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” ?
“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.