You can be vegan for many reason - climate change being among them. However, if you’re in it for the ethics side of things, it’s less important and just an added bonus. In this case, it’s clear from context that climate change is not in focus right now but the parallel between unjustifiably killing people and animals and their legality.
Can you cite where they mentioned that ? Either it’s in another post or they did not. They explicitly talk about genocide, so probably more about animal rights than climate action.
Animal rights doesn’t fit genocide because there’s no mass extinction. For instance there’s more cows and chickens today than any other point in history
Climate change fits genocide because there’s mass extinction. Whole ecosystems wiped out so we can drive to the next city
I think that’s a bit pedantic. When talking about the genocide of animals it’s generally in the context of their suffering, not in the context of climate change.
Killing them by itself is not “bad” for the climate, but having too many of them and having them take up loads of resources is.
Plus there may not be extinction because we keep breeding them, but the number of animals slaughtered every year would put the Holocaust to shame if we held animals into higher regard than currently (hence this topic being brought up)
Wrong about what ? It being a genocide?
Is being semantically right the only thing that matters?
Even if we agree the term genocide is not correct, why would this point be irrelevant in a discussion about lawfulness and morality?
Edit: Thinking about, it would be more akin to slavery, but that’s still very much in line with the op
I feel like the other person forgot what the entire original original post is about. It’s all about “just because something is legal doesn’t mean its good” and this other person is like “killing animals isn’t genocide” but the whole idea is “killing animals is legal, but that doesn’t make it right”. What’s that other person on about lol
The Holocene extinction event has been going for millenia. Every acre of farmland is an acre where wild animals can’t live. There’s more cows but the aurochs are gone. There’s more cats but they kill the birds. We genocide native species in favor of domesticated species.
Bringing up climate change doesn’t relate to the topic at hand
It’s fine to use it supplementally to legality vs morality but not as a standalone argument
You can be vegan for many reason - climate change being among them. However, if you’re in it for the ethics side of things, it’s less important and just an added bonus. In this case, it’s clear from context that climate change is not in focus right now but the parallel between unjustifiably killing people and animals and their legality.
Who brought up climate change ?
The person talking about animal genocide
Can you cite where they mentioned that ? Either it’s in another post or they did not. They explicitly talk about genocide, so probably more about animal rights than climate action.
https://lemmy.ca/post/37769505/14075891
Animal rights doesn’t fit genocide because there’s no mass extinction. For instance there’s more cows and chickens today than any other point in history
Climate change fits genocide because there’s mass extinction. Whole ecosystems wiped out so we can drive to the next city
I think that’s a bit pedantic. When talking about the genocide of animals it’s generally in the context of their suffering, not in the context of climate change.
Killing them by itself is not “bad” for the climate, but having too many of them and having them take up loads of resources is.
Plus there may not be extinction because we keep breeding them, but the number of animals slaughtered every year would put the Holocaust to shame if we held animals into higher regard than currently (hence this topic being brought up)
Then they are wrong on top of being irrelevant
Wrong about what ? It being a genocide?
Is being semantically right the only thing that matters?
Even if we agree the term genocide is not correct, why would this point be irrelevant in a discussion about lawfulness and morality?
Edit: Thinking about, it would be more akin to slavery, but that’s still very much in line with the op
I feel like the other person forgot what the entire original original post is about. It’s all about “just because something is legal doesn’t mean its good” and this other person is like “killing animals isn’t genocide” but the whole idea is “killing animals is legal, but that doesn’t make it right”. What’s that other person on about lol
See my original comment
It can be used as an example but not standalone as an argument
The Holocene extinction event has been going for millenia. Every acre of farmland is an acre where wild animals can’t live. There’s more cows but the aurochs are gone. There’s more cats but they kill the birds. We genocide native species in favor of domesticated species.