These people thrive off any attention, even negative. Even if it’s as a joke, he’s still going to feel like a main character. The right course of action is giving them the irrelevance they so truly deserve by paying them zero attention.
The idea that population numbers are all it takes is so stupid. Mozart is not just one guy who was really good at writing music. I mean, obviously, he literally was, but he only existed and wrote what he did in the way he did because of not only his own “genius” but also the circumstances he was raised in, his education, the musical traditions that he drew from, the fact that he was wealthy and had time… Etc etc.
Adding more people living in poverty, with poor education, no connection to musical or artistic tradition, and no time… Will not add more Mozarts.
"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops"
Most of the super famous classical composers were born with in 90 years of each other. On one hand thay were brilliant musicians, on the other hand It was also this thing that was happening right then.
I’m fairly certain if the circumstances were different we still have a bunch of people doing the same work.
Those composers are famous because they were pioneers in the development of music and their work has been used to educate musicians in virtually all countries during the last century. There are composers creating similarly valuable music today, sometimes working in cinema or video games, and composers doing pioneering work, usually in experimental music. They aren’t as famous because their work isn’t being used worldwide to educate musicians, but they might be by 2123, provided society hasn’t collapsed.
That’s part of what I’m getting at. The musical culture at the time arose through the work of many, many composers, and through the listeners who talked about it etc. Cultural development is complex and requires much more than just a handful of geniuses.
The fucked up part is that barely a decade after his death - thanks to the efforts of Louis Pasteur - Semmelweis's work went from so controversial they condemned him to his death, to becoming the basis for the field of aseptics
Yeah people this dumb either think it’s a good thing and revel in it or are incapable of forming the thought/reaching the level of self-awareness that allows them to think “maybe I’m stupid.”
Most sanitary are made to be single use. Cutting one and breaking it apart to understand how those are made is an interesting experience.
Reusable, washable pads exist but, to my knowledge, are not that main stream. But should.
I grew up surrounded by women recalling the time before discardable sanitary pads were a thing and every single one remembered using home made cloths made of thick and absorbent cotton, capable of being washed again and again, even for a lifetime.
Soft leather would also be an alternative, being absorbent, durable and washable.
Linen (the fabric, not necessarily “bed linen”) is better, it absorbs the blood differently and leaves a cleaner surface for longer, but I am told that linen is pretty rare in the US, and cotton more common. You can put a leather or a synthetic core in to prevent soakthrough. Leather isn’t machine washable (less of an issue in a post apoc world, but I live in a pre-apoc world) so synthetic layer is better. They smell less and work well, and cost little. I recommend to all.
I’m going to remind this for when I write my own zombie book.
I’m not in the US, but linen is hard to find here as well. It’s expensive and to my knowledge the process is harder to mechanize than other fabrics. But the end product is a lot more durable. I’ve held an heirloom bed set made of linen and with years of use it was still very much new. And the feel…
Remember when Obama chastised his Republican Congress for failing to pass the yearly roads bill? Because they didn’t want him to get a “win” by signing it? Boy howdy! Glad those crazy times are past us!
This story means zero to people who don’t consume YouTube as a hobby. It’s YouTube drama. It’s not cool that it happened but to call it anything other than YouTube drama is ridiculous. That doesn’t make me a “cynical idiot”.
person doxes harasses and stalks someones house in real life broadcasting to millions in the media.
wheres the YouTube involved?
is it a youtube drama if i were to come kick the shit out of you over something you said on YouTube. or is it assault because i just kicked the shit out of u? use ur noggin lil bro itll get u outta highschool
The SssniperWolf is the biggest ‘reaction’ channel on YouTube. I.e. steal other people’s videos, giving no credit, and not being transformative. You see a ton of these, and every last one is 100% worthless. She constantly goes for the 8 minute marker so she can run more ads. It’s all stolen content, nothing given back to the real creators.
Jack, had been making videos about this, calling out SssniperWolf specifically (the biggest offender currently). Helping people get their videos removed from hers. He’s done this for years, SssniperWolf is just the latest. Example, many years ago the big offender (though one could argue actually had some effort put in…) =3 with RayWilliamJohnson.
So, this week, SssniperWolf decided to track down where Jack lives, then made a video post showing his address, doxxing him and his wife. Now she’s playing ignorant and innocent, pretending she doesn’t even know what doxxing is. Doxxing has in the past led to swatting which has led to people dying.
