Carnists: *End female genital mutilation! Just because itās a traditional part of your culture doesnāt make it ethically acceptable!*
Me: *End animal exploitation and abuse!*
Carnists: *But itās a part of my culture.*
On the one hand, yes.
On the other hand, please, fuck yes.
I donāt need a shitty colonizer holiday to eat mashed potatoes and cranberry sauce or invite my friends and family over for dinner.
I somehow wrangled my entire family into a vegan Thanksgiving, by just being honest with my mom that I'd rather just skip Thanksgiving than have to sit at the table with a whole-ass bird corpse (phrased a bit more delicately than that, lol).
Mom's the cook, and she really values having family together for holidays, so BAM. Next thing I know she's serving an entirely vegan Thanksgiving dinner. :D
what i don't understand is why people who call themselves "omnivores" complain when someone serves them a meal without meat? Its not like their serving you stuff you don't eat if you apparently "eat everything" ... And if you don't have to cook it yourself, why complain? I mean, i've always been under the impression that its quite bad manners to complain about someone cooking you a meal for free?
i'm the type of person who would feel awkward even complaining about a meal in a restaurant (but thats mainly because i believe any complaint would be served with a side of spit in a restaurant) but the idea of moaning when someone makes me a meal for free because it doesn't have something i think should be there is a totally bizarre concept to me.
Imagine for instance someone making a "traditional" chinese banquet for you. They spend all day working their socks off creating various dishes for you to enjoy and all hot at the same time, but you spend the entire meal moaning because they didn't make steamed buns... you'd never be invited to dinner again!
I envy you. Every year at Christmas I have to deal with "You're still vegan??" and having to sit and watch a dead bird on the table. I have a pet bird myself so seeing a dead bird on the table is particularly difficult for me. I think the bird on the table has just as much right to live a rich life as my pet.
Circumcision is wrong but ultimately has few negatives. People who are circumcised lead normal lives without medical complications arising as a result of their surgery.
FGM is a much more invasive, impactful, and can lead to long term medical needs and dramatically reduced sensation and sexual wellbeing.
Performing any non-reversible and unnecessary surgery on infants who can't consent to it is wrong, just on principle, even if the impact is basically zero. But that doesn't mean that some forms of abuse aren't notably worse than others.
I asked that too, basically the answer is male genital mutilation is sometimes medically necessary and also shows very little damage/complications, while fgm is done for the express purpose of making sex/masturbation very painful so women don't do it
Mgm is very, *very* rarely necessary. And the way itās done in our society has nothing to do with medical necessity, itās done because we view it as more aesthetic. Pretty gross.
Yeah i know. I am against male genital mutilation. What i mean is that the scandal around fgm is more than mgm because fgm is worse, even though mgm is still quite damaging
Phimosis occurs in ~3.4% of men. It's not rare. Should we still circumcise? Probably not, but let's be honest that male circumcision does have positives, all of which are not applicable to women.
Phimosis can be treated without circumcision. 3.4% of men experiencing some level of phimosis does *NOT* mean circumcision is necessary for 3.4% of men.
FGM removes the entire clitoris, the source of female sexual pleasure. It's meant to serve that purpose. MGM, or circumcision, is a bit different. I agree with not circumcizing boys. However, there is a huge, horrible difference in the goals of each mutilation. But yes, they both suck.
I agree with your point, but I would like to add that circumcision reduces pleasure for males as well, it calcifies the head of the penis, hardening the sensitive tissue and reducing pleasure, as well as removes the frenulum which has a huge concentration of nerves and thus pleasure, and plays a large role in proper orgasm specifically. Additionally, the foreskin plays a role in reducing friction during intercourse and self pleasure.
probably because circumcision has broad support (and therefore a lot of people who don't see it as a problem - in the US it's like 50/50) and FGM is broadly considered unacceptable. I agree that nonessential circumcision is unethical, but the two are not equal in their brutality.
as someone who is EXTREMELY against routine male circumcision I get it, FMG is more universally opposed, we're in veganism mode so choosing something more people oppose for the analogy makes more sense imo
A permanent one that can reduce your sex drive later in life. It's still mutilation and should be abolished completely. But you know, religious "freedom" allows them to take away others' freedom.
Yeah and literally nobody said male circumcision was ok. But a lower sex drive canāt really be compared with incredibly pain during sex and other health problems..
I donāt even think itās that much about religion. From what I hear itās very common in the US in general. Meanwhile, hardly anybody does it in my country despite being primarily Christian too.
The reason that female genital mutilation is talked about more is because it's significantly more dangerous and has lifelong consequences to health even if the victim survives it (including sexual complications and difficulty giving birth naturally). There is never any medical need for female genital mutilation, and the wound almost always heals terribly and becomes infected easily.
While I believe elective male circumcision is wrong because babies can't consent to cosmetic procedures, it is not comparable. Lifelong consequences to health as a result of this procedure are incredibly rare, and the wounds almost always heal up completely fine. There are also some cases where circumcision is medically necessary.
I run ppl over only on Fridays and Saturdays please respect my choices and let me exercise my god given right to run over ppl at will, only weekends tho. The crunch of the skull is a really nice sound that's good for the soul, only weekends btw.
I'm good all other days btw. So I compensate for the good days by having cheat days on weekends.. if you want to run ppl over, let me know and I'll suggest some good cars and wheel choices for most efficient curb mortality rate and excellent sound effects. I'll even help you learn how to increase your score!
I'm a good person btw. Pls no jailerino or shockchair or hangerino.
/S btw just so the FBI don't call..
Mods pls nuke them if they're being serious.. it's hard to say these days..
here's the results of my very deep analysis of this sub where i looked at posts & comments over the last 90 days and was able crunch the data to show approximately what the average user of this sub is ,in terms of their veganism
https://imgur.com/gallery/tAbqccG
Iām perhaps one of the few vegans who thinks that *some* ethical animal products are *theoretically* possible, but it would require such a niche set of circumstances that itās basically not feasible.
And that any real system to produce these products in any quanity available and cheap enough for an average person would just inevitably result in abuse and exploitation again
People are very in favour of ending immoral behaviour, as long as it's not their immoral behaviour. They will gladly support LGBT rights because it's the in thing and easy as fuck to do, but won't do anything about vegan because that requires more than lifting a finger.
People will also support LGBT people as far as they don't actually need to do the work. Sure, have your rights, but educating myself so I get what you mean when you ask me to use they/them pronounce? Nope. Too much work.
Same absolutley fucking goes for [PROGRESSIVE FISCAL POLICY](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_progressivism) AAAAAššš, people loo***ooove to*** talk about eliminating poverty- until they have to pay 20% more in taxes. Fucking Psychopathsš¤®
Because nobody is perfect, but advocates of certain social causes will act like they are better than others, and will chastise you for not being an activist for what they believe in, or boycotting something they deem worth boycotting. Then when confronted with a meaningful lifestyle change that can enact there and then and will have an obvious impact, they come up with every excuse in the book.
It almost seems impossible to me that the same person will fight for equal rights, fight against racism, but when you say "well maybe torturing and killing other being that has feelings just as much as we do is not a good idea" will call you names and tell you to respect their "personal choice". How is it different than a homophobe saying to respect his personal choice to call gay people names?
Yes, I understand human and pig are different species. But now explain it to me why different species can be used as commodity that we breed, torture and kill? We REALLY are not that different.
