You gotta let people be people. Shaming someone for their dietary choices is not cool. Not everyone shares the same beliefs and that is fine.
I personally believe that people should not eat meat unless they have what it takes to kill it themselves so they understand what goes into it. Too many people eat meat all the time without understanding that something has to die for it to get there. I also disagree with mass agribusiness indoor livestock operations.
Some beliefs lead to immoral outcomes. I’m absolutely certain you can think of quite a few beliefs like that, right? Just picture a hill billy from Alabama, are all his beliefs fine?
In the end, morals is applied ethics, and politics is applied morals. We absolutely should legislate and not tolerate bad beliefs. The vague idea that “everyone has their own belief/opinion and we have to respect it” is a thought terminating cliche that makes the world a worse place. My dad wants me to respect his antivax beliefs, my grandfather wants me to respect his climate change denialism beliefs. Should I?
Well said, I’m glad to finally meet someone with your views that is able to express themselves.
I would say no to your question as those beliefs are contradicting science and they could cause harm to people. My beliefs do not contradict established science. I would also point out that not all rural Appalachian people are bigots, but I understand the point you were making with it. The difference in our views is that I don’t see animals as people. I understand their intelligent, and I believe some may be sentient such as elephants and whales. I am against killing elephants and whales.
If you are curious to see it from my perspective, participate in a somewhat poor analogy. Imagine someone came out and said they believe that killing a tree is the same as committing murder, that trees are people. After all, we have proven that they communicate with other trees and with mycelium in very complex and even selfless ways, probably to an even higher degree than we have yet discovered. This person is adamant that the trees are being oppressed and that we need to stop farming trees for paper products. They say that you are a bad person for causing unnecessary suffering and destruction to trees. But imagine that you disagree with them, you do not see trees as people. You understand that trees are living and communicating and you would like to see less cut down, but you still use them for firewood to heat your house. You see it as no less humane to grow them and cut them down than it is to let them die from burning to death or being eaten alive by bugs or disease.
Not the best example, and there are plenty of holes you could point out of you feel so inclined, but hopefully the core of it can grant atleast a small glimpse into how I see the issue we are discussing.
More info on the trees talking thing. I find it fascinating that they have a whole complex economy going on underground, trading and even investing resources. DYK that as a last act when a tree is dying, it gives its resources to saplings that are of a different species than itself before it goes. There’s some good podcast on it “radiolab, from tree to shining tree”. Also an quick Google search article.
https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/underground-mycorrhizal-network
There is an obvious difference between kicking a puppy and cutting a tree. Trees do not have brains. Trees also cant move to get away from a predator, so why would they develop emotions we have? As complicated as my right hand is, it isnt sentient.
I see what you are saying about digging holes, there are a lot of arguments we could go on but the issue doesn’t need to be overcomplicated. The animal industry absolutely is terrible for sentient beings and terrible for the environment, and being vegan vastly reduces the plants or animals we kill.
Neuroscience agrees that other mammals and birds are able to experience suffering. They feel pain and stress and fear. The majority agrees they are conscious of their emotions even. To ignore that is a conscious decision on your side. You decide their suffering is worth it, but you don’t want people to confront you with it because it makes you uncomfortable. How ironic.
When someones dietary choice causes huge amounts of needless suffering and death to the victim (the innocent animal that was exploited and killed) then that’s not “fine”. That’s a serious injustice that should be pointed out (at the very least)
i know this may be a shock but fish haven’t reached the industrialization part of civilization yet. they do not have the capabilities to grow crops and harvest them and make dishes
Think about the argument you’re making here: “Wild animals do X, therefore humans should be allowed to do X”.
I hope you understand how horrible this argument is. Here’s a fun little list of things animals do:
Why do you think I was talking about the legal framework? We take active measures in stopping animals from eating humans. You could make an argument that we even punish animals when they do eat a human, granted we have a chance to do that. Bears, wolves and dogs are shot regularly, after they have attacked a human. Sharks also have been killed when it was thought that they actively prey on humans. We do not allow it.
When you want to talk about laws it is considered murder to slaughter a person as feed for animals. It is also considered murder to kill a person to eat them. Murdering people is forbidden by law.
I mean, animals take active steps to stop humans eating them too. We even have laws to protect species of animals that have killed humans. Tiger hunting, as an example, is illegal.
Honestly, we’re much nicer to animals than animals are to us or they are to other animals.
Nothing like going to my local farm and eating their meat while watching a movie about how GOOD the meat I’m eating is because some other meat is so terrible.
Thanks for the idea :) I’m gonna bring it up for the next local farm-to-table
Let people be doesn’t apply when it involves harming someone else. The harm done to animals is unnecessary violence and cruelty to living thinking beings.
That is your belief. I respect it. My mom is a vegetarian and I respect her beliefs, she would cook meat for us as she respected ours.
To me, the world has been eating itself since the beginning of life. Wild animals die horrible slow deaths from sickness to starvation over the course of days/weeks to being eaten alive or left to die, and that is the natural way of things. If you want to live you have to die. You don’t have to agree with me, but you should accept that different people see things differently than you.