I am curious if the platform is going to take action. I certainly don’t support SSSniperwolf or her channel, nor do I find Jacksfilms all that entertaining, but no one deserves to have their info squirted out to 50 million people. A certain small percentage of which will be simps for SW, and a percentage of those willing to take “revenge” on Jack to try and impress her.
/uj I think you should drink oat milk like I do. You shouldn’t involve cows in your breast milk fetish. And you’d best believe the only difference between oat milk and breast milk is sexual.
Do you really think you’re doing a good job of trying to convert people to using dairy alternatives by talking like this? All you’re doing is coming across as an insane zealot
I mean disagree all you want but biologically speaking plants are life. And also biologically speaking a lot of plants have some form of “pain” reflex where they can react to damage. However that argument being a stretch is also true. It does work in some circumstances, mostly when you have a militant vegan insisting all life should be protected and no life should be ended for food (has happened to me once so by no means is this a likely event but it shows that the argument does work on very rare occasions)
On a slightly related note: from a genetic perspective fungi (as in mushrooms) are a lot closer to animals than they are to “other” plants. Not trying to use it as an argument or anything just a fun tidbit of trivia while we are on the topic.
This is an example of behavior that pushes anyone who isn’t a militant vegan away. I even know vegans who have second thoughts about their decisions over attitudes like those represented in the comment above me.
In all fairness that heavily depends on the type of farming. I highly doubt mass farmed chickens have it better than their wild counterparts given they have about 2cm² of space available before they have to trample on another chicken.
Free range farming however I absolutely agree is better for the animals than living in the wild. Imo given the various benefits (mostly the extremely reduced need for antibiotics, seriously we have to stop feeding them to animals: it’s biting us in the ass already) it offers over industrial scale farming we should move back to it.
In all fairness that heavily depends on the type of farming. I highly doubt mass farmed chickens have it better than their wild counterparts given they have about 2cm² of space available before they have to trample on another chicken.
I’ve seen a chicken who escaped a fox. It lived for DAYS. I’d take a battery cage over that. But I do take your point to heart.
Free range farming however I absolutely agree is better for the animals than living in the wild. Imo given the various benefits (mostly the extremely reduced need for antibiotics, seriously we have to stop feeding them to animals: it’s biting us in the ass already) it offers over industrial scale farming we should move back to it.
100%. My home state has free range laws and I fully support them. Our eggs went up about $1/dozen, not exactly a big deal. I would 100% support humane treatment regulations that nominally increase the price of meat products.
And I agree about feeding animals antibiotics. I understood why they did it in the first place, but now that we know it’s harmful it needs to stop.
Yeah, it is. Actual industry practice - impregnate cow mechanically without consent, bring baby cow to term, kill majority of baby cows for veal after separation after a few days from birth, repeat after cows stops producing milk, until cow is used up (around 10 years IIRC, a fraction of their normal lifespan) and also killed for meat.
If a cow escapes the pasture, I wouldn’t be surprised to find it dead in 20 minutes. They require the aid of fences and the protection of farm dogs in the vast majority of environments they live in. Whoever is getting cattle to live 20 years is not doing so naturally, far from it
It’s incredible how this always goes the same way. Somebody points out the extreme double standard we apply between behavior that would be reprehensible to our species, and that same behavior performed to a different species (that most of us struggle with understanding or having any level of communication with), and without fail, somebody comes along and goes, “you’re being misogynistic/racist by demonstrating the similarity between exploitation of animals and the same ways we exploited humans in the past, using the exact same excuses and mentality as we do for animals now!”
Let’s try applying the standards of medicine here to insemination of cows. Is it consensual? No. Is it medically necessary? No. Is it necessary to produce a particular consumer good (one that we have other widely available options for)? Yes. Are those your standards for medical ethics? I hope not, because they’re probably beneath the standards of the typical human trafficker.
the extreme double standard we apply between behavior that would be reprehensible to our species, and that same behavior performed to a different species (that most of us struggle with understanding or having any level of communication with)
like burying zygotes in the ground and those who survive to maturity, you cut off their reproductive organs and then grind them to dust to be fed to people?
the extreme double standard we apply between behavior that would be reprehensible to our species, and that same behavior performed to a different species (that most of us struggle with understanding or having any level of communication with)
like feeding them the most basic easy-to-digest nutrients and allowing them to live in their own waste until the waste becomes so great that literally every organism living there dies? like we do with beer and wine? yea. we are totally hypocritical monsters…
If you’d impregnate a woman without her consent, take away her baby and then her milk to drink and make delicous cheese of you’d go to jail. If you do that to a different mammal you don’t, yet. Because specisim. We do whatever the fuck we want with them. They’re just cows.