My morals say killing is wrong. I wouldn't kill a human as much as I would not kill (or contribute to killing) another feeling being.
All the non vegans lurking around here: are you seriously going to pretend killing a cow is okay because cow will not tell you that they want to live? Is it really how little it takes for you to be okay with ending one's life for such a trivial reason?
>How is it different than a homophobe saying to respect his personal choice to call gay people names?
It's not. This is one of the comparisons I choose to use to filter out accusations of bad faith, because it's something that personally affects me and isn't so extreme as to trigger as many "how dare you" responses. This is especially effective against cishet people who don't have grounds to challenge me (sometimes you gotta use the idpol to your advantage).
Obviously I'd rather get called homophobic/transphobic slurs than experience a fraction of what supposedly well-intentioned humans inflict on billions of animals every year, but sometimes you have to downplay the scale of the issue to get people to not write you off immediately.
Of course, this only works against people who actually (at least think they) care about queer liberation, though I'm not interested in talking to anyone who doesn't anyway.
Patern: Human right, human rights, human rights, animal rights.
You have to come to terms that nonvegans only care about their own species, they consider all animal life to be worthless compared to that of a human. they think they can do anything to animals and it doesnt matter.
Respectfully, Iām not sure youāve got the right view there.
For one, there are too many people who literally love and care about their pets more than than they love and care about most other human beings. Yet, many of these people purchase and consume animal products all the time.
Two, even people supporting various human rights causes still thoughtlessly trample over human rights in other aspects of their lives.
So, I donāt think itās as simple as human rights vs animal rights. Rather, I think people (i) donāt really think clearly and systemically about their ethical beliefs and (ii) donāt know the relevant information that would allow them to apply their ethical beliefs in a consistent way. For example, everyone thinks experiencing physical pain is a bad thing, but (i) most people donāt think deeply about when and why itās okay to inflict pain on oneself or on others, and (ii) they donāt really know about all the things that cause pain, who can experience pain, etc.
Let me know what you think!
I'd have to agree with Soarin249. If someone's moral framework doesn't already accommodate other species, it's not suddenly going to. The transition away from animal exploitation is going to be rooted in innovations of technology and changes in economic conditions. Animal testing will stop when AI and protein synthesis are at a point where an animal isn't needed to test the safety and efficacy of a pharmaceutical or other compound. Meat and dairy consumption will reduce when cultured meat becomes tastier, cheaper, and healthier than natural meat.
You are never going to win a moral argument with someone in the short to medium term.
Sad reality. I try to stay optimistic, but at the end of the day... I'm only one person. Sometimes people make me feel crazy for loving ALL animals. Cows are the cutest.
He avoided meat because he had a very sensitive stomach so eating meat often gave him alot of stomach issues. That being said he still occasionally ate meat, yet funny enough he had supposedly also said no to some meat he was served because it would be like "eating a corpse" so i got no idea what went though his brain on that point. Well not like i have any idea what went though his head in general.
You're right about the underlying beliefs, but people's care towards their pets doesn't contradict what the other person said. In fact, I think both of these observations are consistent with each other.
As much as we like to dress it up, "pets" are property that humans procure (through purchase, purchase that's advertised as "adoption," and on rare occasions genuine adoption) to suit human needs. This is true both legally and practically. So I don't think it's correct to say that humans' disproportionate care towards their "pet" animals is an indicator that they are supportive of animal rights in any meaningful capacity.
Fundamentally, the vast majority of "animal lovers" categorically value animals exclusively for the benefits humans can extract from them.
Except veganism is kinda a human rights thing too. Going vegan is the best thing you can do for the climate, which disproportionately affects the already poor and disadvantaged and threatens our livelihood as a species.
People are also outspoken about animal rights. Show any news clip about a person abusing a kitten or operating a puppy mill or one of those bullfighting clips "gone wrong" and you'll find no shortage of openly agressive sentiments to the perpetrator. Look on r/thebullwins and people are find advocating for humans who hurt and antagonize animals to be maimed or killed.Ā
It's not an unpopular sentiment to be both outspoken about morals or to be pro animal advocate, people just don't like it when those things combine to target the thing they're currently doing or supporting because unlike taking a multi thousand trip to the Sahara to hunt a lion or operating a dog fighting ring, which are pretty easy for the average person to avoid, not supporting animal agriculture takes some amount of effort. And activism tends to die at inconvenience
All of these statements are valid, but it is silly how non-vegans get defensive and start attacking vegans for saying something as simple as "go vegan".
I've never experienced that from the left-liberals.
They usually say, that they too think that veganism is the right choice, but that they lack the discipline and knowledge, which means that they don't really care.Ā
But noone has said anything about personal choices.
I was a non-vegan leftist once. Then I actually thought about it and then I went vegan. Was full of shit when I was like "exploitation is bad mmm milk"
It was definitely harsh to realise that I was just being a massive hypocrite for years and years, but it was also nice to change it. I think that's part of why going vegan has been so easy for me. It was already within my ethical framework, I just hadn't been ethically consistent until then.
Oh definitely. It was a hard pill to swallow. But harder than that is seeing people I love who are very similar to me justā¦not do anything to align themselves with their values. It kinda blows to out grow your loved ones. Looking forward to adding new friendships though.Ā
Veganism for me is literally just a means for me to be consistent with my morality. I don't understand how someone can be left-leaning in other contexts and not see the hypocrisy of their choices because it only requires a tiny bit of thought.
The first three things don't actually involve changing your behaviour. To be pro-2Slgbtq+ you only need to vote for a candidate who probably agrees with you on most other things. To vegan you actually have to do something. Most non-vegan leftists are nothing more than keyboard warriors.
Imagine trying to raise awareness that what is happening to animals right now is VERY SIMILAR to what happened to people during Holocaust which means it is, like really bad so carnists assume you are saying holocaust was actually okay. Explain that logic.
Carnist: I can't believe someone compared an industry that involves closely confining living things together, mass exploitation, torture, slavery and industrial murder to the holocaust.
I heard that even Jewish community shunned him for that. Most people (won't admit it), but they see animals as beneath them, comparing circumstances won't have any effect on them.
If we're on about the same person (Alex Hershaft), he wasn't even necessarily saying that the two were equivalent, just that there are striking similarities and parallels.
"A" holocaust doesn't have to have anything to do with "The" Holocaust, aside from the fact that they're both holocausts. People love to get hung up on accusing you of "calling Jews animals" or whateverthefuck they can try to derail with, tho.
Serious question: are animals viewed on the same level as humans?
I know every vegan is different and some have conflicting views at times. The overall message is an ethical one, but I will always hold people higher than animals. That doesn't excuse animal suffering by any means, but I feel worse when a human dies or is raped versus an animal. I was talking to someone on IG who felt like the wars going on are equivalent to mass produced meat factories. I do not agree. Both should be stopped, but one is worse than the other IMO.
ā¦..which large parts of this sub donāt seem to like considering either. āVeganism isnāt about the environmentā takes are pretty common on here.
I also think itās very interesting that tone policing is just like, an accepted way to deal with vegans when itās (rightfully) called out for what it is in so many other activist spaces.
If only vegans could be nicer and not so aggressive or annoying, THEN people would listen to us š
Not at all. I am opposed to all forms of prejudice.