I don’t expect a person at the bottom of the economic scale to feed their family with expensive alternatives that they don’t understand, and you should’t shame them for doing the best they can with what they have or what they know. If someone has the means to eat along with their beliefs, then more power to them. But shaming others is not the way.
Lead by example. Offer affordable alternatives, give positive publicity, not negative publicity, to let people see how your way can be good. Allow people to see your way. Don’t force them or they’ll just dig in deeper on their own beliefs.
Animals are being slaughtered they want to live. I respect your belief that the rock music is not garbage not your beliefs others should die for your sensory pleasure. Not consuming animal products is not an expensive luxury at all its way cheaper than meat and dairy and that would be magnified if the subsidies stopped.
If you believe that then you should work to change people’s minds, like actually research how to do that. The way you currently approach it will only make people disagree with you out of spite. Good luck to you.
Some people really think being a good example of the product of their beliefs and being obnoxiously obtuse and argumentative about their beliefs are equally effective at persuading others to think like them.
I can tell you no person ever in the history of humanity was convinced by the latter.
Worse, if someone attempts to convince me of something I already think is wrong and uses an argument that I am convinced is flawed, they will only make me more sure I was right in the first place.
Those did challenge the oppressors for one they both had sticks like Malcolm x and the many assassinations of British leaders and other violent actions by Indian independence actors. You can’t just erase huge parts of those movements. Also MLK JR was very disruptive with sit ins and marches he was nonviolent yes but differently not coddling or non-disruptive.
How? Should anti nazi advocates never challenged nazi beliefs and instead say doing a little less genocide is okay. Should anti-colonial revolutionaries not responded with violence or direct action to force the colonizers to change and instead sent letters saying " I know you are people too you are activly harming me but I’m not going to fight against you we have to agree to disagree." Your point makes no sense.
If you help kill living beings out of spite then I’m not the problem. If nobody is challenged when they kill and oppress others they will never stop doing so.
You gotta let people be people. Shaming someone for their dietary choices is not cool. Not everyone shares the same beliefs and that is fine.
I personally believe that people should not eat meat unless they have what it takes to kill it themselves so they understand what goes into it. Too many people eat meat all the time without understanding that something has to die for it to get there. I also disagree with mass agribusiness indoor livestock operations.
Some beliefs lead to immoral outcomes. I’m absolutely certain you can think of quite a few beliefs like that, right? Just picture a hill billy from Alabama, are all his beliefs fine?
In the end, morals is applied ethics, and politics is applied morals. We absolutely should legislate and not tolerate bad beliefs. The vague idea that “everyone has their own belief/opinion and we have to respect it” is a thought terminating cliche that makes the world a worse place. My dad wants me to respect his antivax beliefs, my grandfather wants me to respect his climate change denialism beliefs. Should I?
Well said, I’m glad to finally meet someone with your views that is able to express themselves.
I would say no to your question as those beliefs are contradicting science and they could cause harm to people. My beliefs do not contradict established science. I would also point out that not all rural Appalachian people are bigots, but I understand the point you were making with it. The difference in our views is that I don’t see animals as people. I understand their intelligent, and I believe some may be sentient such as elephants and whales. I am against killing elephants and whales.
If you are curious to see it from my perspective, participate in a somewhat poor analogy. Imagine someone came out and said they believe that killing a tree is the same as committing murder, that trees are people. After all, we have proven that they communicate with other trees and with mycelium in very complex and even selfless ways, probably to an even higher degree than we have yet discovered. This person is adamant that the trees are being oppressed and that we need to stop farming trees for paper products. They say that you are a bad person for causing unnecessary suffering and destruction to trees. But imagine that you disagree with them, you do not see trees as people. You understand that trees are living and communicating and you would like to see less cut down, but you still use them for firewood to heat your house. You see it as no less humane to grow them and cut them down than it is to let them die from burning to death or being eaten alive by bugs or disease.
Not the best example, and there are plenty of holes you could point out of you feel so inclined, but hopefully the core of it can grant atleast a small glimpse into how I see the issue we are discussing.
More info on the trees talking thing. I find it fascinating that they have a whole complex economy going on underground, trading and even investing resources. DYK that as a last act when a tree is dying, it gives its resources to saplings that are of a different species than itself before it goes. There’s some good podcast on it “radiolab, from tree to shining tree”. Also an quick Google search article. https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/underground-mycorrhizal-network
There is an obvious difference between kicking a puppy and cutting a tree. Trees do not have brains. Trees also cant move to get away from a predator, so why would they develop emotions we have? As complicated as my right hand is, it isnt sentient.
I see what you are saying about digging holes, there are a lot of arguments we could go on but the issue doesn’t need to be overcomplicated. The animal industry absolutely is terrible for sentient beings and terrible for the environment, and being vegan vastly reduces the plants or animals we kill.
Neuroscience agrees that other mammals and birds are able to experience suffering. They feel pain and stress and fear. The majority agrees they are conscious of their emotions even. To ignore that is a conscious decision on your side. You decide their suffering is worth it, but you don’t want people to confront you with it because it makes you uncomfortable. How ironic.