These Militant Vegans think they elevate animals to equal of humans, but instead they just reduce humans to the level of animals (or below) in their treatment.
As the saying goes, I don’t eat, exploit or sexually abuse humans either, I just rule it out across the board, while you guys don’t.
You sure do rationalize the shit out of how we’re worse than you because we have stricter/consistent moral standards though! Always some twisted bit of logic to explain that one.
But you do exploit humans. The food you eat, the clothes you wear, actually pretty much everything you use was made with exploitation. The fact you can choose to go vegan and complain about it on the internet means you are incredibly privledged. As am I.
You talk about rational discussion but all I’m seeing from you is the opposite, “all meat eaters are evil”.
The world is complicated and there’s a lot of things wrong with it. You chose one problem to focus on, and that’s great. But just because other people have other things that they prioritize doesn’t mean they are bad people.
I did not choose one problem to focus on. This whole comment is a big “tu quoque” based on assumptions about me that aren’t even true. I buy local food, I get clothes from thrift stores, etc. And I made no claim about “all meat eaters are evil”, this is just the classic “take a vegan saying that eating meat is unethical and interpret it as an attack on your character”, which is another pattern I’ve had just about enough of.
The question of the ethics of your diet are an objective issue one way or the other
I have a problem with your choice of words
ethics
objective issue
pick one. Ethics by their very nature are subjective. Anything relating to them as a basis is therefore also subjective. There is no such thing as objective ethics. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not write what you meant but as written this is contradictory in itself.
Well, this is the crux of it, isn’t it. The principles you establish an ethical system with are indeed arbitrary (not exactly “subjective”) but the actual answers you derive from any such system have a remarkable way of showing that basic recognition of rights we afford to humans (FOR SOME REASON) also extend to animals. E.g., right to life, some basic degree of bodily autonomy, consideration of wellbeing, etc. Basically the only way to construct an “ethical system” that actually “justifies” animal agriculture beyond actual life or death scenarios is one that’s oriented purely around one individuals’ selfish desires (commonly called “evil”) or one that just axiomatically presupposes human supremacy. If you base it on something actually reasonable like, beings experiencing joy is an ideal and beings experiencing suffering is to be avoided, you rapidly end up with an incongruency between what’s right and what’s happening in the world today.
not very hard to do. All it requires is a factor that excludes almost all animals and voila. For example: only being capable of communicating abstract concepts (for example: crafting) should be afforded these rights. Since the list of animals we have observed that in is also pretty much the list of animals we don’t eat there is no moral dilemma anymore.
Granted I’m an unapologetic human supremacist so this is a biased take but concluding some sort of human supremacy in the animal kingdom is not hard given that we pretty much rule earth. There is undeniable proof that by simply being present humans influence biospheres harder than an apex predator suddenly showing up, so we have some form of elevation above other animals pretty much proven (whether that influence is “good” is another discussion). All that’s needed then is to find anything that separates humans from animals and you have your human supremacist theory. Given our rather distinct evolutionary path that is not really a difficult exercise.
Without deeper thought I agree with the rest of your statement though.
Well, choosing an arbitrary ethical system because it happens to jive with your own selfish aims, for all intents and purposes that’s basically the same as having no ethical system at all. This is why you get the analogies to things like human slavery, because the same logic was used to arbitrary exclude some from consideration (e.g., supposedly biblically-founded theories that purported to show black people were on a lower plane of existence than white people as ordained by a god). Again, we don’t even apply these sort of arbitrary criteria to humans (a person who’s in a coma with no end in sight, a person with a severe learning disability…). It’s just rolling the dice and creating some arbitrarily high criteria for deciding animals don’t deserve rights.
You don’t axiomatically presuppose human supremacy? I don’t understand how that moral position works, and I want to hear more.