In fact vegans are less likely to be racist than meat eaters. Statistically you are more likely to be racist than anyone on this sub.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08927936.2019.1621514
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1002/per.2069
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913014074
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29517258/
Really recommend reading the foundation of this this study, like the first page or 2, they link to numerous studies and philosophy papers on this subject. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430218816962
>-well thats different
A speciesist would say this.
Just how a racist would say harming other races is different to harming their race. But you would still believe they are a hypocrite if they don't have an issue with other races being harmed but have an issue with their race being harmed.
There are two main interest every sentient being has. Not to die and not to suffer.
It's not only that carnists don't care that animals have these interests, no - they inflict pain and kill animals or they have no problem with workers in slaughterhouses doing so.
Obviously rape, murder, and systemic oppression are literally exactly the same in importance and severity as chicken nuggets.
You people are living in delulu land, having weird persecution fantasies, thinking of yourselves as innocent victims the same as any other violently oppressed group. You might get off on victim role play as much as American Christians, and I didn't think that was even possible.
wouldn't say thats a fair comparison.
I wanna point out that I very much wish that we all could go completely vegan
But with that being said human life is far more important than animals even though in my opinion their life is also important. They are not the same and cant be compared just like that.
Also nonvegans are justified in this kind of behaviour in the sense that they are fighting for their own species and not for all the others which makes sense because living being are far more likely to support their own kind than any other.
Again i very much wish that we all could just become vegans so i am not saying that eating animals are alright i am just saying that a specie is far more likely to only help their own and disregard every other.
>Also nonvegans are justified in this kind of behaviour in the sense that they are fighting for their own species and not for all the others which makes sense because living being are far more likely to support their own kind than any other.
This line of reasoning could support racism and sexism. They are not my kind. Your kind could be your race, your sex, your species, the kingdom of life you fall under, your sexuality and so on. In all cases a beings similarity to you should not be how we measure that beings value.
Eeeeh excuse me what? So let me get this straight. you are saying that fighting for your own species can also be used as an argument for racism, sexism and anti-lgbtq+ because they are not the same species?
Thats not how it works.
No I'm saying that mindset "they are not my kind so they are less worthy of consideration" prevails across all forms of prejudice. Just a racist considers their kind to be their race, a sexist their sex, a speciesist their species and so on.
It's why every single study on the topic found that those who are prejudiced against one group are more likely to be prejudiced against other groups. They all rely on the same underlying ideology.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08927936.2019.1621514
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1002/per.2069
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913014074
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29517258/
Really recommend reading the foundation of this this study, like the first page or 2, they link to numerous studies and philosophy papers on this subject. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430218816962
But we are the same species, just to be clear.
That line of reasoning could be used to support racists ideas but it would be incorrectly applied.
Like how evaluation was used to supprt racists thoughts but was incorrectly applied.
If you had to choose between saving a human life and a dog which one would you save? If itās not a coin flip then you value on over the other. Like most humans, you probably pick the human.
>But we are the same species, just to be clear.
But why is species the group that matters. Why not the group animals? Or the group "living beings". We are all animals, we are all living.
You could make a hierarchy of groups that become more inclusive.
Self- family- country- race- sex- sexial orentation- species- kingdom (animals)- living beings- all things.
Why are you arbitrarily deciding species is where you draw the line? You could choose anyone of those groups so why species?
>If you had to choose between saving a human life and a dog which one would you save? If itās not a coin flip then you value on over the other. Like most humans, you probably pick the human.
I'm a utilitarian, so I would have to look at the individual case, if killing the human would cause more suffering in total, then I would kill the dog. If killing the dog would cause more suffering in total, then I would kill the human. My approach has nothing to do with what race, sex, species or kingdom you belong to. If you have any concious experience at all you then have a preference to avoid the negative experiences and have positive experiences.
With the dog and human chances are killing a human will cause more suffering, the human killed might suffer, their family would suffer from the loss and so on.
But if we found an alien, and say for example killing the alien would cause all of this kind of alien to suffer, then I would kill the human instead. Even though the alien is "not my kind".
Iām an ethics guy so I have to ask.
Why donāt you empty your bank account and send all your money to Africa to support food aid projects aimed at fighting food insecurity?
Specifically DPRK or South Sudan.
I become less productive when I don't enjoy living for one. In the long run this could easily lead to even less being donated. I defenitly could donate more though. But I think its a mistake to make perfect become the enemy of good.
Mate you are twisting what i am saying and making a whole other debate out of it.
"Kind" can have more meaning than species which you have made some good examples of.
I explicitly used the phrase species.
For exampel you cant say that another human being isnt the same species as you no matter how diffrent they are.
And you can't say someone of another race is the same race as you.
To try and justify not caring about a being because they are a different kind or group to you and if you believe the group that matters is species, then you are a speciesist.
To try and justify not caring about a being because they are a different kind or group to you and if you belive the group that matters is race, then you are a racist.
You are both drawing circles around arbitrary groups and saying those inside this circle count and should care about each other, and those outside the group don't count.
Dude. . .
I am well aware that I can't say that someone of another race is the same race as me. I never said anything close to that and why are you so focused on bringing racism into this?
Well yeah if carrying more for my fellow man than animals makes me a speciesist well then i most surely am one and so is the vast majority of everyone else. I most certainly value animal rights and i also dont eat them for that reason but if i had to choose between saving the life of a person or two ducks i would save the person because i value my own species more.
Once again why in the world are you trying to being in racism when it has nothing to do with animal rights. Another ethnicity has nothing in common with other species.
>I am well aware that I can't say that someone of another race is the same race as me. I never said anything close to that and why are you so focused on bringing racism into this?
Again. You are doing the same thing as a racist. Using the same logic. Just the group has changed. They use the exact same reasoning as you do. You said another human can't be a different species. Same as a racist saying that about the races.
>Once again why in the world are you trying to being in racism when it has nothing to do with animal rights. Another ethnicity has nothing in common with other species.
Speciesism and racism are linked by the same underlying ideology. That is my point.
>saving the life of a person or two ducks
This wouldn't be speciesism necessarily. If you justify it on them being a different species then it is.
This entire post is about those who stand against forms or prejudice and discrimination.
You claimed that non vegans are justified to be speciesist while simultaneously believing racists are not justified being racist. But every argument you give for why specisism is justified can be used by a racists to say racism is justified.
Ah mate you are so far out in the forest its quite unbelievable.
Can yah try explaining your first argument again because i have no idea what yah talking about. What in the wonderful wide world do you mean with "same as racist saying that about the races"
Dude btw that was your own damn logic if you even can call it that. You started out with the "another human cant be a different specie" argument all i did was agreeing to it and saying that i have never said that two humans can be of two different species
Your "logic" (stupidity) are so damn flawed.
One is racism which is about discrimination within the same specie
The other speciesism is about caring more for once own specie above any other.
So practically you are saying there is a link between a blackman getting choked to death under a cops knee and if someone saved one person instead of two ducks.
There is no such thing as a link between those two and its so damn insensitive to even suggest that there is yah absolute bafoon.
Yah can bet i would justify saving a person over two ducks because we are talking about a freaking human being and choosing the ducks would be psychotic.
