|
Epic High Five posted:I think veganism/vegetarianism/animal rights is a topic of discussion where there aren't many things that line up 1:1 for purposes of comparison, which is where a lot of acrimony comes from that isn't from how pretty much every culture will put advocates on the defensive as a strategy to stay sane, and I don't think it's akin to rodeo because driving is primarily an economic/necessity thing versus a strictly social thing. It's more just an acknowledgement that cars and especially their infrastructure really gently caress animals and nature up hard in a lot of ways that rarely get examined, but I notice them because I hate cars and driving. Yeah I agree with a lot this but the case for Veganism is already hard enough to get buy in without also suggesting we dismantle modern society and cars. The "practicable and possible" in the definition do a lot of the work. Looking at the suffering and exploitation in totality cars are a pretty small part compared to the trillions of animals purposefully killed for food every year.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I explicitly did not. In fact, I outright indicated I disagree with some practices. You shithead Also no more of stuff like this from anybody, I recognize this is a topic that gets really contentious really fast as it's one that I've given a lot of thought and practice to as well, but personal attacks are still prohibited and while I don't want to use my buttons for the risk of cooling things off I will if I have to. I don't think anybody here is a sleeper agent for Big Meat or just trying to troll vegans or whatever, there's no reason to treat this space like a more likely hostile irl one instead of enjoying the fact that SA has become something better, if still imperfect, than that by long effort. DrBox posted:Yeah I agree with a lot this but the case for Veganism is already hard enough to get buy in without also suggesting we dismantle modern society and cars. The "practicable and possible" in the definition do a lot of the work. Looking at the suffering and exploitation in totality cars are a pretty small part compared to the trillions of animals purposefully killed for food every year. Oh I recognize this, I bring it up here because I think we're all on the same page enough that I'm not going to have somebody red faced screaming at me about their truck or whatever. I think a big shift away from meat for a lot of cultures is going to require something akin to a revolution, in fact. It's a separate thing for me, there's just some overlap and more directly it's a response to the question if I consider them a significant factor in animal and environmental death and devastation, which I do
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Ok. So, what's your problem? I guess I'm getting tripped up when you say the answer isn't veganism, but then you describe something that is de facto veganism. If that's what you're advocating for then I don't disagree with you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I think a big shift away from meat for a lot of cultures is going to require something akin to a revolution, in fact. Realistically it will take widespread adoption of lab grown meat. Once it's economically viable the old way of cutting throats for burgers will not be able to compete and will be a weird niche for rich or sociopathic people like trophy hunting is now. Once society has moved away from it then they will be much more receptive to the arguments. It's hard to change someone's mind when doing so forces them to admit that what they are doing is perhaps wrong or even immoral. That's why I always suggest people try eating plant based for a month. It's easier to have the conversation when you are not actively participating in the harm being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This is a thread about veganism and getting rid of factory farming is one of the arguments in favor of going vegan. I support that goal, but don't see going vegan as necessary. I see veganism as unnecessarily extreme for meeting many of the stated goals. Maybe I missed it, but who stated a reason to go vegan is to get rid of factory farming? I don't think I've ever even heard anyone state that as a reason for being vegan...... Harold Fjord posted:gently caress turkeys. Calories per life is an absurd metric. Class solidarity, if any. As a side note, if you're pro-class solidarity and pro-turkey consumption, you should absolutely be pro-factory farming. Otherwise, only the rich will be able to afford to eat turkeys/meat in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Maybe I missed it, but who stated a reason to go vegan is to get rid of factory farming? I don't think I've ever even heard anyone state that as a reason for being vegan...... To the first point, it's in the OP. To the second, there are other ways to distribute and also you get jokes (mammal solidarity) Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I think a big shift away from meat for a lot of cultures is going to require something akin to a revolution, in fact. If you look at smoking rates in the US, the number of cigarette smoking adults dropped by 3/4 from ~40% to ~10% after a national campaign against smoking. And that's with something that is extremely addictive. No revolution required there. I think eventually