Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
Most people don’t use critical reasoning to make their decisions, hence why most people live their lives in a state of constant contradictions.
My old philosophy professor once told us that the most effective way to expose somebody’s lack of critical reasoning about an issue is to just respond with, “who says?”
Basically the Socratic method, ask them to justify the statements they make, and see how they respond. The vast majority of the time, you’ll quickly find out that they don’t have any good reasons to support their statements. They haven’t given them much thought at all, nor much thought to differing views/positions. They live their lives in ways that feel generally “correct” or pleasurable to them, and that’s it.
Why do they think it’s alright to eat factory farmed meat? Because they like the taste, the thought of billions of animals living short, miserable lives, then being slaughtered and processed for us to consume doesn’t horrify or disgust them, so they keep doing it.
Most people when challenged on it will put up some vague attempt to support their actions, “Other animals do it to each other, so why not us?” “Animals don’t have sophisticated minds, so it doesn’t actually cause them real suffering.” “Humans need animal protein to be healthy.” etc. All terribly weak arguments that are easily refuted. But most people don’t care, because most societies normalize meat consumption and factory farming. They grew up eating meat with other people eating meat all around them, and they never gave it any thought.
Hence why most pet owners who eat meat would be absolutely horrified and disgusted if their dog or cat had a litter and somebody bought all of the puppies/kittens, only to torture, slaughter, and eat them. A completely inconsistent reaction given the fact that the pet owner happily eats other animals that are treated in the same way. But again, they didn’t reason themselves into their viewpoint, so they don’t worry about being consistent.
This is further confirmed by anecdotes from vegetarians/vegans, who will tell you about all the awkward, unprompted reactions from meat-eaters when they find out they don’t eat meat. Many people get very defensive, often making snide or accusatory remarks about vegetarianism/veganism. They don’t like the idea that eating factory meat is morally wrong, because they like the taste and don’t want to make to effort to change their lifestyle to confirm with that moral principle. So they mock, tease, or try to “expose” inconsistencies in the vegetarian/vegan’s own worldview as a defense mechanism.
If they can make the vegetarian/vegan look foolish, then that feels like a win psychologically to them, which provides mental and emotional comfort and allows them to slip back into their lifestyle without needing to confront their own moral failings.
“Other animals do it to each other, so why not us?” “Animals don’t have sophisticated minds, so it doesn’t actually cause them real suffering.” “Humans need animal protein to be healthy.” etc. All terribly weak arguments that are easily refuted.
if you care to articulate these refutations, i’d be fascinated to see how strong your arguments are.
It’s like how soldier rapists are bad, but soldier murderers get a medal.
Humans are fundamentally absurd, no exceptions
Because they benefit from eating animals (they enjoy eating them) whereas they don’t benefit from having sex with animals (they don’t enjoy having sex with animals).
Speak for your self buddy!
This is exactly why many indigenous cultures put an emphasis on thanking the animal for their meat.
Everybody’s gotta eat, but not everyone’s gotta fuck a dog
I think their point is that there are options to not eat the dog either.
While klling an animal for food is sure destructive for the animal, it is constructive for the humanity. It allows us to get all those proteins “for free” instead of producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do and invest the saved energy in our intelligence to create beautiful and complex things. Whereas copulating with an animal is pure destruction. It harms the living being and leads to no babies and no emotional bond strengthening (contrary to human sex).
Eating animal is still a contradiction, because destruction is there. So I think this problem does need to be somehow overcome. But at least it’s outweighed by its positive effects, unlike zoophilia.
We literally grow food to feed to animals. And then we have to spend time hearding the animals moving. Slaughtering is a decently evolved process (I think). They don’t give us the meet for free, we have to put effort to take it.
Eh…
The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review
It’s simple, actually.
The number of people who like to eat animals is larger than the number people who like to, that.
On a significant level this is basically it.
I don’t believe moral facts exist and so every permissible behaviour ultimately is affected by societal expectations as well as individual inclination.
People clutch pearls over anything and everything but it’s interesting to observe how what was a pearl clutching behaviour previously (I.e. showing some ankle in Victorian era England) is now not even a concern.
From what I’ve been told by rape victims, I’d much rather be murdered.
Who do you personally consider a bigger criminal?
- Human murdering other animal without their consent?