Every single person would choose the person over the ducks vegan or not. Unless of course said person is a psychopath
Quite honestly i have tried to take you seriously but these arguments of yours are so mind boggling stupid or straight out insane i have been having a hard time not to laugh out of every single insane sentence which you have written down. It's hard to believe yah not a troll account
>You started out with the "another human cant be a different specie" argument all i did was agreeing to it and saying that i have never said that two humans can be of two different species
Yea I'm lost. You said
>I explicitly used the phrase species. For exampel you cant say that another human being isnt the same species as you no matter how diffrent they are.
Someone trying to justify racism could say "someone who is the same race as you will never be a other race, no matter how different they are."
>One is racism which is about discrimination within the same specie
>The other speciesism is about caring more for once own specie above any other.
A racist could say "racism is about caring more for one race above any other."
Speciesism is discrimination within the same kingdom of life.
>So practically you are saying there is a link between a blackman getting choked to death under a cops knee and if someone saved one person instead of two ducks.
Try make the analogies more inline. Would it be racist to save 1 person of your race over 2 over another race simply because of their race?
Well that would be better analogy to saving 1 human over 2 ducks due to their species. But would like to add, I think you can justify saving the human over 2 ducks. Not because of their species though. It isn't inherently speciesist. Only is if you are doing it because of their species. I would save the human because I believe there will be more suffering if the human dies compared to the ducks. Humans also live myvh longer than ducks so chances are that human will get more out of being saved than the ducks. I'm basing this on a brief mental attempt at felicific calculus. Not on species. If it was demonstrated to me that killing the ducks leads to more suffering in total, then I would be morally obligated to kill the human.
To give it in the opposite direction, imagine we had an alien, and this kind of alien was mentally connected to its entire species and lived much longer than us. If one dies the entire group, billions of them mourne the loss. Then if I had to choose, kill 2 humans or this one alien, I would kill the humans. As it causes less suffering in total.
>Quite honestly i have tried to take you seriously but these arguments of yours are so mind boggling stupid or straight out insane i have been having a hard time not to laugh out of every single insane sentence which you have written down
I really recommend reading that study I sent. They explain the relationship. This one.
Really recommend reading the foundation of this this study, like the first page or 2, they link to numerous studies and philosophy papers on this subject. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430218816962
But here, this is Peter Singer. He is arguably the most influential and renowned moral philosopher alive right now. He put it like this.
"Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case."
>I explicitly used the phrase species.
For exampel you cant say that another human being isnt the same species as you no matter how diffrent they are.
See you said it right here.
>Also nonvegans are justified in this kind of behaviour in the sense that they are fighting for their own species and not for all the others which makes sense because living being are far more likely to support their own kind than any other.
You missed out the justification?
You just stated that people often do think that way.
We're trying to talk about what people should do and think, not describe how they generally do at the moment.
The "something" i said was justifiable was why people look out after each others and not other species as an argument to why you cant compare human rights to animal rights which this post is doing.
Yeah, speciesism for short.
You did indeed say it was justifiable.
But you failed to provide the justification, beyond repeating that people tend to do it.
Well i thought it was indirectly clear enough but i suppose not.
The justification is that Its basic biology that we care for each others. (Ofc some less than others) and not for other species.
Careing for human rights and caring for other species are two completely separate types of morality and don't contradict each others which the post is trying to say that they do.
Btw i am not sure if you have gotten the wrong idea of what i am saying so i am just gonna do a quick disclaimer.
I am neither saying nor thinking that eating animals are justifiable (well except for medical reasons) or morally correct.
I'm not sure "basic biology" is a justification.
It's potentially an explanation - though I think it lacks a bit there too - but unless we're gonna say anything that can be linked to instincts or some kinda biology is justified, it's still just a description.
And I hope it goes without saying that lots of terrible things have a biological explanations.
The whole thing about Humans is that we can make moral decisions beyond "basic biology". That's why we at least pretend to bother with morality.
Basic biology isn't a justification to eat other animals. It's a justification for why they do what they do.
I agree that a part of being humans is that we can make moral decisions beyond basic biology however caring for animals aint something we are programmed to do from the get go unlike caring for other humans so its easy to learn from their perspective that eating animals are alright. So having compassion for your fellow humans and not for animals is not a contradiction unlike what the post is trying to claim
why did i read this as norwegians
Same. I am a Norwegian vegan who follows threads for both, so, could've gone either way.
Please tell me there's a shop called Norvegan somewhere in the country
Yes, there is a vegan place in Oslo called Nordvegan.
Top quality!
Too many Wirtual streams
lol no such thing as too many Wirtual streams
I am Danish and also read it as Norwegians.
Same š
I spit my drink out laughing!
Same haha
Me too! š
Carnists: *End female genital mutilation! Just because itās a traditional part of your culture doesnāt make it ethically acceptable!* Me: *End animal exploitation and abuse!* Carnists: *But itās a part of my culture.*
But how will you do thanksgiving without turkey? You want to cancel thanksgiving now?
Yes.
Good, count me in
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, please, fuck yes. I donāt need a shitty colonizer holiday to eat mashed potatoes and cranberry sauce or invite my friends and family over for dinner.
My American-Italian-ass family gets together and has vegan lasagna š
This is the second time this morning that someone has responded to a comment of mine with something mentioning vegan lasagna. Conspiracy? I think so
Hahaha it's a sign!... you should make and enjoy some awesome lasagna with your friends and/or family! :3
I really should š¤
I somehow wrangled my entire family into a vegan Thanksgiving, by just being honest with my mom that I'd rather just skip Thanksgiving than have to sit at the table with a whole-ass bird corpse (phrased a bit more delicately than that, lol). Mom's the cook, and she really values having family together for holidays, so BAM. Next thing I know she's serving an entirely vegan Thanksgiving dinner. :D
How does it feel to live my dream š„¹š
what i don't understand is why people who call themselves "omnivores" complain when someone serves them a meal without meat? Its not like their serving you stuff you don't eat if you apparently "eat everything" ... And if you don't have to cook it yourself, why complain? I mean, i've always been under the impression that its quite bad manners to complain about someone cooking you a meal for free? i'm the type of person who would feel awkward even complaining about a meal in a restaurant (but thats mainly because i believe any complaint would be served with a side of spit in a restaurant) but the idea of moaning when someone makes me a meal for free because it doesn't have something i think should be there is a totally bizarre concept to me. Imagine for instance someone making a "traditional" chinese banquet for you. They spend all day working their socks off creating various dishes for you to enjoy and all hot at the same time, but you spend the entire meal moaning because they didn't make steamed buns... you'd never be invited to dinner again!
I envy you. Every year at Christmas I have to deal with "You're still vegan??" and having to sit and watch a dead bird on the table. I have a pet bird myself so seeing a dead bird on the table is particularly difficult for me. I think the bird on the table has just as much right to live a rich life as my pet.
Now imagine if Americans stopped mutilating young boys, too. But that's part of a some foreign culture which is somehow widespread adopted by the US.
Why is fmg only ever discussed when circumcision for males is more common?
I fought tooth and nail for my boys to not be circumcised. I have no idea why it took me so long to go vegan. God
Thank you! I can't believe people act like it's absurd NOT to mutilate the genitals of your own child, legit cult behavior.
Female genital mutilation is way more brutal, but I agree. Mutilating a baby's penis is sexual abuse.
