Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
Everybody’s gotta eat, but not everyone’s gotta fuck a dog
No one has to eat meat, in fact with all the space used for animals we could produce way more food instead.
Cool idea: don’t presuppose what literally every human needs based on your narrow worldview. Without significant animal fat and protein I wouldn’t be able live.
No, I’m not going to get into specifics, but also, no, I cannot get my current nutritional needs (and still desire to eat) by cutting animal products and biproducts in my diet.
I think their point is that there are options to not eat the dog either.
Are there more people then having sex with dogs than there are those who eat them?
This is exactly why many indigenous cultures put an emphasis on thanking the animal for their meat.
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
Through Animal’s perspective - Raping an animal is bad but Killing is worst outcome as it removes them from the gene pool, which means they can’t be able to produce their offspring and continue their progeny/generation. ~ Humans justify killing animals because they think through their own benefits, because they neglect animal’s perspective.
Right, I think a lot of my understanding does revolve around being a human and I cannot separate myself from that morality & most animals are driven by survival if that makes sense. This question is so fucking wild
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.
- The first argument is just another version of the “it’s natural/unnatural, therefore it’s right/wrong.” Many animals also eat their own young, rape each other, etc. Does that make it acceptable for humans to do it also? Of course not. Some homophobes will point out that homosexual relationships are evolutionarily disadvantageous, (“unnatural”) and therefore that means it’s wrong for humans to form homosexual relationships. Obviously a ridiculous argument, but it’s just the inverse form of the one above.
- Is it alright to torture a human infant or a severely developmentally disabled person? What about a person with very advanced Alzheimer’s? All three examples have little to no mental self-awareness, certainly less than a dog, pig, dolphin, etc. At what point is self awareness sufficiently low enough to make it morally acceptable to cause deliberate pain to that person for your own enjoyment? Second, there is a growing body of evidence that a large portion of animals, including many that are currently farmed/fished for consumption, demonstrate sentience beyond simple reflexes. Beyond the scientific studies, everyday experience indicates this in many animals. Dogs, pigs, birds, octopus, can all solve simple puzzles, demonstrate various apparent emotions like curiosity, fear, joy, confusion, anger, etc. Clearly some level of sentience is present, even if it’s quite simple.
- All essential nutrients humans need can be found in plants. You need to adjust your diet obviously, some nutrients like B12 and Iron are harder to get from a plant-based diet. While others, like Vitamin C and Fiber are easier. The old stereotype that vegetarians/vegans are all malnourished weaklings, is a myth. There are many vegetarian/vegan elite athletes, including Olympic medalists and world record holders, (Alex Morgan, Scott Jurek, Dotsie Bausch, Fiona Oakes, Meagan Duhamel). So at least in the developed world, (where factory farming is the most pervasive,) there is no nutritional need for the general population to eat animals.
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!
In the Bible they had to make a law against it
In the Bible they had to make a law against it
So they did about eating Pork, but Christians like the taste so eat it anyway.
“Leviticus 11:7-8 that pigs are considered unclean and should not be eaten.”
Funny enough initially in the Bible people weren’t supposed to eat meat at all, then they loosened the restrictions but had rules for certain species (although I don’t recall if animal sacrifices started before or after this). Then in the new testament they did away with a bunch of rules but in a very vague way so Christians get to cherry pick what they want and when then argue about it with other Christians. Although there was also a story about a blanket or something with a ton of “bad” meat where god said to eat so I guess that counts as justification
That sentence is from the old covenant, which also requires animal sacrifice among other things. The entire old covenant is not binding for Christians anymore, since Jesus replaced it with the new covenant.
I’m sure you would hear more than a few say something along the lines of 1) ending their life can be done relatively humanely. And it serves a fundamental purpose, for sustenance. While meat for sustenance is not actually necessary, it is considered a basic staple of our diets and generally acceptable. 2) Having sex with animals, though, harms them in a way and leaves them to live with that harm. It can traumatize the animal. It is inherently inhumane. And it serves no purpose but to satisfy a carnal desire, a morbid curiosity, or a sadistic appetite.
I’m not saying that it is an altogether consistent or sound argument. It is something some can rationalize though. But, frankly, I would call either explanation at least a little bit bullshit.
The answer to either their desire for meat or their revulsion to animal molestation is that their instincts give them those feelings. It is evolution. Animal meats and fats are a calorie dense and nutritionally valuable food source that our ancestors have eaten since before humans existed, and we’re mostly wired to enjoy the taste and crave it. A revulsion for sex outside of species helps make sure that we continue to make babies. It’s as simple as that.