In general, we empathize more with creatures that are more similar to ourselves, and creatures that are cute. Given that, human supremacy follows logically for me. Humans are top of the heirachy, followed by similar mammals, then birds, then fish, then insects. It’s sad that’s there’s a heirachy, but the alternative is considering the life of an insect equal in value to the life of a human. I think that’s a less moral position, but it would also drive you insane because we murder so many insects in our lives.
I don’t believe it’s possible to have a consistent and non-hypocrytical ethical system, and if it was that wouldn’t be desirable. Every meat eater I’ve ever met agrees that agriculture kinda sucks, but they have other priorities.
Experience, joy, suffering etc. are based in actual physical realities, neurological structure, electrical impulses, neurotransmitters, learning, etc. That’s how. It’s based on the actual demonstrable fact of animal experience.
That’s an arbitrary line too though. Insects experience some form of emotion, but it appears not as complex as a mammal. If you’re going to define value of life by (estimated)complexity of experience, then we’re both agreed on a similar heirachy with humans at the top.
My point is that there’s nuance. Everyone has their own opinion and none of us are right or wrong.
take your pride and your identity politics and get them out of the conversation.
we actually sacrifice something to try to do the right thing, and get treated like subhumans for it. Having an actual rational discussion is right out the window
As the saying goes, I don’t eat, exploit or sexually abuse humans either
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.
You sure do rationalize the shit out of how we’re worse than you because we have stricter/consistent moral standards though!
This. Right. fucking. here. You are telling me that my moral system is less than dirt. That I am inferior to you. You don’t talk about it with any genuine respect. If I won’t “sexually abuse” my ethics, I’m dirt underneath your feet. You didn’t argue the points here, because I’m beneath you. Less than you. Let me guess, some of that human-hating-vegan propaganda where I either haven’t thought about it, or I’ve taken a retardation shotgun to my head because I “loooooooove” the taste of meat? Because I can’t just think YOU’RE wrong. No, I can’t do that. Because I’m too stupid to. Right?
You wouldn’t really understand unless you’ve lived through it, but it’s a little nasty little bit of discrimination in its own right
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. That’s not how discrimination works. You sound like the Religious Right who think they are victims every time they don’t get to ban Mosques or gay marriage.
and get treated like subhumans for it
I don’t think you’re a subhuman. I think you’re a zealot. HUGE fucking difference. It’s not discrimination when you judge someone’s actions. I don’t call your horrible behavior “discriminatory” because you’re disagreeing with what I do and not who I am. The judgement is mutual. You don’t get to call it discriminatory because I won’t bend over for you and your bullshit pseudoscience.
Having an actual rational discussion is right out the window
You mean by calling the dairy and cattle industry “sexual abuse”? You start being the least bit rational, and then you can MAYBE try to judge the kettle. Let me point out that I was agreeing with somebody about treating cows and women the same being misogynistic, and you just fucking went off on me. Because agreeing that bullshit is bullshit is somehow “irrational” and attacking non-vegans for not accepting that bullshit is “irrational”. No. YOU are irrational.
because god forbid you engage honestly with a “militant vegan” who’s lived through, rejected and moved past the thinking you’re still stuck on.
Actually I was engaging with a decent human being I agreed with, and a militant vegan decided to approach me with a persecution complex. So in this thread, why should I care what you’ve lived through? Do you approve of being approach on the street by strangers and judged?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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”
Check out Karl Popper’s arguments. I’d link you, but I’m having a hell of a time finding them (which sucks because he was one of my view’s larger influences).
For my points, it’s simply that through any analysis, farming animals is more net utility than not. I actually hold to it by positive Utilitarianism as well as Negative.
First is the utility of people consuming them (if there wasn’t any, everyone would just drop meat-eating in a heartbeat). There is undeniably utility in consuming meat/dairy. In a vacuum, this isn’t everything. Obviously there’s utility in a starving person committing cannibalism. In a counter-vacuum, it’s still not-nothing, since there is arguably negative utility in a plant being eaten (just not much).
Second is the utility in domesticated animals. The alternatives are wild animals or anti-natalism. For the former, there is no question that even the worst case “veal cow with botched slaughter” is better than the best case of wild animals (life of constant starvation and fear, ended slowly and incredibly painfully). As for anti-natalism… I hold with Karl Popper. To exist and feel pain is better than not to exist. Farm animls have plenty of positive-utility moments.