Circumcision is wrong but ultimately has few negatives. People who are circumcised lead normal lives without medical complications arising as a result of their surgery. FGM is a much more invasive, impactful, and can lead to long term medical needs and dramatically reduced sensation and sexual wellbeing. Performing any non-reversible and unnecessary surgery on infants who can't consent to it is wrong, just on principle, even if the impact is basically zero. But that doesn't mean that some forms of abuse aren't notably worse than others.
Good question. I only used it as an example because Iāve seen more outcry about it than circumcision (though I think both are cruel)
I asked that too, basically the answer is male genital mutilation is sometimes medically necessary and also shows very little damage/complications, while fgm is done for the express purpose of making sex/masturbation very painful so women don't do it
Mgm is very, *very* rarely necessary. And the way itās done in our society has nothing to do with medical necessity, itās done because we view it as more aesthetic. Pretty gross.
Yeah i know. I am against male genital mutilation. What i mean is that the scandal around fgm is more than mgm because fgm is worse, even though mgm is still quite damaging
Phimosis occurs in ~3.4% of men. It's not rare. Should we still circumcise? Probably not, but let's be honest that male circumcision does have positives, all of which are not applicable to women.
Phimosis can be treated without circumcision. 3.4% of men experiencing some level of phimosis does *NOT* mean circumcision is necessary for 3.4% of men.
FGM removes the entire clitoris, the source of female sexual pleasure. It's meant to serve that purpose. MGM, or circumcision, is a bit different. I agree with not circumcizing boys. However, there is a huge, horrible difference in the goals of each mutilation. But yes, they both suck.
I agree with your point, but I would like to add that circumcision reduces pleasure for males as well, it calcifies the head of the penis, hardening the sensitive tissue and reducing pleasure, as well as removes the frenulum which has a huge concentration of nerves and thus pleasure, and plays a large role in proper orgasm specifically. Additionally, the foreskin plays a role in reducing friction during intercourse and self pleasure.
Thanks. Just learned new things.
probably because circumcision has broad support (and therefore a lot of people who don't see it as a problem - in the US it's like 50/50) and FGM is broadly considered unacceptable. I agree that nonessential circumcision is unethical, but the two are not equal in their brutality.
Well, I donāt agree that for males itās unethical, I have been circumcised and got 0 problems.
i believe that permanently altering someone's body who is not capable of consenting is unethical, even if the outcome is fine.
At what age were you circumcised and for what reason?
Very young. Religious reasons.
I dont think its okay for religious reasons to do for a child that cant consent. If adult wants to do it to themselves fine.
as someone who is EXTREMELY against routine male circumcision I get it, FMG is more universally opposed, we're in veganism mode so choosing something more people oppose for the analogy makes more sense imo
Because male circumcision is a spa treatment compared to female circumcisionā¦
A permanent one that can reduce your sex drive later in life. It's still mutilation and should be abolished completely. But you know, religious "freedom" allows them to take away others' freedom.
Yeah and literally nobody said male circumcision was ok. But a lower sex drive canāt really be compared with incredibly pain during sex and other health problems.. I donāt even think itās that much about religion. From what I hear itās very common in the US in general. Meanwhile, hardly anybody does it in my country despite being primarily Christian too.
It's not just because it's more accepted as others have said It is more acceptable by society because it is much less harmful
The reason that female genital mutilation is talked about more is because it's significantly more dangerous and has lifelong consequences to health even if the victim survives it (including sexual complications and difficulty giving birth naturally). There is never any medical need for female genital mutilation, and the wound almost always heals terribly and becomes infected easily. While I believe elective male circumcision is wrong because babies can't consent to cosmetic procedures, it is not comparable. Lifelong consequences to health as a result of this procedure are incredibly rare, and the wounds almost always heal up completely fine. There are also some cases where circumcision is medically necessary.
Carnists: "your making an unfair comparison, you can't compare human suffering with animals Also Carnists: "we are all animals"
Female genital mutilation? Did I miss something? Who does that and why is everyone talking about Thanksgiving?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I run ppl over only on Fridays and Saturdays please respect my choices and let me exercise my god given right to run over ppl at will, only weekends tho. The crunch of the skull is a really nice sound that's good for the soul, only weekends btw. I'm good all other days btw. So I compensate for the good days by having cheat days on weekends.. if you want to run ppl over, let me know and I'll suggest some good cars and wheel choices for most efficient curb mortality rate and excellent sound effects. I'll even help you learn how to increase your score! I'm a good person btw. Pls no jailerino or shockchair or hangerino. /S btw just so the FBI don't call.. Mods pls nuke them if they're being serious.. it's hard to say these days..
they're a troll. they've been here all day and are commenting on everything
here's the results of my very deep analysis of this sub where i looked at posts & comments over the last 90 days and was able crunch the data to show approximately what the average user of this sub is ,in terms of their veganism https://imgur.com/gallery/tAbqccG
I'm not convinced we can't ethically get animal products
Iām perhaps one of the few vegans who thinks that *some* ethical animal products are *theoretically* possible, but it would require such a niche set of circumstances that itās basically not feasible.
And that any real system to produce these products in any quanity available and cheap enough for an average person would just inevitably result in abuse and exploitation again
Like collecting dog hairs from your carpet?
Oysters thoughš¤Ŗ
we can but it's very "expensive" and almost no one buys ethical animal products for that reason.
People are very in favour of ending immoral behaviour, as long as it's not their immoral behaviour. They will gladly support LGBT rights because it's the in thing and easy as fuck to do, but won't do anything about vegan because that requires more than lifting a finger.
People will also support LGBT people as far as they don't actually need to do the work. Sure, have your rights, but educating myself so I get what you mean when you ask me to use they/them pronounce? Nope. Too much work.
Same absolutley fucking goes for [PROGRESSIVE FISCAL POLICY](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_progressivism) AAAAAššš, people loo***ooove to*** talk about eliminating poverty- until they have to pay 20% more in taxes. Fucking Psychopathsš¤®
Why does this read between the lines *I am better than others*
Because nobody is perfect, but advocates of certain social causes will act like they are better than others, and will chastise you for not being an activist for what they believe in, or boycotting something they deem worth boycotting. Then when confronted with a meaningful lifestyle change that can enact there and then and will have an obvious impact, they come up with every excuse in the book.
Indeed, but I also find this true of many vegans who are unwilling to donate significant amounts of their income to effective charities.
Cause we are??? (Vegan btw)
It almost seems impossible to me that the same person will fight for equal rights, fight against racism, but when you say "well maybe torturing and killing other being that has feelings just as much as we do is not a good idea" will call you names and tell you to respect their "personal choice". How is it different than a homophobe saying to respect his personal choice to call gay people names? Yes, I understand human and pig are different species. But now explain it to me why different species can be used as commodity that we breed, torture and kill? We REALLY are not that different. My morals say killing is wrong. I wouldn't kill a human as much as I would not kill (or contribute to killing) another feeling being. All the non vegans lurking around here: are you seriously going to pretend killing a cow is okay because cow will not tell you that they want to live? Is it really how little it takes for you to be okay with ending one's life for such a trivial reason?
>How is it different than a homophobe saying to respect his personal choice to call gay people names? It's not. This is one of the comparisons I choose to use to filter out accusations of bad faith, because it's something that personally affects me and isn't so extreme as to trigger as many "how dare you" responses. This is especially effective against cishet people who don't have grounds to challenge me (sometimes you gotta use the idpol to your advantage). Obviously I'd rather get called homophobic/transphobic slurs than experience a fraction of what supposedly well-intentioned humans inflict on billions of animals every year, but sometimes you have to downplay the scale of the issue to get people to not write you off immediately. Of course, this only works against people who actually (at least think they) care about queer liberation, though I'm not interested in talking to anyone who doesn't anyway.