there will be a critical mass of people to put on a similar campaign against animal products. I'm sure there will always be holdouts, similar to smoking, but I think we can get to a significant reduction in consumption (say 70-80%) through education and peer pressure. Though to get anywhere close to 100% reduction I agree with DrBox we will need lab grown meat that is cheaper than animal grown meat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Maybe I missed it, but who stated a reason to go vegan is to get rid of factory farming? I don't think I've ever even heard anyone state that as a reason for being vegan...... I think "factory farming" gets used as a short hand for "animals that don't get treated well" even though there are certainly mom and pop farms that treat their animals poorly as well. Since one of the main reasons people go vegan is to reduce animal suffering, it follows that reducing factory farming is a primary goal of veganism as well. Seph fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
I feel like going vegan as a means to end factory farming is a pretty straightforward position that would definitely work at least in theory. If you want people to go vegan, who cares what reason they use to square it with themselves in the end?Seph posted:If you look at smoking rates in the US, the number of cigarette smoking adults dropped by 3/4 from ~40% to ~10% after a national campaign against smoking. And that's with something that is extremely addictive. No revolution required there. I think we can get down to much smaller margins with just stuff like ending subsidies, but there's a lot more cultural inertia behind meat consumption and it's going to be a lot harder to convince people it's bad for your health like is plainly obvious with smoking. A reduction is definitely possible, hell it's happening even now as prices continue to go up on it despite all efforts to the contrary, but the last bit is (imho) going to be larger than the smoking cohort and even stickier. Lab grown meat needs to come down in price in a big way, which is going to involve at least as much shifting of the marketing of it as it will the industrial processes involved I think
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I feel like going vegan as a means to end factory farming is a pretty straightforward position that would definitely work at least in theory. If you want people to go vegan, who cares what reason they use to square it with themselves in the end? One small caveat is the reason matters for non food related things. Vegans constantly having to fight against the term being watered down and if someone says they're vegan while visiting the zoo every weekend in their cow leather jacket it undercuts the anti exploitation message.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:To the first point, it's in the OP. Concern for workers rights, assuming that's the part of the OP that you're talking about, is not the same as "getting rid of factory farming".
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Someone did. I've thought a lot about how best to respond to this but I think the issue is just that you don't consider imprisoning and enslaving animals to be a harm, or would even call it "imprisoning" or "enslavement". If I thought it was okay to imprison and enslave animals so that we could use them for our benefit then yeah, I might agree with the assertion that enslaving our biological and mental lessers is actually good for them because they're happier living on a plantation, because they're not capable of living full lives without us to take care of them. It goes back to what I brought up about brought up about having "domains" where we can make choices for others. Bodily autonomy. I believe it is harmful to kill or sexually assault a non-human in the same way it is to kill or sexually assault a human. I reject the idea that having less intelligence or awareness makes it more okay. Because if that's true, it means that racism isn't wrong. It would mean it's only wrong when we don't get the hierarchy right, but if we did, then it would be okay. Rather than saying that just all systems of oppression are bad, because of the potential for misuse, abuse, exploitation, etc I've avoided bringing up the topic of animal slavery because I know the topic can be incendiary. People say, "you're comparing black people to animals" But what you've got to accept, in order to see the vegan ideology, is that comparing humans and animals is not an insult to a vegan. We're not putting the human on a lower level, we're putting the animal on a higher level. We do not consider humans inherently superior to other life, we're all animals, we don't have a special soul. Or, if we do, we at least have no evidence of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
