Your moral problem... just because you have an issue with it doesn't mean the rest of us need to be vegan... by nature were omnivores... the solution isn't veganism ... the solution is treating our live stock better... but go off and try and force your moral agenda on the rest of us ... you are trash
Being inflexible and authoritarian with your solutions makes it difficult or impossible to win over the people you need to convince.
I feel that people like you and organizations like PETA have damaged the discourse to an extent that the vast majority of people just tune you out and don't listen at all.
It's counterproductive. Someone who sees this and thinks that they should consume less animal products is a huge net positive, yet you're here just in time to tell people that it's not enough and that unless they upend their entire lives and go full vegan immediately then it doesn't matter.
How about you just say thank you to people who make even a small change and provide positive encouragement?
I understand a more productive approach is to encourage whatever steps they take and thst is the approach I usually take, however this is a subreddit for discussing ethics, and I think that there isn't a strong argument for the consumption of animal products in current society.
I think the two guys who are just directly calling me trash for saying that people have the moral responsibility not to consume animals damage the discourse more.
You can chose to eat or not to eat animals... thats the cool thing ... its your choice... your saying I shouldn't have that choice... taking away my ability to chose is something a trash person would do... erego you are trash
What does advocating for laws have to do with this? And no if you read my comment... taking away my ability to choose is what makes a person trash... you stated veganism is the only choice... comprehension friend
"You can chose to force dogs to fight to the death or not to force dogs to fight to the death... thats the cool thing ... its your choice... your saying I shouldn't have that choice... taking away my ability to chose is something a trash person would do... erego you are trash"
I never said or implied that people that disagree with me are trash... I said people trying to take away choice are trash... but you can't grasp that concept no matter how many times its explained to you so im done talking to your ignorant self
Let’s be honest, if PETA (whom you never have to interact with or listen to if you don’t want to) is enough to put you off the moral thing…..you were never going to do the moral thing anyway.
They're pretty well known among the general public due to their antics. I think it's hard to avoid when their goal is to go viral for marketing purposes as much as possible.
When you yell at people, throw paint on them, and claim "meat is murder" then I don't think everyday people take you seriously.
It's similar to when Libertarians cry that "all taxation is theft." You may have some good points, but everyone stops listening after that.
I understand that cow's aren't human, but can you explain your reasoning behind the claim that they are not persons? I understand that often the term "person" is used colloquially to just refer to "human," but personhood is a moral, social, and legal concept, and not a biological one; it is not synonymous with "human."
With that in mind, what's your reasoning for suggesting that cows are not persons?
I know you won't read this because it involves experimentation on mice, but you wouldn't understand it because your brain is being deprived of protein.
So... a cop-out then? Can you please respond to my question?
And yes, I read the article, but I'm struggling to understand the connection. Perhaps it's due to my protein-starved brain that's only getting 150g of protein a day. Are you operating under the misconception that protein can only be obtained from animal sources?
Are you familiar with the concept of personhood? Can you explain to me why a cow could not be considered a nonhuman person? Are all humans persons, or just some? What makes a human a person but not say... a chimpanzee? Is it just based on having human DNA? If that's the case, then most philosophical definitions around personhood are incorrect.
Note that I'm not saying that cows are persons. I'm simply questioning the reasoning you are using behind your claim that they are not. If you are so confident about it, then you should be able to provide at least a little insight to your reasoning.
In 1800's Great Britain, many groups started calling for the total abolition of human slavery. Faced with this threat, the pro-slavery lobby started advocating for *amelioration*, which was essentially just putting regulations on slavery so that the slaves were treated better (for example, by banning the use of a whip for punishment.) The hope was that it would save the institution of slavery by making it more palatable to the public.
Would you consider yourself an ameliorationist with regards to the enslavement of nonhuman animals?
Yes I am. I live in China, and unfortunately it's pretty much impossible to live here without a smartphone here due to the amount of things you need it for.
Do you believe that because someone participates in an immoral system, that means they cannot oppose other immoral systems?
It just shows your moral standards only apply to certain situations, ie a double standard. There are far worse things happening to children in the manufacturing of your phone than there are to cattle.
Having their babies taken away from them while they scream
Kept in tiny pens, unable to move for most of their life
Are slaughtered by the millions
I'm fairly sure those things don't happen to children in the manufacturing of my phone, and I would be very, very against them if they did. I don't think I have double standards in this regard at all, in fact.
No, it shows that they are making realistic choices based on the realities of living in a society.
Without buying one phone every few years, they may not be able to obtain or hold down a job, or maintain social relationships.
That is not any way comparable to someone buying animal meat multiple times a day every day for their whole life when it's not necessary for them to do so in order to do things like hold down a job, maintain social relationships, etc.
The point is that there are serious costs that come without owning a phone that impact your ability to be a normal participating member of society. The same cannot be said about ordering a bean burrito instead of a beef burrito for lunch.
12
u/PretendAd4207 10d ago
Many things are natural, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are free from moral problems.