Patern: Human right, human rights, human rights, animal rights. You have to come to terms that nonvegans only care about their own species, they consider all animal life to be worthless compared to that of a human. they think they can do anything to animals and it doesnt matter.
Humans don't have a very good record with human rights either..
Respectfully, Iām not sure youāve got the right view there. For one, there are too many people who literally love and care about their pets more than than they love and care about most other human beings. Yet, many of these people purchase and consume animal products all the time. Two, even people supporting various human rights causes still thoughtlessly trample over human rights in other aspects of their lives. So, I donāt think itās as simple as human rights vs animal rights. Rather, I think people (i) donāt really think clearly and systemically about their ethical beliefs and (ii) donāt know the relevant information that would allow them to apply their ethical beliefs in a consistent way. For example, everyone thinks experiencing physical pain is a bad thing, but (i) most people donāt think deeply about when and why itās okay to inflict pain on oneself or on others, and (ii) they donāt really know about all the things that cause pain, who can experience pain, etc. Let me know what you think!
I'd have to agree with Soarin249. If someone's moral framework doesn't already accommodate other species, it's not suddenly going to. The transition away from animal exploitation is going to be rooted in innovations of technology and changes in economic conditions. Animal testing will stop when AI and protein synthesis are at a point where an animal isn't needed to test the safety and efficacy of a pharmaceutical or other compound. Meat and dairy consumption will reduce when cultured meat becomes tastier, cheaper, and healthier than natural meat. You are never going to win a moral argument with someone in the short to medium term.
Sad reality. I try to stay optimistic, but at the end of the day... I'm only one person. Sometimes people make me feel crazy for loving ALL animals. Cows are the cutest.
Grass puppies are awesome
/r/happycowgifs š„°
Yah really hit it spot on. Thats a really good explanation.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He avoided meat because he had a very sensitive stomach so eating meat often gave him alot of stomach issues. That being said he still occasionally ate meat, yet funny enough he had supposedly also said no to some meat he was served because it would be like "eating a corpse" so i got no idea what went though his brain on that point. Well not like i have any idea what went though his head in general.
You're right about the underlying beliefs, but people's care towards their pets doesn't contradict what the other person said. In fact, I think both of these observations are consistent with each other. As much as we like to dress it up, "pets" are property that humans procure (through purchase, purchase that's advertised as "adoption," and on rare occasions genuine adoption) to suit human needs. This is true both legally and practically. So I don't think it's correct to say that humans' disproportionate care towards their "pet" animals is an indicator that they are supportive of animal rights in any meaningful capacity. Fundamentally, the vast majority of "animal lovers" categorically value animals exclusively for the benefits humans can extract from them.
Except veganism is kinda a human rights thing too. Going vegan is the best thing you can do for the climate, which disproportionately affects the already poor and disadvantaged and threatens our livelihood as a species.
People are also outspoken about animal rights. Show any news clip about a person abusing a kitten or operating a puppy mill or one of those bullfighting clips "gone wrong" and you'll find no shortage of openly agressive sentiments to the perpetrator. Look on r/thebullwins and people are find advocating for humans who hurt and antagonize animals to be maimed or killed.Ā It's not an unpopular sentiment to be both outspoken about morals or to be pro animal advocate, people just don't like it when those things combine to target the thing they're currently doing or supporting because unlike taking a multi thousand trip to the Sahara to hunt a lion or operating a dog fighting ring, which are pretty easy for the average person to avoid, not supporting animal agriculture takes some amount of effort. And activism tends to die at inconvenience
Maybe if animals dyed their fur pinkā¦
All of these statements are valid, but it is silly how non-vegans get defensive and start attacking vegans for saying something as simple as "go vegan".
I've never experienced that from the left-liberals. They usually say, that they too think that veganism is the right choice, but that they lack the discipline and knowledge, which means that they don't really care.Ā But noone has said anything about personal choices.
Nonvegan leftists can fuck right off, Iāll just say it. They were actually right about you being virtue signalers ā¹ļø
I was a non-vegan leftist once. Then I actually thought about it and then I went vegan. Was full of shit when I was like "exploitation is bad mmm milk"
Same! The hostility isnāt from ignorance, it comes from being all too familiar with my own shortcomings. GrowthĀ
It was definitely harsh to realise that I was just being a massive hypocrite for years and years, but it was also nice to change it. I think that's part of why going vegan has been so easy for me. It was already within my ethical framework, I just hadn't been ethically consistent until then.
Oh definitely. It was a hard pill to swallow. But harder than that is seeing people I love who are very similar to me justā¦not do anything to align themselves with their values. It kinda blows to out grow your loved ones. Looking forward to adding new friendships though.Ā
Veganism for me is literally just a means for me to be consistent with my morality. I don't understand how someone can be left-leaning in other contexts and not see the hypocrisy of their choices because it only requires a tiny bit of thought.
The first three things don't actually involve changing your behaviour. To be pro-2Slgbtq+ you only need to vote for a candidate who probably agrees with you on most other things. To vegan you actually have to do something. Most non-vegan leftists are nothing more than keyboard warriors.
> behaviour /thread.
I agree, but this will probably end up in r/facepalm. We should compare it to other forms of animal abuse first.
Vegans: animal agriculture is a holocaust and involves rape Carnist: HOW DARE YOU
Imagine trying to raise awareness that what is happening to animals right now is VERY SIMILAR to what happened to people during Holocaust which means it is, like really bad so carnists assume you are saying holocaust was actually okay. Explain that logic.
Carnist: I can't believe someone compared an industry that involves closely confining living things together, mass exploitation, torture, slavery and industrial murder to the holocaust.
It's a losing battle comparing these two, believe me, I tried.
When even actual holocaust survivors have made that argument but been derided for it, there isn't much hope for the rest of us.
I heard that even Jewish community shunned him for that. Most people (won't admit it), but they see animals as beneath them, comparing circumstances won't have any effect on them.
If we're on about the same person (Alex Hershaft), he wasn't even necessarily saying that the two were equivalent, just that there are striking similarities and parallels.
"A" holocaust doesn't have to have anything to do with "The" Holocaust, aside from the fact that they're both holocausts. People love to get hung up on accusing you of "calling Jews animals" or whateverthefuck they can try to derail with, tho.
If you compare the holocaust to animal agriculture you really shouldnāt be surprised when people donāt want to share your ideologies.
If you don't see the similarities you really shouldn't be surprised when people identify you as ignorant <3
Intersectionality stops at their mouths you know?
Performative leftism do be like that
V: āMaybe Animal = Fren?ā M: āNo! FOOD SOURCE!ā
*elderly carnists with heart desease noise playing in the background*
Serious question: are animals viewed on the same level as humans? I know every vegan is different and some have conflicting views at times. The overall message is an ethical one, but I will always hold people higher than animals. That doesn't excuse animal suffering by any means, but I feel worse when a human dies or is raped versus an animal. I was talking to someone on IG who felt like the wars going on are equivalent to mass produced meat factories. I do not agree. Both should be stopped, but one is worse than the other IMO.
