nutbutter"Being vegan is unnatural"
I mean, it’s not really bestiality if it isn’t sexual. A gynocological exam also isn’t fingering …
A gynaecologist “treats” the patient, benefitting the patient.
Forcibly impregnating someone is also called rape.
“someone”
Keyword.
It’s not rape if it’s your dog
That’s correct, yes.
However, my dog is my property, and someone can only artificially inseminate my property with my permission.
toomanypancakesWhat in the fuck
bearboiblakeAnti-vegans will go to any depths of depravity in order to deal with their cognitive dissonance. Once, on Reddit, I got a commenter to agree that he would be fine if someone had a dog in a cage they tortured for entertainment, rather than agree that it’s kinda fucked up that we slaughter animals because their flesh tastes nice.
Real question, what if there is no cognitive dissonance.
Like someone who knows exactly what’s going on and says “fuck it, it’s delicious” ?
I’d ask them to sit down and watch a documentary about the animal agriculture industry (such as Earthlings) to be sure they really do know the truth.
and then , once they acknowledge that ?
The reason i ask is that I’ve never heard an opinion from someone with the viewpoint it seems you hold talk about what they’d think in that situation.
and my follow up would be to ask why meat and not electronics (explained below) or textiles or megacorps ?
In general i struggle with why people place these ethical and moral rubicons in the places they do (i do mostly understand why the lines exist)
I mentioned in another comment about the horrific shit that goes in to basically all electronics (there are numerous documentaries and articles on the horrors of cobalt mining for instance) and it seems odd that people are ok with that but not the meat industry, or perhaps fine with both of those but draw the line at baby animals.
Again, i understand why the lines exist, it’s the seemingly arbitrary nature of where they are placed for different circumstances that eludes me.
I’m asking so i can gather opinions enough that hopefully i can understand, eventually
Honestly, if someone is truly aware of the horrors of the animal agriculture industry and is totally fine with it, I would be very, very surprised. I have never experienced anyone who genuinely thinks it’s okay. Most people take the position of, “yeah, it’s really terrible and I don’t like it, but…” which I have to live with because that’s most people, but even most of the people who agree it is terrible don’t really know the full truth and often they don’t want to let themselves find out, because they know in their heart if they truly understood how horrific the industry is, they would feel terrible every time they ate.
If someone genuinely thought it was OK, I would assume that they’re a sociopath. Not even in a bad way, necessarily, I have friends who are sociopaths, but I think that’s basically the only way you can lack the empathy.
For the follow-up question, there are a few reasons, I’ll outline a few of them, happy to discuss further, if you have questions then let me know.
I’m not saying that vegans shouldn’t advocate for ethical manufacture and disposal of electronics, I believe wholeheartedly that we should. But it’s impossible to have an entire industry for making baby animals, fattening them up, and slaughtering them so that we can make money from people who wish to consume their corpses. It is fucked up on the face of it. Melting metal, pouring it into moulds to make circuitry, etc. doesn’t hurt anyone directly, it’s capitalism and the drive for maximal profits which cause issues in electronics. I’m a huge proponent for the abolition of capitalism for this reason too.
Hope this helps <3
iamthetotI’m not okay with basically anything that occurs under capitalism, but I have limited time on this earth and I have to pick and choose my battles.
Sure, and that’s totally valid, nobody is saying you need to become an animal rights activist. I think everyone should try their best to live their values, and that’s what I do. It’s not about a quest for perfectionism or anything like that, just trying our best as little humans with limited power to make the world a better place.
Hope this helps <3
It does and your points are valid, but i’ll respond to a couple if you don’t mind.
Honestly, if someone is truly aware of the horrors of the animal agriculture industry and is totally fine with it, I would be very, very surprised.
As would i (outside of the sociopath possibility you also mention) , i was thinking more along the lines of people who fully understand and then accept it as something they can live with.
The comparisons of the meat industry to electronics i mostly agree with, except for this last part, not because it’s incorrect as such, i just didn’t provide enough context.
Melting metal, pouring it into moulds to make circuitry, etc. doesn’t hurt anyone directly, it’s capitalism and the drive for maximal profits which cause issues in electronics. I’m a huge proponent for the abolition of capitalism for this reason too.
