this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
554 points (76.2% liked)
Memes
45750 readers
1305 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How is being against the mass slaughter of sentient beings "naive"?
I disagree with the comment on the point about it being a leftist naivety, but it is naïve nonetheless. Life feeds on life and all that. That they're sentient doesn't matter, some people argue plants are sentient too (not that I necessarily agree)
Plants aren't capable of feeling pain and are not capable of subjectivity all science currently supports this. Even if you thought plants are sentient (they are not) the best way to lessen plant harm would include as a key precipice the end of animal agriculture.
Oh man, do I have some bad news for you...
Plants CAN feel pain.
You not understanding the pain or finding a way to measure the pain does not mean there is no pain.
This study shows nothing but plants respond to stimulus without a brain or nervous system to classify this is a pain response is reaching. Noting that the person interviewed in that article is a philosopher not a scientist and interprets that study very loosely. As I said already though even if you cede this ground you shouldn't you just wind up at eliminating animal agriculture to lessen the "suffering" of plants as well as animals.
That one article, yes, but there are more. I trust you know how to use search, but: https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group-of-scientists-suggest-that-plants-feel-pain.htm We've known for a while that trees do this, and fungi are notorious for this.
You, like many users on this thread are ignoring the evidence because you don't like the outcome. You not understanding the pain does not mean no pain. Life for some means death for others. Period. You can not avoid it on a micro or macro scale, all you can do is change WHAT you kill.
Not even going to try to argue against my point that even if i ceded this ground you are still wrong?
I mean, just because you care about only pain you can see and understand, doesn't mean you have a leg to stand on argument-wise. Plants respond to warnings from their peers about dangers, brace for pain, and signal pain to others. You are factually and morally incorrect.
When allegiance becomes central to identity, simply acknowledging reality can feel like a personal defeat.
Again you just ignored my other point that even if you are right again scientifically that's a big if the broader idea to decrease deaths would still be to completely end animal agriculture.
Well, no, I didn't ignore anything. I disagree about the stance being valid from the get go and felt the point defeated.
Let me try again: You can lessen suffering, but you can not eliminate it. Your existence causes suffering. All existence does. Everything alive is only alive because it feeds off other living things who have their own way of existing. A suffering being a style you choose to not recognize is not only not a valid defence, it makes you just as guilty as those you attack.
Disregarding your more purposely inflammatory statements against other users and trying to stick to the logic of the situation, your stance has been "Being vegetarian / vegan is eliminating suffering and therefore should be the end goal." Is that not correct? I'm not arguing in bad faith like many here or making a shitty "bacon = good" joke. I want to make sure you're not being misinterpreted when I tell you that your argument is flawed and factually incorrect.
If you want to be vegan because you enjoy it? Go for it. That is inarguable.
If you want to be vegan because you feel it's healthier? Rock on. Go you. You may be right if you carefully monitor your diet. I would argue against it being better than vegetarian however.
If you want to be vegan because it's easier on the environment? Yup. You could make a good case that it would be better for the planet, but only because we're overpopulated. A smarter case to make would be for a reduction in humans. Being vegan is a very minor step of harm reduction compared to fewer people.
If you want to be vegan because you don't like factory farms? That's not a logical jump to make. There are plenty of smaller suppliers you can procure from that do not have those issues; the smarter jump is to just not use bad providers no matter what the product.
If you want to be vegan because it's eliminating suffering? Nope. You're just making substitutions for things you're comfortable with. Bad logic. Bad argument. You're also applying your own morals (because this is a moral standpoint) to other people, which is stupid no matter who is doing it. From anti-abortion activists to Muslim extremists, your morals apply to you and only you. Do not try to enforce them on the outside world.
If you want to be vegan because it eliminates death? That's also a moral argument. In fact, in the short term and per unit of death, being vegan adds MORE deaths, they're just not a style you choose to recognize. Not to mention that increasing the crop yields to make up for the caloric deficit created by meat vanishing would also potentially kill the planet at this stage of human occupation. Crops that are easy to grow, less destructive to the land so they can grow it again immediately after, low maintenance, and cast-offs from other production are where animal feed comes from. This stuff could not be fed to humans or are excess.
And the way you're going about it isn't helpful to your cause. A better outreach for you would be to use the Food subs and post legit great vegetarian food and entice people that way. Doing it this way will accomplish nothing of value unless you secretly work for a factory farm and want to piss people off so they eat more meat, in which case you are doing exactly what you should be in this thread.
Your are now arguing for malthusianism the human population isn't a problem. I want to be vegan because animals are people with lives of their own, who have families, who want to live and who have no real difference to humans. The fact that you are justifying the mass slaughter of people with nonsense arguments of word salad makes you a monster who nobody should ever love. Advocating the way you suggest wouldn't be fighting against the commodity status of animals all it would do is make some people consume minuscule less meat not stop the ongoing genocide. You are a monster.
W... what? Am I debating with an AI or something? Malthusianism was never invoke nor implied. The food supply is a finite resource. This isn't a debate. We live in an entropic reality. Period. You do not get to rewrite universal constants.
The argument was not nonsense, you've just moved the goalposts instead of acknowledging it. There was no justifying mass slaughter of people because animals are not people by any but the loosest of definitions (eg. the one you seem to operate on). You moving the goalposts of what constitutes the word "people" for political reasons does not magically make it so. I am wholly opposed to the political adjustment of words no matter who does it and for what reason it's done. It's intellectually dishonest and allows the mover to re-frame any argument however they see fit.
What if I did what you did? Well, now plants are people and you're psychotic. I've now re-recategorized animals to never be people. Okay, so now you're calling for genocide. Congrats! You've proved why word adjustments for political reasons is a shit idea. Now let's be grown-up about things, shall we?
As someone who has lived on a small farm for a good number of years and raised animals, you (and I) hold their lives in higher regard than they do. That is because you (maybe?) are a sentient being. Many animals have fewer sentience-indicating behaviours than trees do.
And tell my hamster how important family is. She ate six of her children on two separate occasions.
We make way more than enough food to feed everyone hell even everyone at the highest projected world population we will reach around 2050 its malthusian to advocate killing the poor to "control population of humans." Animals are people they have subjective experience wishes wants. You can't define people in a way to include humans and not other animals. Animals are sentient all science supports this that you deny it doesn't change it neither does your anecdote. Your hamster probably ate its young because its stressed you are enslaving it. I hope your murdering ass chokes and dies in agony,
Killing is only one way of reducing a population, and is not one I advocated for. You are becoming increasingly unhinged. The primary definition of "people" is "human beings in general or considered collectively." A second definition? "human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest."
No. Animals are not people. You are factually incorrect, bad at making points, and potentially psychotic. Take your meds.
You murdering monster