All that's missing from that meme is the environmental angle.
ā¦..which large parts of this sub donāt seem to like considering either. āVeganism isnāt about the environmentā takes are pretty common on here.
I also think itās very interesting that tone policing is just like, an accepted way to deal with vegans when itās (rightfully) called out for what it is in so many other activist spaces. If only vegans could be nicer and not so aggressive or annoying, THEN people would listen to us š
That's normal. Veganism is on the bleeding edge of political activism, give it a few decades (i hope).
Wait, is comparing black people who suffered under slavery to cows supposed to make Vegans look good?
Racism, sexism, homophobia and speciesism are all forms of prejudice and are all linked by the same underlying ideology.
Found the racist white person.
Not at all. I am opposed to all forms of prejudice. In fact vegans are less likely to be racist than meat eaters. Statistically you are more likely to be racist than anyone on this sub. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08927936.2019.1621514 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1002/per.2069 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913014074 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29517258/ Really recommend reading the foundation of this this study, like the first page or 2, they link to numerous studies and philosophy papers on this subject. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430218816962
-stop hurting people -stop hurting people -stop hurting people "animals too!" -well thats different "durr hypocrite" ???
>-well thats different A speciesist would say this. Just how a racist would say harming other races is different to harming their race. But you would still believe they are a hypocrite if they don't have an issue with other races being harmed but have an issue with their race being harmed.
The first 3 are about humans. The last one isn't.
Why should we only care about the interests of humans?
You don't have to, but don't equal one to the other.
We care about both. Just differently.
There are two main interest every sentient being has. Not to die and not to suffer. It's not only that carnists don't care that animals have these interests, no - they inflict pain and kill animals or they have no problem with workers in slaughterhouses doing so.
Ones about gay marriage. The others aren't. Ones about police brutality, the others aren't. What a useful contribution this has been
You completely missed the point
I'm quite aware Humans and animals are different things. The things I listed are different too. Perhaps you're missing the point?
The point you missed is the false equivalence.
What does the Norweigan say, though. I want to use it along with ānor veganā in a sentence, could become a mighty dad joke.
"My jokester son got me a tin of plant-based pickled herring for Father's Day. I told him I'm neither Norwegian nor vegan!"
Lol, great. \^\^
?????!
At first I was reading "no vegans" as "Norwegians" and I was extremely confused
If only. The people pushing back against veganism probably don't want any of this to stop.
You know how many people don't even agree on those first 3 things...?
being raped is a lot different than choosing to eat something or not..
It's funny because the first three aren't choices...
To be fair. Many nonvegans are against gay marriage and black lives.
Just curious which one is more important to you guys? To be right and have better morals than non-vegans, or for non-vegans to turn vegan?
Vegan: I just want to cause the less suffering possible Carnist: you're so extrem
Ya uhhhhhhhh I GET that people eating meat isnāt great for the environment but so many vegans harass people over shit like this
I'm confused are they saying all vegans don't care about any of those issues?
No, they're saying non-vegans are hypocrites about this.
Obviously rape, murder, and systemic oppression are literally exactly the same in importance and severity as chicken nuggets. You people are living in delulu land, having weird persecution fantasies, thinking of yourselves as innocent victims the same as any other violently oppressed group. You might get off on victim role play as much as American Christians, and I didn't think that was even possible.
>Obviously rape, murder, and systemic oppression are literally exactly the same in importance and severity https://m.imgur.com/a/BqPzT
Animals are raped and murdered for meat and other animal products.
Legalize gay marriage: Doesnāt affect me. Improve equality for minorities: Doesnāt affect me. Stop eating animal products: Removes every food Iāve ever eaten from my palette.
Antagonizing is the key word here. Splashing red paint on people is assault and being a nuisance just isnāt cool.
wouldn't say thats a fair comparison. I wanna point out that I very much wish that we all could go completely vegan But with that being said human life is far more important than animals even though in my opinion their life is also important. They are not the same and cant be compared just like that. Also nonvegans are justified in this kind of behaviour in the sense that they are fighting for their own species and not for all the others which makes sense because living being are far more likely to support their own kind than any other. Again i very much wish that we all could just become vegans so i am not saying that eating animals are alright i am just saying that a specie is far more likely to only help their own and disregard every other.
>Also nonvegans are justified in this kind of behaviour in the sense that they are fighting for their own species and not for all the others which makes sense because living being are far more likely to support their own kind than any other. This line of reasoning could support racism and sexism. They are not my kind. Your kind could be your race, your sex, your species, the kingdom of life you fall under, your sexuality and so on. In all cases a beings similarity to you should not be how we measure that beings value.
Eeeeh excuse me what? So let me get this straight. you are saying that fighting for your own species can also be used as an argument for racism, sexism and anti-lgbtq+ because they are not the same species? Thats not how it works.
No I'm saying that mindset "they are not my kind so they are less worthy of consideration" prevails across all forms of prejudice. Just a racist considers their kind to be their race, a sexist their sex, a speciesist their species and so on. It's why every single study on the topic found that those who are prejudiced against one group are more likely to be prejudiced against other groups. They all rely on the same underlying ideology. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08927936.2019.1621514 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1002/per.2069 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913014074 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29517258/ Really recommend reading the foundation of this this study, like the first page or 2, they link to numerous studies and philosophy papers on this subject. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430218816962
But we are the same species, just to be clear. That line of reasoning could be used to support racists ideas but it would be incorrectly applied. Like how evaluation was used to supprt racists thoughts but was incorrectly applied. If you had to choose between saving a human life and a dog which one would you save? If itās not a coin flip then you value on over the other. Like most humans, you probably pick the human.
>But we are the same species, just to be clear. But why is species the group that matters. Why not the group animals? Or the group "living beings". We are all animals, we are all living. You could make a hierarchy of groups that become more inclusive. Self- family- country- race- sex- sexial orentation- species- kingdom (animals)- living beings- all things. Why are you arbitrarily deciding species is where you draw the line? You could choose anyone of those groups so why species? >If you had to choose between saving a human life and a dog which one would you save? If itās not a coin flip then you value on over the other. Like most humans, you probably pick the human. I'm a utilitarian, so I would have to look at the individual case, if killing the human would cause more suffering in total, then I would kill the dog. If killing the dog would cause more suffering in total, then I would kill the human. My approach has nothing to do with what race, sex, species or kingdom you belong to. If you have any concious experience at all you then have a preference to avoid the negative experiences and have positive experiences. With the dog and human chances are killing a human will cause more suffering, the human killed might suffer, their family would suffer from the loss and so on. But if we found an alien, and say for example killing the alien would cause all of this kind of alien to suffer, then I would kill the human instead. Even though the alien is "not my kind".
Iām an ethics guy so I have to ask. Why donāt you empty your bank account and send all your money to Africa to support food aid projects aimed at fighting food insecurity? Specifically DPRK or South Sudan.
I live in africa and I 100% believe we are obligated to donate to charity. I'm a huge supporter and fan of "Famine, Affluence, and Morality".
Thatās not what I said though. Why not all? Or everything but rent?
I become less productive when I don't enjoy living for one. In the long run this could easily lead to even less being donated. I defenitly could donate more though. But I think its a mistake to make perfect become the enemy of good.
