862
"Being vegan is unnatural" (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
718 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/55430533

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 74 points 8 months ago (265 children)

A gynaecologist "treats" the patient, benefitting the patient.

Forcibly impregnating someone is also called rape.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 265 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (119 children)

    It's not rape if it's your dog

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 119 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 25 points 8 months ago (29 children)

    What in the fuck

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (28 children)

    Anti-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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    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" ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    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.

    1. An ethical electronics industry is possible, whereas an ethical animal agriculture industry is impossible.
    2. It's easy to live a full modern life avoiding animal products. It is impossible to live a full modern life avoiding electronics.
    3. The horrors of the electronics industry take place in third-world nations where we have very little influence over their laws. The horrors of the animal agriculture industry take place in our back yards where we can influence the law.

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I'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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
    • load more comments (3 replies)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (57 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 57 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (54 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Idk there's two schools of thought on this. One is that you can own another creature with a mind. I find this attitude leads to a lot of very unsettling situations and possibly weird shit.

    The other is that you treat them like a child that is in your custody where you can order them what to do and where to go and what to eat but society expects you to follow certain rules while they're in your custody.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (22 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 36 points 8 months ago (37 children)

    If you believe that animals should have rights like humans do, then animals can be raped. If slavery was still legal, would you write "it's pretty fucked up to equate slave husbandry with rape"? Just because we have historically done something, that doesn't mean that what we're doing is in any way moral.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (31 children)

    Animals can have rights and be protected from unnecessary cruelty without anthropomophizing them and granting full human rights. You're equating full, sapient humans with a species specifically bred for a base purpose without higher levels of thought and expression.

    I don't even think that statement is anthropocentric hubris. If ultra-advanced aliens showed up tomorrow and started domesticating humans for food or some other purpose, I would have the default expectation of them having the same or similar morals. Maybe we'd get access to decent healthcare and good libraries before we went to the slaughterhouse.

    Cows get more rights than trees or crops because they have an ability to express pain and convey emotion. They don't have the same rights as humans because they could never give a passionate argument for suffrage to a jury.

    And to be clear: there are plenty of real, tangible reasons to end animal husbandry and make everyone vegan without even touching philosophy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    If the advanced aliens had the control over us that we exert over animals then I wouldn't have a choice. And whether I fight or not isn't relevant to their choice to farm me. If anything it's in their best interest to keep me healthy and content until I'm harvested.

    Your coma example is laughable. They're a human. A medical procedure (even if we don't have the technology to perform it) could return them to normal function. Turning a cow into a human-like creature is a different discussion altogether, it would be a transformation at such a fundamental level that we might as well be discussing artificial personhood instead of the ethics of diet.

    If we invented a procedure that could make corn moo would it no longer be vegan?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Plants don't have to feel pain to be a lynch pin in the ecosystem supporting the animals around them. One less native plant is one less place to shelter or feed an endangered animal, or one less set of roots preventing the erosion of a habitat at risk.

    Eliminating animal products mitigates the problem but it in no way absolves you from our exponential consumption of finite resources, and in many ways it's naive non-solution.

    For example: culling and eating pest animals like deer is not vegan, but leaving them alone with no natural predators does exponentially more harm to all other animals that depend on the native plants decimated by an unchecked deer population. Eliminating the predators is a human-caused problem but washing our hands of the situation will kill far more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (11 replies)
    • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    OK, so if negative fucks were a thing, that would be how may fucks in general i give about the actual argument you are having.

    That being said, to me it seems hypocritical to be throwing shade about intentional animal cruelty unless you are somehow posting these replies without using any electronics whatsoever.

    Almost all electronics require materials sourced or processed off the back of rare earth minerals not even mentioning the supply chain and assembly.

    As you said, people are animals too, slavery and workplace mutilation are animal abuse.

    I'm not whattabouting your argument, both things are fucked up and one doesn't cancel out the other and as i said, i'm not supporting either side.

    but the stunning lack of awareness (or acknowledgement) of the hypocrisy of your argument is offensive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    I'm not responsible for others actions

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 45 points 8 months ago (63 children)

    Artificial insemination is a treatment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 63 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    it is not a needed treatment for the health and well being of the cow, it is a unecessary treatment forced upon the animal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    a) we don't b) they can happily fuck on their own, it just makes it harder to exploit them for their body fluids. Nobody cares about the calves, they are just needed for the mothers to lactate

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Wouldn't it make more sense to simply induce lactation than go through the whole rigmarole of artificial insemination and then having to dispose of the unwanted calves?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Apparently not, otherwise that's what farmers would do. Milk production is not an on-off thing either. There is milk for newborns (colostrum) for older babies, there is less fatty and more fatty milk, milk production is a wondrous thing that is regulated by the babies saliva, the moms hormones, how much milk got eaten, how the baby looks even. You can be breastfeeding two kids, if you consistently feed breast A to kid A and breast B to kid B the milk they produce will be different!

    And that's what the farmer is taking away from the mom. Using prolactin to induce milk production is also very error prone and not reliable. At least in humans afaik but I don't see why it should be that different for cows.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (12 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (32 children)

    Artificial insemination without consent is rape. Natural insemination without consent is rape.

    Cows cannot give consent to humans. No animal can. Hell, even if we discovered another human-like species but couldn't have meaningful communication with them, it'd still be rape.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (29 children)

    No, because owning humans is wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    I can't really answer that because I'm apparently having different moral values in this hypothetical scenario.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    Again, I can't answer the question, because I do not think owning slaves is ok and I can't imagine how somebody that does think is ok, thinks about rape, because that person is not me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (16 replies)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (8 replies)
    • load more comments (22 replies)