- Human raping other animal without their consent?
(We are making judgments solely based on the animal’s perspective. So we can’t include disingenuous human arguments like “They died a noble death for our survival”.)
raping an animal is still worse. Morally, killing animals is bad but it does provide a method of survival wether it’s moral or amoral, raping an animal is just a sick and twisted desire that is not only gross and unnatural but also does not provide any method for survival, so while no it’s not noble like your premise claims the argument to be it’s just seem as societally gross for a good reason.
From the animal’s perspective, you could argue rape continues their species and therefor is natural like killing, cannibalism etc. but that doesn’t change the dynamic between humans and animals. To the animal, dying is death and it’s something every living thing has to do, getting raped/rape is not
HIV exists because someone had intercourse with a chimpanzee so that might be a part of it.
I’m not aware of that being a prominent theory honestly. I thought the most popular theory was actually that HIV exists because of the hunting and butchering of simians with SIV
Why do so many vegans seek conflict instead of educating others? It’s pretty clear that this post seeks solely to declare non-vegans hypocrites.
Good idea using your shit-stirring alt for this one though.
Carnists: Murder, rape, torture, slavery
Vegans: Once in a blue moon literally just saying something about it in public
One of these is immoral. You’ll be shocked at which this boomer reference username thinks it is!
no one is murdering, torturing, rapping, or enslaving animals
“It doesn’t count because we use different words”
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Using the word carnist is like screaming “I am a huge asshole and I think I’m superior”. I won’t be seeing your replies.
Ps. Hilarious you think anything from the 90s is for boomers. You’re just telling me you’re an awkward gen z
Dick Tracy, famous pulp comic from the 1990s
I won’t be seeing your replies.
I’M NOT CIS I’M NORMAL REEEEEEEEEEE
(They’re afraid of talking to someone with above a 5th grade vocabulary)
I have no mischievous intent against any group. I just saw some moral inconsistency. So I though let’s AskLemmy about their opinion on this topic. People are answering pretty rationally and are not just outright dismissive.
Your question is clearly dismissive itself. I have no reason to think it’s in good faith, especially considering you seem to only post from this account rarely and to stir up shit
Their responses are clear and methodical, giving the impression that OP is genuinely trying to discuss a potentially-tricky subject in a calm, rational manner. If they were here to “stir up shit,” surely they’d be responding in a way that encourages more drama. From the evidence, I don’t believe that’s their intent at all.
Sometimes people want to discuss difficult topics, even if there’s a risk of people taking it the wrong way. I’d say OP’s doing a decent job encouraging civility, and that’s something I wish we could see more of online.
I am sorry for making you feel this way.
One is torture.
The other is a means of survival.
It’s acceptable to kill for survival.
It’s not acceptable to torture and hurt for sexual gratification that can be gained solo with no one else involved.
I get what you mean, but as somebody that hasn’t eaten meet in 35 years I would argue its not needed for survival.
You do not need meat to survive lmao. You eat it because you like it, at least be honest with yourself
- Zoophilia is Rape (sex without consent)
- Killing animal is Murder .
In both cases we should be considering animal’s perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can’t just involve human’s perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don’t think so.
none of it is about consent anyway. it doesn’t even make sense. do you get consent from doors before you jam a key in them, open them, and put your whole body through them?
You can’t compare living animals with inanimate objects. “Animals can’t consent” is a strong argument given against zoophilia. I want you look at the social inconsistent values; where killing animal without their consent is accepted but copulating with animal is condemned by giving the argument that “Animals can’t consent”. Here the consent is inconsistent and getting used for convenience. [Necrophilia is also condemned on the basis of corpses’ inability to consent.]
You can’t compare living animals with inanimate objects.
in regards to whether discussing consent makes any sense, yes I can.
as everyone else has explained, the objection isn’t about consent but aesthetics. you’ve made a strawman.
I disagree. As I understood it, their point was that an animal is a living thing capable of having feelings about a situation and a door is an inanimate object with no feelings or thoughts at all. Dogs can suffer PTSD from being mistreated but a door has no such capacity.
That would make the first comment a false equivalence and their rebuttal valid. In turn we must either present a better equivalent or justify the validity of the original statement.
the capacity to have feelings has nothing to do with he capacity to consent.
Different taboos in different places, I guess.