I mentioned electronics because it’s easy for people to at least shallowly understand how much they use them, what’s not so obvious is the horrors of how they are produced, in a similar way to how people as a whole don’t really understand how the meat industry is run.
Long before the metal pouring and assembly you have the rare earth elements industry that uses horrific limb-removing slave work camps to extract these minerals. it’s not all of them, but it’s significantly more than zero.
There are also cartel like warlords involved in some of the extraction sites.
Think of it as a similar situation to conflict diamonds, but more entrenched and critical to nation state interests.
I mentioned cobalt because it’s the easiest to find credible documentaries, reports and discussions about, but it’s not just cobalt.
Honestly a lot of the big industries are supported by modern day slavery and inhumane conditions or experimentation, i would also assume that extends to the non-human animals as well but i can’t honestly speak to that.
Textiles (clothes, shoes, trainers), agriculture (avocado’s have cartels because of course they do, coffee), pharmaceuticals, non-meat food (chocolate for example).
I keep coming back to the phrase “There is no ethical consumerism under capitalism” which aligns with your stance on the abolition of capitalism, but i tend to think of it as there is no ethical consumerism in general (at least right now) because i can’t think of a way we could ethically overcome the sheer density of population using the level of logistical technology we have available and that’s not even taking into account the (subjective) apparent nature of how human’s deal with such large populations.
But me not being able to see how we make the jump from now to a post scarcity, fully equitable society is almost certainly just a failure of my imagination.
My main question is how do people seem to be able to decide they can live with limbless kid electronics but slave labour clothes are too far, cartel avocado’s are an unfortunate necessity but meat is monstrous.
I understand that not all of those things are equal and battles need to be picked but it doesn’t seem like the subjective severity is the deciding factor and how are the battles picked.
Thanks for the reply and for your ongoing civility, I really appreciate that you seem genuinely interested in having a conversation about this.
You don’t need to explain to me about the horrors of the electronics industry, I’ve been an activist opposing extractive industries since my teen years, but of course I’m glad you’re raising awareness of it. Heck in my recent comment history I was talking about how I am opposed to EV vehicles and advocating for (green) hydrogen fuel cells due to rare earth extractionism.
I believe that extractionism can never be perfect (i.e. it will always cause some harm) but it’s possible to have a mining industry without slavery, murder, etc. and which is ran as ethically as possible to minimize harm on individuals and the environment. As I mentioned in my last comment as well the disposal and recycling of electronics is a massive issue which also needs to be addressed, as well as disposable/single-use electronic products and planned obsolescence.
On the other hand, animal agriculture NEEDS animals to die, and it needs them to die on such a scale that we NEED an industrial approach. I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that an individual hunting animals to feed their family is somewhat ethical (this isn’t my position btw, just making the point for the sake of discussion), but that can’t really scale up and remain ethical. At a certain point you need to keep the animals in shitty living conditions because otherwise the supply/demand curve would make animal products inaccessibly expensive for regular consumption.
My main question is how do people seem to be able to decide they can live with limbless kid electronics but slave labour clothes are too far, cartel avocado’s are an unfortunate necessity but meat is monstrous.
For electronics, I think the biggest reason is the second one I mentioned: it’s not really possible to avoid them. Personally I always try to buy everything second hand that I can, especially electronics, but I don’t think it’s really fair or sustainable to expect everyone to do that, someone has to buy it new to begin with.
A better comparison is blood diamonds. They’re entirely optional and the ethical alternative is widely available and cheaper. I think you’d be well within your rights to say that a vegan who insists on blood diamonds is hypocritical. I don’t think a vegan using a second-hand cellphone is hypocritical. If they always buy the latest phone I would say that’s back to being hypocritical again.
And yeah, scale is a big factor. Over 150,000,000,000 animals are slaughtered in the animal agriculture industry every year. The scale is beyond staggering. Since becoming vegan nearly six years ago, according to the Cowculator app, my personal consumption has resulted in:
- 8,727,645 fewer litres of water used
- 42,783 fewer kilograms of grain used
- 5,842 fewer square meters of deforestation
- 19,015 fewer kilograms of CO₂
- 2,096 fewer animals slaughtered
The animal agriculture industry is one of the most polluting, most wasteful industries on the planet. It’s absolutely mind-warping once you get into the numbers.
watch a documentary
I love how vegans are literally always someone who fell for fake propaganda and never someone with real knowledge or experience of the agricultural industry. I watched several of my vegan friends do a 180 in vet school once they started internships and saw first hand how the animal industry operates, and realized their ex-conviction was based on sensationalized lies.
