Comment

dx1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

First off, feel free to open with any scientific evidence that cows suffer the emotional trauma of sexual abuse from farming. Because the thing is, we have thousands of years of evidence and that doesn’t seem to be the correct conclusion. No, calling cattle insemination sexual abuse is a malicious lie.

Rambling article that fails to prove its central point. Points out that cows identify humans as “the predator” but for some reason think this doesn’t factor into a negative experience for human arms being jammed inside them? I don’t know why people feel so compelled to defend this.

This. Right. fucking. here. You are telling me that my moral system is less than dirt. That I am inferior to you.

This whole paragraph is literally the rationalization process. You internalize that somebody pointing out an ethical issue is attacking you personally, and from there launch into a whole thing about what a zealot absolute-fucking-asshole they must be for pointing it out, how they must think you’re stupid, how dare they, blah blah blah. I am literally just talking about how a practice is unethical and the negative experiences (like this) I’ve had discussing it with people, where people flare up into an emotional shitstorm instead of talking about it calmly and rationally. You’re doing it right now.

I’m a member of a fringe religion that my country tried to ban, so fuck “little nasty bit of discrimination”. YOU DON’T GET TO CALL YOURSELF A VICTIM OF DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE YOU BELITTLING ME.

I don’t think you’re a subhuman. I think you’re a zealot.

It is discrimination. We take an ethical position and this is generalized as a stereotype to some kind of critical fault in our personalities. That worse forms of discrimination exist, or that you’ve experienced them, doesn’t change that.

And I’ve “lived through, rejected, and moved past” your thinking, too. I used to be an active member of a religion that has strong roots in both philosophical veganism and in philosophical omnivorism. Circle of live vs All life is sacred sects. You might not realize it, but a lot of people with a lot more understanding of ethics and a lot more philosophical background than you have spent a lot more time thinking about veganism than you have. And I lived through it, rejected it, and came out the other side.

Now you’re belittling me, ironically. And what was the actual thinking that led you to “come out the other side”? At some point here are you trying to get past all the identity politics and being offended over whatever to actually talk about brass tacks here?

source

Sort:hotnew top

federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

We take an ethical position and this is generalized as a stereotype to some kind of critical fault in our personalities

it’s not about your ethical position, it’s about your personality faults.

source
abraxas@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

Rambling article that fails to prove its central point

Glad you concede.

This whole paragraph is literally the rationalization process

Thanks for admitting to what you were about to do. I agree, you are doing nothing but rationalizing in that paragraph.

It is discrimination. We take an ethical position and this is generalized as a stereotype to some kind of critical fault in our personalities - incorrectly

Please admit that the above quote, too, is rationalization.

Ironically the “zealots” were a Jewish sect that objected to the unethicalness of Roman rule and were trying to throw it off

You are doing one of three things. Either you do not know what people tend to mean by “zealot”, or you are trying to change a topic you know you cannot win, or you are arguing in bad faith. Please let me know which.

Now you’re belittling me, ironically

Not really. I am telling you that you’re not the only (or most) educated and prepared person in the vegan/meat discussion. Unless we take “vegans are axiomatically right”, you have a fairly massive burden of proof if you want to continue being offended by the idea that a non-vegan can have a 3-digit IQ.

Thanks for the discussion. Don’t reply.

source
- dx1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  This is just obnoxious.
  
  source
  - federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    when you try to right the ship to actually talk about the concrete issue, and the other person keeps trying to turn it into personal me-vs-you and who’s-better-than-who - they’re operating in bad faith
    
    jesus christ. there is no self awareness here at all.
    
    source
  - abraxas@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Thanks for the apology. Forgiven. Now onto the topic. I understand how emotional vegans can get on these issues.
    
    What is the reasoning that’s superior to vegan reasoning?
    
    Sticking with ethics, a few bullet points.
    
    “Nulla poena sine lege”… “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”. A legal (and ethical) maxim. Lacking compelling reason to accept vegan reasoning, it is ethical to eat meat.
    
    Every ethical system has at least one argument that supports meat-eating. Joined with bullet point 1, there is no foundation worthy of continuing the discussion. A strong argument for veganism alongside a strong argument against veganism boils down to “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”, so long as one pro-meat argument remains. Pick any ethical system if you want to dig in deeper, but I tend towards Utilitarianism.
    
    Similar to the above, life is suffering. The animals I eat live better lives than most humans, and would live WORSE lives or NO lives if they were not being eaten. (See Sir Karl Popper below)
    
    There is my ethical reasoning that is superior to vegan reasoning. If you’re interested in someone with better foundations than even me, look up Sir Karl Popper’s position on this matter (the philosopher of the “Paradox of Tolerance” fame). He holds to Negative Utilitarianism, and disagrees with veganism being a utilitarian virtue. It was largely in response to (and/or is used in response to) Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, a Utilitarian argument for veganism I strongly disagree with.
    
    Therefore, “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”
    
    source
    dx1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Mmn, so negative utilitarianism, the stance that people should minimize suffering. And for some reason this does not apply to animals?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

Buddha’s reasoning for when eating meat is excusable does not apply to animal agriculture at all

i don’t think you’ve ever asked buddha about it.

source
federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

What is the grand scientific/philosophical reasoning you used to decide that it’s A-OK to use & abuse animals for human gain?

no one said abuse is ok.

source
federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

where people flare up into an emotional shitstorm instead of talking about it calmly and rationally.

lol. from the user who feels the need to announce a block because they don’t like when i tell them they’re wrong.

source
federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

You sure do rationalize the shit out of how we’re worse than you because we have stricter/consistent moral standards though!

You internalize that somebody pointing out an ethical issue is attacking you personally

you are attacking them personally.

source