DrBox posted:One small caveat is the reason matters for non food related things. Vegans constantly having to fight against the term being watered down and if someone says they're vegan while visiting the zoo every weekend in their cow leather jacket it undercuts the anti exploitation message. Zoos are a tricky one for me. On the one hand, they're keeping animals captive in an environment that is far less than what their natural habitat would be. Many animals at zoos experience mental health issues from being confined in such small spaces. Even "good" zoos like the San Diego zoo are far from adequate in this regard. On the other hand, I think zoos are a great way to foster love and care for animals. Personally, my love for animals came from frequent visits to the zoo as a child. I am not sure if I would have been as passionate about animals if I had not visited the zoo so frequently as a child. So I'm conflicted. The animals at zoos are clearly suffering, but I believe the exposure to animals can lead to stronger adoption of vegan ideals. I guess it depends on how utilitarian you view things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I've thought a lot about how best to respond to this but I think the issue is just that you don't consider imprisoning and enslaving animals to be a harm, or would even call it "imprisoning" or "enslavement". If I thought it was okay to imprison and enslave animals so that we could use them for our benefit then yeah, I might agree with the assertion that enslaving our biological and mental lessers is actually good for them because they're happier living on a plantation, because they're not capable of living full lives without us to take care of them. i find this kind of confrontational language similar to that of christian missionaries - it is not meant to persuade, when you compare animal livestock to human chattel slavery. it is only meant to reinforce within the group that the people on the outside are morally defective, because they do not see the obvious truth that keeping livestock is equivalent to slavery you really must consider the fact that many of these animal species exist in the form they currently do because they were bred by humans over thousands of years to be the way they are. it makes sense that species created to be exploited by humans would gain advantages from being exploited by humans. my pet cat certainly would not want to try to make a living in the wild. trying to draw a precise equivalence between animal species bred for human use, and human beings being enslaved by others, is deeply charged language meant to provoke and confront. you are trying to highlight the depths of your feeling by equating it to a human-made horror. which is fine and all, but if your comparison is imprecise (which i feel like it is) you just come off as a fanatic who can't be reasoned with. if i were walking through the public square and someone had signs up equating chicken farms to the actual Holocaust, i would do everything i could to avoid speaking to that person
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i find this kind of confrontational language similar to that of christian missionaries - it is not meant to persuade, when you compare animal livestock to human chattel slavery. it is only meant to reinforce within the group that the people on the outside are morally defective, because they do not see the obvious truth that keeping livestock is equivalent to slavery So all of that is why I have avoided directly touching this issue. I can go through all the more abstracted arguments of my ideology, but if I really genuinely feel this way, eventually I'm going to have to be direct about what the core underpinning of my ideology is. And it's this. Everybody gets bodily autonomy. That said, I still agree with you about the Holocaust scenario! That may seem strange, but I would feel this way because I personally like and care about humans more than I do chickens. It's just that I see this as an emotional position, not a rational one. I'm sure ducks like other ducks more than they like people. I could be wrong. Even though I value humans more, that doesn't mean humans have more value just because I think they do. In other words, it's an emotional bias. So when I'm making decisions about how to treat those animals, I want to exclude that emotional bias if I want my actions to be ethical. It's like my immediate family. I value them more than strangers. I'd save my mom first over a stranger, even though I don't believe my mom to have any special human rights. But, still, I support something like democracy or communism where every random person gets equal rights, rather than a system where me and my immediate family ruled by fiat. I imagine you might feel and believe the same way. It's the same sort of contradiction. One is my feelings, the other is my beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
Seph posted:Zoos are a tricky one for me. It's not tricky at all. Earthling Ed has a great youtube video on the subject. At the end of the day the actual money generated by zoos for conservation efforts are pennies on the dollar for every ticket sold. Everything a zoo can do for outreach can be done with rehabilitation centers and animal ambassadors that cannot be released into the wild for whatever reason. There is zero reason for zoos to continue the cycle of breeding and trading animals besides ticket sales which only generate income for the zoos. I also take exception with animals who are not endangered or in need of protection from habitat loss being included in zoos. It's complete exploitation. I'm Canadian so especially close to home is Lucy the elephant who has been living in the zoo since 1977 and has been alone for a large period of time. At this point she is apparently too old to be relocated so she has to live out the rest of her life in isolation and in a climate not suited to her. Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i find this kind of confrontational language similar to that of christian missionaries - it is not meant to persuade, when you compare animal livestock to human chattel slavery. it is only meant to reinforce within the group that the people on the outside are morally defective, because they do not see the obvious truth that keeping livestock is equivalent to slavery Please watch this video. It's only 6 minutes long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I've thought a lot about how best to respond to this but I think the issue is just that you don't consider imprisoning and enslaving animals to be a harm, or would even call it "imprisoning" or "enslavement". I'm not HF, so I can't speak for them, but I do consider it a harm. I just place that harm at about the level of a leopard eating an antelope, or a pack of wolves taking down an elk. Your argument might be that since we, unlike most species, have the ability to choose a meat-less diet, we are morally obligated to make that choice. I don't agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I'm not HF, so I can't speak for them, but I do consider it a harm. I just place that harm at about the level of a leopard eating an antelope, or a pack of wolves taking down an elk. Your argument might be that since we, unlike most species, have the ability to choose a meat-less diet, we are morally obligated to make that choice. I don't agree. Why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I'm not HF, so I can't speak for them, but I do consider it a harm. I just place that harm at about the level of a leopard eating an antelope, or a pack of wolves taking down an elk. Your argument might be that since we, unlike most species, have the ability to choose a meat-less diet, we are morally obligated to make that choice. I don't agree. Two differences. 1. Animals do it out of necessity. 2. Animals are not moral agents. This is torture for taste pleasure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Two differences. Your 2nd point is most likely false (one such example). I feel like claiming [non-human] animals have no morals is a talking point about why humans are superior, leading people to think we should care less about them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Your 2nd point is most likely false (one such example). I feel like claiming [non-human] animals have no morals is a talking point about why humans are superior, leading people to think we should care less about them. Displays of empathy and even culture does not mean they have the ability to rationalize morality. Children playing can do the same but we do not consider them moral agents. Animals do not have to be equal in all respects to be worth moral consideration. Edit: Here is a writeup on the moral agent vs moral patient distinction. HHR posted:Norcross recognizes two equal ways of mattering morally, or two ways of belonging to the moral community: being a moral agent and being a moral patient. (The morally relevant capacity for Norcross is sentience, which is a widely distributed capacity shared by many animals, including humans.) Moral patients are beings who matter morally and are subjects of moral consideration and moral obligations. They can, but might not, be moral agents. Put another way, moral agents have moral obligations and responsibilities to moral patients, but moral patients do not have similar or reciprocal obligations and responsibilities because they are not capable of acting as moral agents. This approach explains two things: why so-called marginal cases matter morally, and why moral agents have moral obligations to them. And it explains these things without moral inconsistency—that is, without relying on morally arbitrary distinctions or biases such as speciesism and without resorting to special pleading concerning members of species who do not (or who do, if they are nonhumans) have the qualifying capacities or characteristics. DrBox fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Displays of empathy and even culture does not mean they have the ability to rationalize morality. Children playing can do the same but we do not consider them moral agents. Don't you think that stating "animals are not moral agents" as an absolute fact is a misleading, at best, statement? If we go by the everyday definition of it, something like this, they are. Then if you dig into the philosophy of it, then it gets to "well... maybe to some degree, but not the exact same degree as humans" as the definition gets stretched more and more. This is because there is no agreed upon philosophical definition of moral agency. In that article you linked, it even clearly states: quote:There is a spectrum of views regarding the moral agency of nonhuman animals (although there is growing evidence that some animals govern their own behavior according to recognizable moral principles such as justice, fairness, loyalty, nonmaleficence, and beneficence, including sacrificing their own interests for the sake of others), as well as expansive interpretations of human moral agency that include heteronomous (as opposed to autonomous) moral agency.