Third is the Utility Monster scenario. HUMANS are Utility Monsters, as compared to animals. This is not to be confused with human exceptionalism. Cows are not planning what to name their grandchildren, waiting for Christmas Dinner. They’re not excited for a delicious meal, slow roasted for 12 hours. The truth is, there is more Utility to 1000 families eating a hamburger or a steak filet than a slaughtered cow living 1 more year, even 10 more years. If one argues we are of equal utility to animals, then I do not see justification that any being should have less utility than any other. And that includes insects and, yes, plants. Either qualities of a species affect utility or they do not. One cannot have their cake and eat it.
So to sum it up… There is no disagreement that agriculture creates net positive utility for humans, right? Well, I have shown that agriculture also creates net positive utility to animals. Disagree or not, even if you could somehow poke holes in some of those points, there is an avalanche of Reason to the idea that a non-vegan world is simply better than a vegan world.
Agriculture in general creates net positive utility for humans but there’s a rough equivalency for that benefit between animal and non-animal ag (actually worse for our health to eat the animal products) while it creates huge negatives for the animals involved. The equation of people consuming animal ag products to proof that it “creates utility” strikes me as the same fallacy as saying smoking cigarettes has “utility” - I’d argue it’s an irrational behavior (in terms of selfish benefit alone) that prioritizes very short-term enjoyment over long-term enjoyment.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea animals are living “better than humans”, this is divorced from reality. Industrial animal agriculture is just that, an industrial process, animals in miserable conditions for their short lives to promote the bottom line of the company in question. Propagandized takes depict cows roaming around lush green hills and such, but essentially anything appearing in a supermarket had absolutely nothing to do with this.
On top of that there’s the actual reality of the incredible resource (read: water, fossil fuels) usage associated with animal agriculture because it’s inherently wasteful at scale, which is a contributing factor to our destruction of the environment sustaining our existence.
Please note, I made a few last minute edits you may have missed. I don’t think it matters because you do not appear to have addressed (or understood?) my arguments.
Agriculture in general creates net positive utility for humans
Sorry, I’m being strict in my terminology. I am using “Agriculture” to refer to the husbandry and harvesting of animals for human consumption. For the latter, I would use the term “horticulture”.
while it creates huge negatives for the animals involved
I have argued the opposite of this fairly comprehensively. It is bad form to open as if the opposite of my argument is axiomatic. If you are going to concede that my point was valid, then you cannot presume its opposite. If not, you are better off addressing my argument.
The equation of people consuming animal ag products to proof that it “creates utility” strikes me as the same fallacy as saying smoking cigarettes has “utility”
Cigarettes DO have some utility. They also have tremendous amounts of negative utility because they cause people to suffer horrific, multi-month-long deaths. My angles and my arguments applied to cigarettes would (correctly) conclude that cigarettes are a terrible thing while STILL defending that meat-eating is a good thing.
I’d argue it’s an irrational behavior (in terms of selfish benefit alone) that prioritizes very short-term enjoyment over long-term enjoyment.
There is value in both short- and long-term enjoyment. If you think there is no utility in short-term enjoyment at all, please provide the argument… but please open with a reason why that is even relevant to this discussion.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea animals are living “better than humans”, this is divorced from reality.
Just look at relative average stress levels of farm animals compared to humans. And how much they suffer throughout their life. And what percent of their days are good. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. “It does not matter how long you live, but how well you do it.” Their lower consciousness has its advantages as well as disadvantages. But a cow on a farm will not suffer through 3 years of agony and self-awareness of death with metastatic lung cancer because they smoked as a kid.
Also, I’d like to point out that your incredulity is not an effective response.
Industrial animal agriculture is just that, an industrial process, animals in miserable conditions for their short lives to promote the bottom line of the company in question
I agree. Ditto with certain human societies (ever seen homeless tent cities, refugees? Ever heard of a little thing called the Holocaust?). And as with human societies, we should be responsible for improving things. But if THIS is your crux, I would be happy to move forward on the discussion of Industrial Animal Agriculture if you will concede that (for example) free range chicken farming is 100% ethically sound. Otherwise, let’s stick to the topic of agriculture as a whole. If you want to have a chance to argue the ethics of veganism, you need to steelman meat-eating. You’re creating weaknesses in your own arguments by using points that most cattle ranchers already argue.