Lol it does not make me uncomfortable. Everything dies somehow, modern slaughterhouses are a lot more humane than mother nature.
When someones dietary choice causes huge amounts of needless suffering and death to the victim (the innocent animal that was exploited and killed) then that’s not “fine”. That’s a serious injustice that should be pointed out (at the very least)
Wait, fish can eat other fish, but I can’t? How’s that fair?
animals in the wild do a lot of unethical shit
Monsters, all of them. Someone should eat them, just to keep the others safe.
i know this may be a shock but fish haven’t reached the industrialization part of civilization yet. they do not have the capabilities to grow crops and harvest them and make dishes
I mean, meat is still murder, right?
So you’re using the “Lions rape and murder, therefore it’s okay to do the same.” argument?
Weak.
Where do you stand on roe? Fish eggs.
Think about the argument you’re making here: “Wild animals do X, therefore humans should be allowed to do X”. I hope you understand how horrible this argument is. Here’s a fun little list of things animals do:
That’s your take on my argument. I haven’t extended it beyond the ethics of meat eating.
Than why am I not allowed to eat other humans? They are made out of meat, too. And why do we not allow animals to eat humans?
We do actually allow animals to eat humans. There is no law anywhere that forbids a shark from eating a person.
As for people eating people, it’s a cultural taboo, like putting your elbows on the dinner table.
Why do you think I was talking about the legal framework? We take active measures in stopping animals from eating humans. You could make an argument that we even punish animals when they do eat a human, granted we have a chance to do that. Bears, wolves and dogs are shot regularly, after they have attacked a human. Sharks also have been killed when it was thought that they actively prey on humans. We do not allow it.
When you want to talk about laws it is considered murder to slaughter a person as feed for animals. It is also considered murder to kill a person to eat them. Murdering people is forbidden by law.
I mean, animals take active steps to stop humans eating them too. We even have laws to protect species of animals that have killed humans. Tiger hunting, as an example, is illegal.
Honestly, we’re much nicer to animals than animals are to us or they are to other animals.
I’ll be thinking of you while I eat my steak today
I won’t think about you at all.
Watch dominion while you eat
Nothing like going to my local farm and eating their meat while watching a movie about how GOOD the meat I’m eating is because some other meat is so terrible.
Thanks for the idea :) I’m gonna bring it up for the next local farm-to-table
Let people be doesn’t apply when it involves harming someone else. The harm done to animals is unnecessary violence and cruelty to living thinking beings.
That is your belief. I respect it. My mom is a vegetarian and I respect her beliefs, she would cook meat for us as she respected ours.
To me, the world has been eating itself since the beginning of life. Wild animals die horrible slow deaths from sickness to starvation over the course of days/weeks to being eaten alive or left to die, and that is the natural way of things. If you want to live you have to die. You don’t have to agree with me, but you should accept that different people see things differently than you.
I don’t expect a person at the bottom of the economic scale to feed their family with expensive alternatives that they don’t understand, and you should’t shame them for doing the best they can with what they have or what they know. If someone has the means to eat along with their beliefs, then more power to them. But shaming others is not the way.
Lead by example. Offer affordable alternatives, give positive publicity, not negative publicity, to let people see how your way can be good. Allow people to see your way. Don’t force them or they’ll just dig in deeper on their own beliefs.
Animals are being slaughtered they want to live. I respect your belief that the rock music is not garbage not your beliefs others should die for your sensory pleasure. Not consuming animal products is not an expensive luxury at all its way cheaper than meat and dairy and that would be magnified if the subsidies stopped.
If you believe that then you should work to change people’s minds, like actually research how to do that. The way you currently approach it will only make people disagree with you out of spite. Good luck to you.
Some people really think being a good example of the product of their beliefs and being obnoxiously obtuse and argumentative about their beliefs are equally effective at persuading others to think like them.
I can tell you no person ever in the history of humanity was convinced by the latter.
Worse, if someone attempts to convince me of something I already think is wrong and uses an argument that I am convinced is flawed, they will only make me more sure I was right in the first place.
No injustice was ever corrected by coddling the oppressors.
Except for the civil rights movement. Or Indian independence under Ghandi.
Those did challenge the oppressors for one they both had sticks like Malcolm x and the many assassinations of British leaders and other violent actions by Indian independence actors. You can’t just erase huge parts of those movements. Also MLK JR was very disruptive with sit ins and marches he was nonviolent yes but differently not coddling or non-disruptive.
You’re doing the thing that creates the opposite world you wanna live in again.
How? Should anti nazi advocates never challenged nazi beliefs and instead say doing a little less genocide is okay. Should anti-colonial revolutionaries not responded with violence or direct action to force the colonizers to change and instead sent letters saying " I know you are people too you are activly harming me but I’m not going to fight against you we have to agree to disagree." Your point makes no sense.
Who is being oppressed? Are you not free to perdue your own dietary choices?
The animals are being oppressed.
If you help kill living beings out of spite then I’m not the problem. If nobody is challenged when they kill and oppress others they will never stop doing so.
Also who are you to tell me how to argue for animal liberation given whats been tried before has obviously not worked on you.