[25] Kalit fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I do not agree with this. I usually avoid comparisons to slavery or the holocaust because it derails the conversation and people have a hard time getting past the emotionally charged words but it does not make these comparisons untrue. By bringing up this comparison you arrive at a rhetorical dead end. You are taking a page straight from the anti-abortion playbook. Just as in that case there are a few main possibilities for why you would make this claim: 1. You truly believe there is a genocide going on and you are doing everything in your power to stop it. 2. You truly believe there is a genocide going on, but you are unable or unwilling to seriously attempt to stop it. 3. You don't believe the comparison is true but enjoy weaponizing it to paint those who disagree as genocide lovers. 1 is an empirically rare position in both the anti-abortion and anti-factory farming camps. 2 is a possibility but is largely incompatible with decrying "moral arbitrariness" as you've highlighted in that paper, so it seems incorrect to impute this position to you. 3 is overwhelmingly common among the anti-abortion crowd but it would be rude to assume it describes you without additional details. Would you be willing to describe why you think the comparison is valid? I can't watch the video but regardless it's more enlightening to have your own summary of your position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 05:49
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Don't you think that stating "animals are not moral agents" as an absolute fact is a misleading, at best, statement? Since you are getting hung up on it I guess going forward I will say "I believe animals are moral patients, not moral agents and should not be held accountable for their actions in the same way". Yashichi posted:Would you be willing to describe why you think the comparison is valid? I can't watch the video but regardless it's more enlightening to have your own summary of your position. The Holocaust involved similar methods to factory farming: -Demonizing and dehumanizing the victims. -Tattooing identifying markings on the victims. -Transportation methods of the victims in cattle cars. -Housing the victims in cramped overcrowded conditions. -Scientific experimentation on the victims. -Gas chambers used as a method of extermination. As for slavery the comparisons should be obvious. -Selective breeding. -Forced to work. -No autonomy. If you don't think they are slaves, what words would you use? They certainly are not free.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 12:58
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:
There are genocides of human beings going on in the world right now, are you out there stopping them? No. Does that mean that you can't (or that it would be 'morally arbitrary' for you to) criticize the killing of human beings or have the opinion that it should stop VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 13:09
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:So all of that is why I have avoided directly touching this issue. I can go through all the more abstracted arguments of my ideology, but if I really genuinely feel this way, eventually I'm going to have to be direct about what the core underpinning of my ideology is. And it's this. Everybody gets bodily autonomy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
Flayer posted:So do you believe that the billions of people around the world who eat meat are all morally equivalent to Hitler? Since they choose to kill animals that you think are equivalent to humans. What happens to animals fits the definition of (small h) holocaust "destruction or slaughter on a mass scale". The methods used in concentration camps in world war 2 are similar and even inspired by the practices used in animal agriculture. Do you believe that acknowledging these two points is the same a calling meat eaters the moral equivalent of Hitler? I won't speak for xboxpants but I have a feeling they are not invoking Hitler here. I do not believe many people eat meat out of hate or malice. It's simply social conditioning, cultural inertia, and tradition. If the world was already Vegan and slaughter houses did not already exist, anyone proposing the idea would be seen as unhinged. It's just hard to see the harm when you're indoctrinated into a system. DrBox fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
you have every right to compare industrial farming of animals to mass murder of millions of human beings, but i guarantee most people who hear you argue this point will dismiss all of your subsequent arguments
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:you have every right to compare industrial farming of animals to mass murder of millions of human beings, but i guarantee most people who hear you argue this point will dismiss all of your subsequent arguments Yep which is why I was discussing why I deliberately avoid those comparisons. It's for that very reason!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
DrBox posted:If the world was already Vegan and slaughter houses did not already exist, anyone proposing the idea would be seen as unhinged. It's just hard to see the harm when you're indoctrinated into a system.  This thread seems to have started with the idea that veganism could be a way of effecting change in society. Be that as it may, just positing a what if - scenario doesn't seem very helpful to that goal, or that fellow in the 'toon. Even if I agree that factory farming is needlessly cruel, I also find myself agreeing with the idea that my options as an individual to influence this system of meat production are fairly limited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:
I agree the options available to the individual and the potential impact feels small or even insignificant but that is not really an argument for continuing your participation in a system of oppression when there are alternatives available. Collective action is made up of individuals contributing to a goal. By going vegan I have convinced others in my life to also go vegan and there is no arguing that there has been some broader impact over the last 10 years when looking at public discourse and even the options available at the grocery store.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
Flayer posted:So do you believe that the billions of people around the world who eat meat are all morally equivalent to Hitler? Since they choose to kill animals that you think are equivalent to humans. This will be a hot take, but I don't believe it's helpful to view Hitler as the most evil person ever. I believe there are and have been many random people who are just as evil and, if given the chance, would have done just as much evil. It's essentially the reverse of the "great man" theory to lay it all at his feet. Hitler's personal contribution to Nazi Germany's culture was, of course, massive, but it wasn't just him. He couldn't have done it on his own, without help from individuals, organizations, and social movements. It was much more systematic. If we only see him as the cause, we ignore all this and put ourselves at risk for another Nazi regime. As such, we should avoid systems out of which racism and fascism arise, one of which I believe is mass exploitation of animals for food. Be clear, I'm not saying Hitler wasn't bad, but that other people can be, too, especially under the right circumstances, and any society that had the same systems as Nazi Germany would go down a bad road. I think that's easy to agree with. I said this in another post, and the holocaust survivor-turned animal rights activist says the exact same thing: Killing animals because they're lesser is a social gateway drug to killing people because they're lesser. It's like racist training wheels. As for your question. I may have framed things from a moral lens here and there out of habit, but that's not even really my argument. I only think bodily autonomy for everyone is "good" and racism and fascism are "bad" in the sense that I think a society like that personally benefits me. It also benefits other people in the society, which I value, but that is also good for me. I am being fully selfish. I am a trans person and I want to be able to say what I do with my body, thoughts, and feelings. Especially if someone disagrees with me. Similarly to Dr. Alex Hershaft, I see comparisons between how society treats animals and how they justify it and how people treat trans people and how they justify that. Of course, my main work as a person is regarding queer & trans issues, that's where my career is. But since I think veganism and bodily autonomy for all is a related issue that contributes to hurting humans, it's important for me that all my actions support that belief. It's, well, intersectionality. I can't support the liberation of one group while supporting the oppression of another. I'd be working against myself. I know that's a lot of words, but I will answer your question. It's not a question of morality, per se. I think people who choose to eat animals are personally contributing to a system and culture that does harm to me (and to others which I am in a shared society with, which also does harm to me). Not as much harm as, say, the President of Tyson Farms or whoever you want to choose as the Carnist Hitler, but they're still contributing. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
I don't think actual harm transposes by analogy like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I don't think actual harm transposes by analogy like that. I do. If you kill the dude who runs my coffee shop now I have no coffee. Even if he's just too depressed to work that still harms me. If his life is enriched and he starts performing better and making better coffee that's good for me. Did you mean something else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
Flayer posted:So do you believe that the billions of people around the world who eat meat are all morally equivalent to Hitler? Since they choose to kill animals that you think are equivalent to humans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I don't think actual harm transposes by analogy like that. Oh sorry I think I get what you mean, misunderstood you earlier, yes I think that's probably a key point of disagreement between us. And probably outside the scope of the thread. We can discuss it if you want though 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