Some very few people don’t have one, the other or both of these instincts, but the vast majority do. Most of those people will happily rationalize the feeling that isn’t based in rationality, like above. Some will examine those feelings and rationalize themselves into changing/recontextualizing their feelings or choosing to not act upon them in light of their viewpoint or some virtue they’ve applied to the question. But most just do what feels right and is normalized and don’t ever really truly question it.
And even if you are one of those people who has rationalized themselves into a rationally/morally superior position regarding meat eating, or maybe you never even had an instinctual desire for it, you almost certainly have other habits, values, opinions, etc. that go against every rationality too that just come with human nature.
We’re people. We’re animals. We have intelligence. We have primal drives. Nobody is morally perfect. Nobody can even agree on what moral perfection is. Morality is both subjective on the whole, and objective for each and every one of us. We just gotta get along.
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
Really enjoyed this thread.
This is one of the threads of all time!
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.
Like some here who have said it before, it’s about survival.
There’s no survival issue when it comes to zoophilia.
There still is with eating meat.To say that most people don’t need meat is to ignore more than half the planet.
I thought this place was aware that not everyone can afford a diet,
let alone a healthy vegan diet.I’m not a big fan of pulling the ladder up behind oneself and start demanding
everyone else to follow suit when they’re living in either developing nations or
nations that are in a state of collapse or both.That said, since natural meat production is theoretically more expensive
than growing meat in a lab,
we’ll be heading towards the dissolution of eating farm animals soon
and with it, most farm animals themselves.Some of the countries with the large percentages of vegetarians, vegans or predominantly plant forward diets such as India or South East Asia are not wealthy by Western standards. Eating a ‘healthy’ plant forward diet does not have to be an expensive affair.
The perception that a plant based diet is a wealthy western modern invention is white washing its unglamorous origins as a traditional eastern diet, especially in Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, etc cultures.
To dismiss a plant forward diet because not everyone can afford to eat impossible burgers 7x a week is disingenuous, as people were eating diets with little to no meat for centuries before faux ‘beuf’ plant minces were invented.
Vegetarianism in India is more nuanced then that; I personally see it in 4 different facets.
one is that it is the Upper Caste’s(who traditionally have more access to wealth) enforcing their values(religious requirement to be a vegetarian) on people who they see as below them.
Many poor people in India disproportionately eat more meat than their richer counter parts.
Animal protein is just cheaper and more dense than plant based protein, and plant based protein is also seasonal as compared to animal based protein.
It also doesn’t help that vegetarianism has become a political issue in India, and is part of the ongoing culture wars happening in the country.
I agree. Just a comment on lab-grown meat. I’m not sure if that is going to help in developing markets. Maybe a big lab can produce meat that you can buy for less money than you’d need for a real steak in an advanced economy. That doesn’t mean that someone in the Philippines countryside can start their own meat-lab instead of raising chicken.
Both groups can emphatically agree on something - that they love the taste of animal meat.
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.
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
I am sorry for making you feel this way.
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.
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!
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)
no one is murdering, torturing, rapping, or enslaving animals
“It doesn’t count because we use different words”
this is a strawman
a strawman of what argument? either fill the vacuum or shut up
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Hmm I wonder if the definitions of any of those words requires human beings to be involved 🤔.
Sounds like you’re stretching.
Isn’t it cool how you can do that to, say, Jews or Palestinians? You just label them as not human, and then it stops being murder!
What a handy tool that doesn’t demand reflection!
No, no it’s not cool at all. And what you’re referring to is called dehumanization. Definitely calls for some reflection on your part, lol.
You’re the one with the moral framework specifically designed so that you can carry out the acts of murder, rape, torture and slavery and not hold yourself at fault for them because different word. But I’m the one who needs to reflect? Shut up you fucking moron.
Murder rape and slavery all have definitions. Unless all of a sudden were saying cows and chickens are people, you need to adjust your language or nobody will ever take you seriously. Angy li’l vegan, ain’t ya?
Everybody takes you seriously because you are getting mad while arguing that you can fuck a sheep and it’s not rape
My theory on ethics is that it’s survival tools for hunter gatherer societies.
Eat meat, be strong. Good.
Fuck animal? Animal might bite, give you disease, and you are not making baby. Bad.
But if make baby good?
Unga bunga good
It’s like how soldier rapists are bad, but soldier murderers get a medal.
Humans are fundamentally absurd, no exceptions
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.