It’s amazing what people will refuse to comprehend when their salary depends on them not understanding it, isn’t it?
Link the blog
And dox this girl to a bunch of rabid extremist vegans on the internet? Yeah right. What a great idea.
Some people are just sociopathic and don’t have any empathy for others.
The fact you can’t see how contradictory this is is quite humorous.
“Feels good” is not a valid justification to harm others, imagine how that justification would apply in other cases and it’s pretty easy to see how it falls apart. You can’t be logically consistent with that justification to harm others. The same with apathy, also not a justification to needlessly exploit animals.
In reference to my other conversation regarding the comparison of products that use electronics vs meat consumption, I would ask if “convenience” was a valid justification.
Given the horrors of the electronics supply chain (slavery, horrific working conditions, cartels etc) im not sure why convenience electronics (phones, laptops, pc’s) use would be OK, but meat consumption would not.
Im not saying the horrors are equivalent and it’s not a dig at you, I’m genuinely trying to figure out why one kind of horror is OK, but another is not and how people make those calls.
In order to produce 1 steak, a cow has to die.
In order to produce 1 phone, many different people have to work to produce it, enslaved or not.
This is the kind of calculation vegans make when deciding how to live ethically. We want to reduce as much animal suffering as possible.
I’m not sure a strictly maths based ethics is the way to go, that’s where you get into sociopath greater-good style considerations like “If i take out the managing team of <Big Meat Corp> , eventually they’ll recover but i’ll have saved approximately X animals in the meantime”
Don’t get me wrong, i’m not against that kind of thinking, i’m just not sure it’s a viable long-term lifestyle.
In order to produce 1 steak, a cow has to die.
In order to produce n steaks 1 cow has to die.
Arguably it’s probably slightly more than 1, given the morbidity rate of cows before they reach the “production” stage.
In order to produce 1 phone, many different people have to work to produce it, enslaved or not.
In order to produce 1 phone a non-zero number of people will (likely) be maimed/outright killed while working under slave labour conditions.
If you include the more realistic cost/benefits i suggested above does that change the calculations involved for you ?
The following is an aside to the main conversation:
It was been pointed out that some electronics are as good as necessities for most people, while i think there’s a subjective aspect to “necessity” I’ll concede some electronics use it’s not the same as meat consumption. Though i would further argue that under today’s food production and distribution systems, meat consumption could be argued to be a necessity in some situations.
But that’s almost certainly an entirely different conversation.
“I lead someone who disagrees with me into saying something stupid once, therefore everyone who disagrees with me must have cognitive dissonance.”
Lol
So let me get this straight, you were arguing with someone, tried to lead them to a contradiction, but they actually had a consistent view on it that you didn’t like, and your conclusion is that they have cognitive dissonance?
My friend, I do not think that means what you think it means.
Most people agree that raping dogs is bad. Maybe they genuinely believe that raping dogs is okay, or maybe they’re just saying that to deal with their cognitive dissonance. I would prefer that it’s cognitive dissonance, but if they’re a dog rape apologist, then they’re a piece of shit anyways.
I hope it’s cognitive dissonance and not authentic approval of dog rape.
But just to be clear, the evolution of your conversation did not show any evidence of an inconsistency in their beliefs that would amount to cognitive dissonance? Because otherwise you would have brought that up, I assume.
I did make an assumption that if you asked them if it’s okay for a person to rape their own dog, they would have said no.
I thought that was a pretty safe assumption to make, as I personally would like to believe that being opposed to raping dogs is a shared value for humanity.
Is having cognitive dissonance somehow worse than being a dog rapist to you? I genuinely don’t understand what you might be trying to get at, here.
Accusing someone of cognitive dissonance is a way of saying you proved them wrong - you found some inconsistency in their thought they couldn’t resolve.