DrBox posted:It's not tricky at all. Earthling Ed has a great youtube video on the subject. At the end of the day the actual money generated by zoos for conservation efforts are pennies on the dollar for every ticket sold. Everything a zoo can do for outreach can be done with rehabilitation centers and animal ambassadors that cannot be released into the wild for whatever reason. There is zero reason for zoos to continue the cycle of breeding and trading animals besides ticket sales which only generate income for the zoos. I also take exception with animals who are not endangered or in need of protection from habitat loss being included in zoos. It's complete exploitation. There is a value in exposing people to animals that they will never see in habitat. A kid in Canada would probably never see an elephant or a tiger, or a koala without a zoo or something like it, and I believe that exposure is worth something, and that it fosters an interest and an empathy towards animals you do not get another way. There is no doubt that zoos can be inhumane or even cruel, but I disagree that they must be by their nature, or that animal captivity is inherently inhumane. You can argue it is exploitation, but if the animals are well cared for, stimulated, etc. I don't see it as immoral. I think the vegan argument is strongest when arguing against things like factory farming or some animal testing, but loses people when animals and people are placed on an exactly equal footing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Oh sorry I think I get what you mean, misunderstood you earlier, yes I think that's probably a key point of disagreement between us. And probably outside the scope of the thread. We can discuss it if you want though This could be me confusing subtle difference of viewpoint you share with other vegans, but the harm done to you by people who kill chickens is nil. If they weren't killing the chickens, you would have no knowledge of the chickens anyway. They aren't killing chickens you might have shared a scone with next week
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:There is a value in exposing people to animals that they will never see in habitat. A kid in Canada would probably never see an elephant or a tiger, or a koala without a zoo or something like it, and I believe that exposure is worth something, and that it fosters an interest and an empathy towards animals you do not get another way. There is no doubt that zoos can be inhumane or even cruel, but I disagree that they must be by their nature, or that animal captivity is inherently inhumane. I'm sure there is some value in exposing people to animals they will not otherwise see but that's not a good argument for chaining up a lion on my front lawn. The harm outweighs the good. Spend the money on documentaries, outreach and funding for actual wildlife preserves. If you want to actually contradict any of the info in that video or provide a good example of zoos you feel provide adequate space and enrichment for Elephants, lions, and wolves that manage to avoid those issues I'd love to see an example. DeadlyMuffin posted:You can argue it is exploitation, but if the animals are well cared for, stimulated, etc. I don't see it as immoral. DeadlyMuffin posted:I think the vegan argument is strongest when arguing against things like factory farming or some animal testing, but loses people when animals and people are placed on an exactly equal footing. Harold Fjord posted:This could be me confusing subtle difference of viewpoint you share with other vegans, but the harm done to you by people who kill chickens is nil. If they weren't killing the chickens, you would have no knowledge of the chickens anyway. They aren't killing chickens you might have shared a scone with next week I'm not sure what the point of disagreement is here but for an example of harm done to animals bleeding over to others, you could look to examples like higher rates of PTSD, substance abuse, and violent crime in slaughterhouse workers to raise a societal concern. DrBox fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This could be me confusing subtle difference of viewpoint you share with other vegans, but the harm done to you by people who kill chickens is nil. If they weren't killing the chickens, you would have no knowledge of the chickens anyway. They aren't killing chickens you might have shared a scone with next week Oh sure. I generally agree, I'm not directly harmed by a chicken being killed. Not in the sense of like, a literal spiritual karmic web or something. I'm not harmed by a chicken being killed because of the harm that was done to the chicken, but because of the harm that was done to the human who killed it. The argument is that the practice of killing animals for our benefit supports the same kind of thinking that leads to racism and bigotry of a variety of types. And then, that hurts me. The holocaust survivor describes it better than I'll ever be able to, and I know most people don't want to watch a video so I'll just quote him: quote:When I first saw the slaughterhouse, I saw all those body parts and it brought back memories. edit: DrBox posted:I'm not sure what the point of disagreement is here but for an example of harm done to animals bleeding over to others, you could look to examples like higher rates of PTSD, substance abuse, and violent crime in slaughterhouse workers to raise a societal concern. This is one of the things I mean when I say the person who kills the chicken is harmed and I have to share a society with him so then that's bad for me. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 22:52
|
|