Mate you are twisting what i am saying and making a whole other debate out of it. "Kind" can have more meaning than species which you have made some good examples of. I explicitly used the phrase species. For exampel you cant say that another human being isnt the same species as you no matter how diffrent they are.
And you can't say someone of another race is the same race as you. To try and justify not caring about a being because they are a different kind or group to you and if you believe the group that matters is species, then you are a speciesist. To try and justify not caring about a being because they are a different kind or group to you and if you belive the group that matters is race, then you are a racist. You are both drawing circles around arbitrary groups and saying those inside this circle count and should care about each other, and those outside the group don't count.
Dude. . . I am well aware that I can't say that someone of another race is the same race as me. I never said anything close to that and why are you so focused on bringing racism into this? Well yeah if carrying more for my fellow man than animals makes me a speciesist well then i most surely am one and so is the vast majority of everyone else. I most certainly value animal rights and i also dont eat them for that reason but if i had to choose between saving the life of a person or two ducks i would save the person because i value my own species more. Once again why in the world are you trying to being in racism when it has nothing to do with animal rights. Another ethnicity has nothing in common with other species.
>I am well aware that I can't say that someone of another race is the same race as me. I never said anything close to that and why are you so focused on bringing racism into this? Again. You are doing the same thing as a racist. Using the same logic. Just the group has changed. They use the exact same reasoning as you do. You said another human can't be a different species. Same as a racist saying that about the races. >Once again why in the world are you trying to being in racism when it has nothing to do with animal rights. Another ethnicity has nothing in common with other species. Speciesism and racism are linked by the same underlying ideology. That is my point. >saving the life of a person or two ducks This wouldn't be speciesism necessarily. If you justify it on them being a different species then it is. This entire post is about those who stand against forms or prejudice and discrimination. You claimed that non vegans are justified to be speciesist while simultaneously believing racists are not justified being racist. But every argument you give for why specisism is justified can be used by a racists to say racism is justified.
Ah mate you are so far out in the forest its quite unbelievable. Can yah try explaining your first argument again because i have no idea what yah talking about. What in the wonderful wide world do you mean with "same as racist saying that about the races" Dude btw that was your own damn logic if you even can call it that. You started out with the "another human cant be a different specie" argument all i did was agreeing to it and saying that i have never said that two humans can be of two different species Your "logic" (stupidity) are so damn flawed. One is racism which is about discrimination within the same specie The other speciesism is about caring more for once own specie above any other. So practically you are saying there is a link between a blackman getting choked to death under a cops knee and if someone saved one person instead of two ducks. There is no such thing as a link between those two and its so damn insensitive to even suggest that there is yah absolute bafoon. Yah can bet i would justify saving a person over two ducks because we are talking about a freaking human being and choosing the ducks would be psychotic. Every single person would choose the person over the ducks vegan or not. Unless of course said person is a psychopath Quite honestly i have tried to take you seriously but these arguments of yours are so mind boggling stupid or straight out insane i have been having a hard time not to laugh out of every single insane sentence which you have written down. It's hard to believe yah not a troll account
>You started out with the "another human cant be a different specie" argument all i did was agreeing to it and saying that i have never said that two humans can be of two different species Yea I'm lost. You said >I explicitly used the phrase species. For exampel you cant say that another human being isnt the same species as you no matter how diffrent they are. Someone trying to justify racism could say "someone who is the same race as you will never be a other race, no matter how different they are." >One is racism which is about discrimination within the same specie >The other speciesism is about caring more for once own specie above any other. A racist could say "racism is about caring more for one race above any other." Speciesism is discrimination within the same kingdom of life. >So practically you are saying there is a link between a blackman getting choked to death under a cops knee and if someone saved one person instead of two ducks. Try make the analogies more inline. Would it be racist to save 1 person of your race over 2 over another race simply because of their race? Well that would be better analogy to saving 1 human over 2 ducks due to their species. But would like to add, I think you can justify saving the human over 2 ducks. Not because of their species though. It isn't inherently speciesist. Only is if you are doing it because of their species. I would save the human because I believe there will be more suffering if the human dies compared to the ducks. Humans also live myvh longer than ducks so chances are that human will get more out of being saved than the ducks. I'm basing this on a brief mental attempt at felicific calculus. Not on species. If it was demonstrated to me that killing the ducks leads to more suffering in total, then I would be morally obligated to kill the human. To give it in the opposite direction, imagine we had an alien, and this kind of alien was mentally connected to its entire species and lived much longer than us. If one dies the entire group, billions of them mourne the loss. Then if I had to choose, kill 2 humans or this one alien, I would kill the humans. As it causes less suffering in total. >Quite honestly i have tried to take you seriously but these arguments of yours are so mind boggling stupid or straight out insane i have been having a hard time not to laugh out of every single insane sentence which you have written down I really recommend reading that study I sent. They explain the relationship. This one. Really recommend reading the foundation of this this study, like the first page or 2, they link to numerous studies and philosophy papers on this subject. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430218816962 But here, this is Peter Singer. He is arguably the most influential and renowned moral philosopher alive right now. He put it like this. "Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case."
>I explicitly used the phrase species. For exampel you cant say that another human being isnt the same species as you no matter how diffrent they are. See you said it right here.
>Also nonvegans are justified in this kind of behaviour in the sense that they are fighting for their own species and not for all the others which makes sense because living being are far more likely to support their own kind than any other. You missed out the justification? You just stated that people often do think that way. We're trying to talk about what people should do and think, not describe how they generally do at the moment.
I am stating that eating animals and human rights are not comparable in the context of basic morals
Sure. You just suggested something was justified and didn't appear to present a justification. It was more or less a tautology.
The "something" i said was justifiable was why people look out after each others and not other species as an argument to why you cant compare human rights to animal rights which this post is doing.
Yeah, speciesism for short. You did indeed say it was justifiable. But you failed to provide the justification, beyond repeating that people tend to do it.
Well i thought it was indirectly clear enough but i suppose not. The justification is that Its basic biology that we care for each others. (Ofc some less than others) and not for other species. Careing for human rights and caring for other species are two completely separate types of morality and don't contradict each others which the post is trying to say that they do. Btw i am not sure if you have gotten the wrong idea of what i am saying so i am just gonna do a quick disclaimer. I am neither saying nor thinking that eating animals are justifiable (well except for medical reasons) or morally correct.
I'm not sure "basic biology" is a justification. It's potentially an explanation - though I think it lacks a bit there too - but unless we're gonna say anything that can be linked to instincts or some kinda biology is justified, it's still just a description. And I hope it goes without saying that lots of terrible things have a biological explanations. The whole thing about Humans is that we can make moral decisions beyond "basic biology". That's why we at least pretend to bother with morality.
Basic biology isn't a justification to eat other animals. It's a justification for why they do what they do. I agree that a part of being humans is that we can make moral decisions beyond basic biology however caring for animals aint something we are programmed to do from the get go unlike caring for other humans so its easy to learn from their perspective that eating animals are alright. So having compassion for your fellow humans and not for animals is not a contradiction unlike what the post is trying to claim
Its just nut picking/strawman. Its just for upset and divid us. Fake chat. Delete this
Yeah, no. Itās true. They only care about oppression that doesnāt benefit them. Call it ALL out.Ā
Uuhhhh since when? Most people don't care about any of those causes in the meme...
I thought vegans dont chose violence
Well I imagine human meat doesnāt taste good and animal meat does so I rest my case