• Comment105@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You realize we don’t want to do that, and aren’t going to, right?

        Unless both you and I agree on regulation, animal abuse will continue uncontested.

        I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won’t become vegan, and take the compromise of continued meat production with strict punishment for animal abuse?

        • Smirk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I advocate for widespread prolonged de-use and eventually abolition of animals as objects in societies that don’t need to.

          What you’ve amounted to saying is “if the world can’t be 100% vegan, why try?”

          Let’s try this then-

          Me: “respect women”

          Misogynist: "You realize we don’t want to do that, and aren’t going to, right?

          Unless both you and I agree on regulation, misogyny will continue uncontested.

          I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won’t become a feminist, and take the compromise of continued sexism with strict punishment for female abuse?"

          Or this one’s good-

          Me: “don’t be racist”

          Racist: "You realize we don’t want to do that, and aren’t going to, right?

          Unless both you and I agree on regulation, racist will continue uncontested.

          I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won’t become a non-racist, and take the compromise of continued racism with strict punishment for lynching?"

          If the feminist movement met up against people saying what you’re saying, what do you think their response would be?

          And similarly, what would MLK say to you?

          No, before you call out my comparison, I’m not comparing racism to sexism to animal abuse. I’m comparing the rhetoric used to defend the acts themselves. And it’s awfully similar.

          In summation; I choose consistency in my morality, based on this: if the topic is different, but my rhetoric to justify is the same, check my biases.

          People are just simply inconsistent with their justifications, mainly due to detachment from the reality.

          • Comment105@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I do not care to even read the main body of your argument.

            Animals will continue to be eaten, and because of your distracting efforts it will continue to be in the most painful and depressing ways. Because you don’t support regulations.

            • Smirk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s OK. Your veiled attempt at good faith discussion is textbook, so was expected.

              It’s not my goal to make YOU individually vegan. Others can read and evaluate my reasoning, and by extension, the lack of yours.

    • muix@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      However, it does help if you want to minimise your personal contribution towards animal suffering.

    • Johanno@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But there’s a difference between animals and capital goods producing meat.

      The only goal for a farmer is in the end how much money you can make. And yes healthy and happy animals taste better but people buy cheap shit so usually the welfare isn’t paid by people.