Propagandized takes depict cows roaming around lush green hills and such, but essentially anything appearing in a supermarket had absolutely nothing to do with this.
Of course not. Having cows roam in lush green hills is stupid. They don’t care about the color of the hills. Free range cattle roam around on non-arable land and eat the grasses and weeds that will grow anywhere. I often get to see the cows and pigs I’ll someday eat living pretty damn good lives. I’ve got dairy industry in my family, so I’m not “making shit up”. I’ll re-offer my point above. Agree that some meat eating is ethical and I will happily focus on the topic of industrial farming and where to draw that line. At that point, I’m sure we’ll find some common ground, and some disagreements.
On top of that there’s the actual reality of the incredible resource (read: water, fossil fuels) usage associated with animal agriculture because it’s inherently wasteful at scale
That is its own topic, and short of a magic bullet that doesn’t exist that particular thread can’t put a dent in ethics arguments. I think you either need to decide whether to concede the ethics topic we’ve already started and we’ll pivot to ecology, or stick with the topic at hand.
See earlier point about short-term vs. long-term, except extended to the entire species. We would surely not enjoy an extinction event.
And this is where you sorta walked into your own magic bullet analysis. Care to provide that magic bullet that dairy and meat will destroy humanity and individuals cutting out dairy/meat will save humanity? The farming industry I consume has the same carbon/methane footprint it had prior to the industrial era. Yet again, let’s stick to the topic shall we?
Agriculture refers to both animal and non-animal ag. Hence the prefix “animal” for “animal agriculture”.
“Huge negatives for animals involved” is the reality of industrial agriculture, which provides the vast majority of meat (animal products in general) for human consumption today. To your later point, “free range” is typically what’s referred to as “greenwashing”, where a company has to meet some bare-minimum criteria to get a stamp on their product. E.g., the USDA criteria for “free range” re: eggs:
Eggs packed in USDA grademarked consumer packages labeled as free range must be produced by hens that are able to roam vertically and horizontally in indoor houses, and have access to fresh food and water, and continuous access to the outdoors during their laying cycle.
Re: cigarettes - it should be clear I’m referring to net negative “utility”.
Just look at relative average stress levels of farm animals compared to humans.
Don’t know what your methodology is for determining this. Separation trauma at birth, confined spaces and health hazards from living in waste are not a formula for stress-free living.
Ecology is not a distinct topic from ethics. Ecological outcomes have pronounced effects on human and animal experience. I alluded to this already.
Care to provide that magic bullet that dairy and meat will destroy humanity and individuals cutting out dairy/meat will save humanity?
Estimates on greenhouse gas emissions seem to converge at roughly 20-25% for animal agriculture, with roughly a 10x increase over more efficient plant agriculture. A comparable increase holds for water usage, fertilizer usage, etc., due to the caloric loss intrinsic to producing feed for animals versus consuming plant agriculture products directly. Part of the problem with this interpretation is that, even if you’re only consuming actual “free range”, chickens-walking-around-outdoors-pecking-bugs, cows-roaming-grasslands-nondestructively animal agriculture, the actual vast majority of animal agriculture does not fit this profile. (Side note, it is remarkable how almost everyone you talk to about this only eats the “free range” “humanely produced” animal products, when the vast majority of the products are not). The negative effects of animal ag on animals are less pronounced in non-confined spaces, but still fit the profile of exploitation for human use at negative benefit for humans relative to plant consumption.
Your central point seems to be that the benefit derived from eating animals for humans outweighs negligible negative effects on animals in an isolated best-world case of free range, “humane slaughter” scenarios. I would dispute that it’s a net positive for humans in the first place, and you’re basically putting the actual vast majority of animal agriculture in a special category you get to ignore because, supposedly, there are negligible or no negative effects on the animals that you consume. Which, first off, I doubt, but second, hits the ethical question of killing, which bears mentioning the ethics we apply to humans on these grounds. We do not consider it ethically acceptable to kill a random human walking down the street, of your own volition. Why? Something like, the trauma that their family/friends/acquaintances would endure, and the cost of denying them the rest of their life. For some reason these same points are not held true of animals? You may deny that they experience such trauma, but that would be incorrect. And the cost of denying them the rest of their life is undeniable.