If instead they think that it’s ok to fuck a dog, you didn’t do that. You found someone who disagrees with you (and, I’m sure, the vast majority of people) which is not special. You should describe what you found - someone who thinks it’s ok to hurt animals - instead of accusing them of inconsistency.
It matters because disagreement doesn’t mean they’re wrong. That’s something else you’re taking on the task of convincing people of. You shouldn’t cheat by lying about their beliefs, even if you do think at least one of their beliefs is disgusting - you can just let other people conclude their beliefs are disgusting.
They’re more than welcome to reply and correct the record if they disagree with my assumption. I am very comfortable with my arguments, I think they’re very compelling and persuasive, but I appreciate the candid and constructive feedback. All the best! <3
So you’re aware, that’s a really fucked up thing to think. Let alone say.
But maybe we disagree only on terminology?
What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?
What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?
Raping a dog is bad, yes.
LeonRaping a dog is bad, yes.
So a dog is someone and that’s what makes it rape? Where do you draw the line for someone? Is it the act of rape itself that’s bad, or is it the perpetrator getting sexual satisfaction from it? What if they don’t do it for that purpose, but some other more abstract reason? Is it okay then?
You thought you had me. Your argument is invalid and includes logical fallacies, because you’ve swapped the original situation, which was artificial insemination of livestock, for having sex with a pet. These are not comparable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Whether a dog is “someone” is irrelevant. Forcibly impregnating someone is rape. Artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Having sex with a pet animal is rape. Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape. Different things actually are, in fact, different.
So it is the societal and cultural context that dictates whether it is okay or not, and not something actually tangible and measurable? Then I hope we may shift that context a bit to perhaps treat animals a bit less like robots overall, and individual living creatures with their own emotional lives and complexities.
Tradition, and personal satisfaction is a poor excuse to continue something abusive.
So it is the societal and cultural context that dictates whether it is okay or not, and not something actually tangible and measurable?
Yes, of course. This is quite literally what defines morality itself. There is no universal, tangible, or measurable morality.
Then I hope we may shift that context a bit to perhaps treat animals a bit less like robots overall, and individual living creatures with their own emotional lives and complexities.
Okay.
Tradition, and personal satisfaction is a poor excuse to continue something abusive.
Yes, which is why it is good that we aren’t doing anything abusive by artificially inseminating livestock.
For what it’s worth, I am not trying to trap you in a “gotcha”, I’m trying to follow your logic because it doesn’t make any sense to me. The division between OK and not OK seems to me completely arbitrary.
If say, a large enough population of people were to deem a certain subgroup of humans as livestock, would it then be ethically correct to artificially inseminate them and slaughter them for their meat?
My knee-jerk reaction is no, but said knee-jerk reaction extends to all animals.
Similarly, I don’t see why there’s a line drawn between someone artificially inseminating a cow so that you can slaughter and eat the flesh of them and their offspring, and sexually abusing the same cow.
I’m not a vegan. I was born a vegetarian, and haven’t ever eaten flesh on purpose. Unlike vegans I don’t really see a problem with say, caring for sheep as pets, and using their wool to make yarn.
Yes, which is why it is good that we aren’t doing anything abusive by artificially inseminating livestock.
I don’t know. If someone viewed me as livestock, and stuck an implement in me and squirted me full of semen, I don’t think I’d care that it’s ethical in their eyes.
Forcibly impregnating someone is rape. Artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Having sex with a pet animal is rape. Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape.
I don’t think you’re being genuine, but if you really can’t tell the difference between these 4 things or why there are lines drawn between them and actually do find them to be arbitrary distinctions, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Pet animals and other animals are no different in and of themselves, objectively. A pet dog is no different than a stray dog. A pet cow is no different than a domesticated cow.
The difference you ascribe to these organisms is how much meaning they demonstrate for you, subjectively.
And since your morals and world view depend on subjectivity rather than objectivity, this opens so many doors into unethical situations that I’m not sure you wanted.
P.S. You’re giving off big psychopath vibes, I hope you know that.
Pet animals and other animals are no different in and of themselves, objectively. A pet dog is no different than a stray dog. A pet cow is no different than a domesticated cow.
Agreed. This is completely irrelevant though.
The difference in these scenarios is one scenario was artificial insemination of an animal and the other scenario was a person having sex with an animal. These are not the same actions.
