaper than live animals, and then recommend that as an alternative. People are more motivated by money than ethics.

        • spicysoup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          People are more motivated by money than ethics.

          pulses, whole grains and vegetables are cheaper than flesh and secretions of animals

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Habits are hard to break, and the other person needs to have an incentive to stop eating meat and/or animal products. Much like New Years Resolutions, those “I’m thinking of” thoughts are just going to be dropped because there’s no tangible motivation to follow through with them.

            You can try convincing people by teaching them the health benefits from avoiding red meats, but realistically, you’re not going to get far. There’s a lot of misinformation and outdated research on the viability of vegetarian and vegan diets, and it’s hard to change somebody’s mind when they feel like it might be unhealthy.

            This is why I’m hopeful for lab-grown meat being cheaper than actual meat. You’re going to have the “GMO science evil” crowd that can’t be helped, but the average consumer would gladly trade their ground beef for an equivalent-tasting alternative that saves them money. It’s not vegetarian or vegan, but it solves the ethical issue of factory farming.

          • StinkyRedMan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you don’t believe you’re going to change anyone’s mind what are you doing except virtue signalling?

        • Floey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cheap lab grown meat is not “a few years” out. Furthermore, this is like saying you shouldn’t berate people for owning slaves because they are just waiting for robots to come along that can fulfill the same tasks. Even if some magical x factor will cause everyone to be vegan two years from now that would not excuse the conditions we subject animals to in the present.

      • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah dude idk how to tell you this but some people actually do have an interest in a sustainable planet and individual’s bodily autonomy. Idc if these are foreign ideas to you. OP’s post itself is the trolling. If y’all don’t want reactionary responses, dont troll this shit to the top post for the last six hours. You’ve all demonstrated very clearly how little you care about anything outside of your own momentary pleasure.

        • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You are as pathetic as your trolling attempts. Please shut up.

          Edit: fuck it, I realise that engaging you. Just gonna block you and move on. Have a nice day.

          • spicysoup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “please shut up!”

            -the response of a child when faced with a situation that makes them uncomfortable

            • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              “please shut up!” // -the response of a child when faced with a situation that makes them uncomfortable

              Two can play this game:

              “Shut up” is also the sensible answer of adults when Christian zealots, nationalists and racists soapbox their shit.

            • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Thousands of animals are killed in every field of vegetables. Rodents, birds, insects. It’s a fucking bloodbath. Don’t pretend you are innocent.

              • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Zero sum game that requires my own death to achieve - seems a reasonable request compared to a request to not participate in the forcible birthing of billions of animals into exploitative confinement until they are killed at our convenience for eternity, or the unecessary trawling of trillions of them.

                Or we can seek to achieve what is possible, and work out what isn’t over time. You describe a technical problem. That aside can you even empirically prove that more animals die in agricultural fields than in nature? I’m all in favor of reducing those deaths but is it actually any worse than if we let the existing fields reforest? I don’t see your point as analogous to my own concerns.

              • Zacryon@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                No one is. A lot of people who are preferring a plant based diet due to moral reasons are well aware of such “roadkill”.

                Thing is, we’re not breeding them into existence. These deaths are accidental and if there were a technical solution to the problem everyone would be in favour of that. In the animal industry on the other hand everything is intentional. Both, the scale and the moral intentions are a completely different world there.

                So, from the moral stand point of veganism: is it bad to kill animals? Yes. Is it worse to kill animals intentionally on an industrial scale, which could be prevented, than accidentally on a much smaller scale during plant farming where it currently can not be prevented? Absolutely, yes.

              • DarthFrodo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                And 1.3 million people are killed by cars every year. It’s a fucking bloodbath. So driving a car is similar to intentionally murdering people, of course. Don’t pretend you are innocent if you drive a car.

                • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No. That’s not what I was saying. I’m saying that when a cow dies it’s one death. When a field of the same volume in terms of nutrition is harvested it’s many deaths.

                  Beef is worse in the long run for the water and energy use, but not in terms of slaughter.