I’m going to back him on this (crazy right?!?). If I am arguing that “having life” is utility (which I did, by directly confronting anti-natalism before he could bring it up), he has the right to include the utility of existing in his argument.
He did not, however, actually make an argument with it. He kinda shot that one out without any real direction.
Agriculture refers to both animal and non-animal ag. Hence the prefix “animal” for “animal agriculture”.
Are you really arguing definitions of words meaninglessly? “Animal agriculture” is an awkwardly long term for what they call “agriculture” in the industry.
“Huge negatives for animals involved” is the reality of industrial agriculture, which provides the vast majority of meat
Yet again, either address the argument directly or concede the argument and I’ll be happy to change topic.
To your later point, “free range"
Thank you for reminding me I know what “Free range” means. Did you have an argument?
Re: cigarettes - it should be clear I’m referring to net negative “utility”.
Well then, you didn’t provide an argument at all. Just an indefensible analogy. Care to provide an argument instead?
Just look at relative average stress levels of farm animals compared to humans. Don’t know what your methodology is for determining this
Simplest answer is to look at stress-response. Humans and primates have more stress-related illnesses. There are those who think it’s because animals handle the stress better, but it at least prima facie demonstrates that animals don’t suffer from long-term stress like humans do. Further, just look at wildlife vs domestic animal stress. Farm animals show less stress factors than wild animals (who show less stress factors than humans). It’s a selfish thing, but animal meat tastes better if they are stressed less, therefore it is of value to farmers to keep the animal stress down.
Ecology is not a distinct topic from ethics. Ecological outcomes have pronounced effects on human and animal experience. I alluded to this already.
Do you know what gishgallop is, and why it’s intellectually dishonest? I’m not going to let you keep widening the net until it’s impossible to have a stance regardless of the real strength to my arguments and lack of strength to yours.
Estimates on greenhouse gas emissions seem to converge at roughly 20-25% for animal agriculture, with roughly a 10x increase over more efficient plant agriculture
This is why I’m trying to avoid the topic swap. This is NOT a magic bullet. Not only that, but it introduces a mountain of logical fallacies that’ll take hours to argue out. Again, I’m happy to address it when we have resolved ALL THE OTHER TOPICS that have already been brought up. If I am wrong in my direct utility arguments, you don’t need to bring up the environment. If you need to bring up the environment, concede those points and we can move on to that topic.
So in summary, do you concede that:
Meat-eating is net-positive for consumers?
Non-industrial farming is net-positive utility for animals?
Farm Animal life is ethically better than wildlife and anti-natalism?
If so, great. I’ll be happy to move on to the environmental impact challenges. If not, then let’s get back to the topic at hand shall we?
Thank you for the discussion, for whatever it was.
I’m assuming you thought I didn’t know what I was addressing, and instead realized I’m fairly well-acquainted with it. I did try to warn you of that fact.
The issue with veganism is not that there’s no arguments for it (there are some). It’s that there’s plenty of arguments for meat-eating that are just as good… and that so many vegans aren’t willing to take those arguments seriously.
I’ve read this reply in so many forms over the years, and it absolutely misses the point. It’s not misogynistic, the point isn’t to downgrade human women, it’s to point out the horrendous inhuman actions we do to animals and how they absolutely fail the basic moral reasoning we apply to ourselves.
wow the absolute irony of this statement being downvoted. Turn it around and it would be, rightfully, absolutely shat on for being misogynistic to the max.
even if not intended you do downgrade human women. Even in the best case scenario a cow is still incapable of holding a conversation on a human level. There are very few animals that can hold a candle to our intellect and by claiming you should treat human women the same as an animal incapable of higher conversation you ARE insulting them and downgrading them.
Don’t confuse you not being able to obtain consent from them, with them having an inability to not want something. This speaks to you having no clue what’s going on in their heads.
An animal can indicate things to a human, i.e., “I want food”, “please scratch me”, or “where is my baby that you just took away”. They can’t sign their name on a legally binding contract but that doesn’t mean they’re incapable of wanting or not wanting something. There is a connection between the two things, namely that their sentient experience involves wants and non-wants, likes and dislikes, joy and trauma.
I bought a color brother laser printer 3…almost 4 years ago. It still has the toner that came with it. We use it probably 1-3 times a week. Still going strong. Still plenty of toner left.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.