I guess the vast majority of people on the planet are “psychopaths” because the can tell the difference between these 2 obvious things?
If someone was fucking cows
That’s the exact issue we’re talking about in this thread actually.
Intercourse does not have to involve a penis, vagina, and rectum. It can involve many more things, human related and other.
Do you think that it isn’t rape if you do it to someone with, say, a hand/fist/arm? How about a bottle?
Do you think that it isn’t rape if you do it to someone with, say, a hand/fist/arm? How about a bottle?
someone
Good to know we’re at the end of the line here.
You’re not willing to define rape, which is convenient for your argument because you get to worm your way out of being pinned down with good arguments. You have an inconsistent world view that undermines your qualifications to speak on this topic.
At least we didn’t waste ALL of everyone’s time getting you to reveal this.
Keep pretending that you don’t know the difference between artificial insemination of livestock and rape of a person. You do know the difference, but admitting it would prove your worldview false.
Rape doesn’t have to involve a person. Rape must involve a sentient being that can communicate its wants and desires. Humans and cows are both of those things.
You’re losing the argument btw because you’re falling into reactionary contrarianism without providing positive meaning yourself. Keep digging your own hole.
Rape doesn’t have to involve a person. Rape must involve a sentient being that can communicate its wants and desires. Humans and cows are both of those things.
Yeah, agreed. Go ahead and quote me where I stated that an animal cannot be raped. Artificial insemination is not rape though.
You’re losing the argument
We’re trying to get to the bottom of why you think forcible impregnation of someone is rape while of a cow isn’t.
You said that dogs can be raped, and specifically pet dogs.
I pointed out that there are no differences between pet dogs and stray dogs, and likewise between pet cows and stray cows.
I called you out for holding a subjectivist world view because the outcome of raping a pet dog and a stray dog, or pet cows and stray cow is the same. Something happens to them that they would’ve have sought out for in the first place if it wasn’t forced on them. That is the objective reality.
Subjective views of reality where empathy doesn’t apply by virtue of no personal connection sends society back into barbarism. Your world view is compatible with allowing black women to be raped in a world with chattel slavery because slaves were once though to be property of a white male.
Plain and simple: your world view is wrong and morally indefensible. If you like it that way, so be it. But you’re sick and twisted if so.
your world view is compatible with allowing black women to be raped in a world with chattel slavery because slaves were once though to be property of a white male.
Imagine thinking you have the moral high ground while trivializing and using the suffering of actual rape victims and slavery by falsely equating it to something as harmless as artificial insemination of livestock. That’s genuinely disgusting.
Do you really think this makes you look good or helps your argument?
How do we know that artificial insemination isn’t traumatizing to cows? Where is your evidence of that? You claiming that rape to cows is harmless is trivializing.
Comparison doesn’t mean perfect equation. Don’t fucking put words in my mouth.
Comparison doesn’t mean perfect equation.
So now you’re admitting they aren’t the same? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Show me where I perfectly equated humans to cows, cows to dogs, or dogs to humans.
It’s okay to feel uncomfortable and conflicted right now if you can’t find it. Perhaps dwell on the fact that you actually do understand that they are the same IN THE WAYS I DESCRIBED while simultaneously clinging to a world view that requires them to be different.
Lol ya got nothing, huh? That’s what I thought.
Cope. You’ve ran out of arguments, but you’re trying to cover your ass to make it look like you’re the one that came out on top.
Keep up the debate if you’re not uncomfortable with people pointing out the flaws in your world view for all to see.
If I own a human slave, me artificially inseminating them without consent isn’t rape?
If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human, inseminating them without consent wouldn’t be rape?
If I own a human slave
…
If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human
Uh… what are they, then?
I don’t think these absurd hypotheticals are helping your argument.
They are a nonhuman animal that has sentience, property of mine. Let’s call them hooman.
You know hypotheticals are used to test consistency in someone’s logic and answering these will end up in you admitting absurdities. If I wasn’t interested in the truth, I would avoid answering them as well.
They’re absurd because they’re a false equivalency, which is a logical fallacy. Animal livestock are not comparable to human slaves.
What’s it say when your logic does not work for real life scenarios, so you have to make up nonsense fantasy scenarios to try to force an inconsistency?