Seen a lot of posts on Lemmy with vegan-adjacent sentiments but the comments are typically very critical of vegan ideas, even when they don’t come from vegans themselves. Why is this topic in particular so polarising on the internet? Especially since unlike politics for example, it seems like people don’t really get upset by it IRL
But what about disagreements that aren’t just about preferences, but about right and wrong? Vegans don’t view it as the type of question that’s like, “Do you like Kirk or do you like Picard?” but rather as the type of question that’s like, “Is it ok to beat your children?” The proper way to live is to not beat children and all other ways are wrong and awful. Framing the question as merely about individual preferences and not about morality is assuming the conclusion.
The legal system has no interest in addressing the vast majority of animal abuse, and there’s a lot of money in it which means enough political influence to ensure that never changes. The vast majority of produced goods relies on abusive conditions. It is possible to produce animal products without abuse, but removing abuse from the system means less will be produced, which means a reduction in consumption is still necessary.
Cool thanks for confirming exactly what I was saying. Like Christianity, you can not be neutral, the doctrine doesn’t allow it. You follow Jesus and go to heaven or your don’t and go to hell. There is no tolerance with Veganism, there is no live and let live, there isn’t even hate the sin love the sinner since you are after behavior not character or faith. One truth, with one means to truth, with one ethical system and all others have to be wrong and equally wrong.
Surprise surprise non-vegans don’t particularly like being told that are on the same moral footing as children beaters. If it puts you right with your god I give you permission to compare me to one again. I won’t be convinced but hey you got my permission to do it. Unlike one of us in this conversation, I can tolerate people who don’t agree with me.
I am sorry morality is difficult. You should file a bug report with someone who cares.
The purpose of the analogy was to establish the difference between disagreements and preference and disagreements about morality, not to put you on “the same moral footing as children beaters” which is an intentional, bad faith mischaracterization. If you’ll look at what I actually said:
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, I take it.
As a thread reader here (not really contributor for this part) I see your point and I appreciate it, but I don’t know if it actually helps your case?
Basically you have established a moral high-ground and visceral reaction from the perspective of the non meat eating type and I can empathize with it, but doesn’t every group have this? Like if you said “Oh but it’s not just about birth control it’s about intentionally thwarting human life” as an argument for Catholics being against birth control… I can understand it but it isn’t an argument yeah? It’s an argument if I agree with your perspective, but otherwise I don’t think you’ve done anything different than the guy you replied to from a purely argumentative standpoint: you both gave a perspective and neither of you met in the middle.
From a debate perspective he’s got you by the short hairs because, even though he may not be absolutely right, you’ve made yourself look a little dickish to the rest of us.
I don’t see where I established a moral high ground or provoked a visceral reaction. All I did was establish that vegans see it as a moral question and not just a matter of preference.
Veganism right here folks. Can’t defend their argument without personal attacks. At least Christianity made some pretty looking buildings. What did your religion give to the world besides shit posts?
Bad faith, however, is definitely your strong suit. Going from intentional mischaractarization into whining and playing the victim because I called you out on it is quite a skillful combo to sidetrack away from any serious discussion.
I do think that harping on this stance of “Anytime anyone says anything is bad, it’s basically the same as being a religious nut job” is pretty ridiculous, so I’d advise finding a different angle next time, except that that’s the only thing you’ve got that even resembles an argument, so idk.
What if I told you the quiet part loud? I don’t think every life is fundamentally created equal.
I’m a farm boy turned liberal and if you’re going to argue about climate change and the benefits of a vegetarian diet in that respect, you’ve got the right of it and I’ll eat less meat (I’m trying). If you’re going to say “cow abuse is child abuse!” I will personally come murder a cow for you and eat it with you (or against you, I guess?).
You are barking up the wrong tree and have missed the point whenever you come to this argument. Plants and animals grown for food ARE. FOR. FOOD. and you will not turn me to your way of thinking by crying foul about their treatment. I would love to minimize animal suffering / I am not into animal torture, but you’re just not going to get there unless you’re literally demonstrating widespread suffering for sport of livestock animals. If there was a raccoon outside right now screwing with my dog or my kid or my house or whatever I would absolutely end it and not lose a second of sleep, without considering it’s children or parentage or treatment.
I am who you are dealing with and who you are trying to convert. The “proper way to live” has nothing to do with it. I grow food, I eliminate pests, I eat the food I intended to raise. Cow, corn, pig, dog, cat, unicorn, etc: it gets to grow and flourish as much as I can provide, then it gets harvested to eat, unless it is invasive then it gets summarily removed.
It’s not about callousness or disregard for the beauty of life, my situation has just been fundamentally different than yours unless you also spent childhood raising your own food.
Do I know you?