Do you even know what whataboutism is ?
His post is entirely on point regarding the op. You can agree or disagree with his view of it, but to say that he’s trying to deflect onto something else is myopic.
Unless you think his post is sarcastic and is trying to downplay the topic in the op ? But then that’s just a literacy issue.
Can you cite where they mentioned that ? Either it’s in another post or they did not. They explicitly talk about genocide, so probably more about animal rights than climate action.
Animal rights doesn’t fit genocide because there’s no mass extinction. For instance there’s more cows and chickens today than any other point in history
Climate change fits genocide because there’s mass extinction. Whole ecosystems wiped out so we can drive to the next city
The Holocene extinction event has been going for millenia. Every acre of farmland is an acre where wild animals can’t live. There’s more cows but the aurochs are gone. There’s more cats but they kill the birds. We genocide native species in favor of domesticated species.
I think that’s a bit pedantic. When talking about the genocide of animals it’s generally in the context of their suffering, not in the context of climate change.
Killing them by itself is not “bad” for the climate, but having too many of them and having them take up loads of resources is.
Plus there may not be extinction because we keep breeding them, but the number of animals slaughtered every year would put the Holocaust to shame if we held animals into higher regard than currently (hence this topic being brought up)
No, it’s serious and I’d disagree, it isn’t on topic there’s a clear implied meaning given recent events.
Does it fall on the fringes of the same reasoning? Yes. However given that reply is structured as a rebuttal in contrast to the post it appears to me to imply a missed issue with hasn’t been addressed despite the discussion of the intended message which would be whataboutism.
Also questioning others comprehension just looks pretty in an “I am very smart way”
I don’t see how it’s a rebuttal. And in my mind he got the same reaction people would give in “those times” when somebody mentioned that slavery or segregation is bad.
“Yeah sure the Holocaust was bad but this is whataboutism, it isn’t on topic, we’re not talking about slavery here” has the same vibe as your post.
Sure I can understand the topic being the USA going fascist mode, but it’s not obvious and the topic of the image is literally “things can be legal and immoral”. Imo (and I hope) that animal rights will be seen some day as the fourth example in this image. Without people getting attention to it, nothing will change. And instead of talking about it, it’s shut down.
He’s not derailing the entire post, he has posted an opinion that goes in the same direction as the op and he’s being chastised because it doesn’t align with your views.
If you just want to discuss authoritarianism more than the moral/ethics aspect of it, you’re welcome to. But to say that this doesn’t have its place here is wrong imho.
Btw sorry for the ad hominem, but it’s grand coming from you when you directly compared the guy to an incel because he expressed an opinion. (Plus that section was clearly sarcastic so if you take offense from this… Well…)
The genocide of non-human animals for our pleasure is legal.
You sound like the dudes who find a thread about women’s issues and shout “yeah but what about men’s issues!”
You deserve to be heard but can you do it without turning it into whataboutisn.
Do you even know what whataboutism is ?
His post is entirely on point regarding the op. You can agree or disagree with his view of it, but to say that he’s trying to deflect onto something else is myopic.
Unless you think his post is sarcastic and is trying to downplay the topic in the op ? But then that’s just a literacy issue.
Bringing up climate change doesn’t relate to the topic at hand
It’s fine to use it supplementally to legality vs morality but not as a standalone argument
Who brought up climate change ?
The person talking about animal genocide
Can you cite where they mentioned that ? Either it’s in another post or they did not. They explicitly talk about genocide, so probably more about animal rights than climate action.
https://lemmy.ca/post/37769505/14075891
Animal rights doesn’t fit genocide because there’s no mass extinction. For instance there’s more cows and chickens today than any other point in history
Climate change fits genocide because there’s mass extinction. Whole ecosystems wiped out so we can drive to the next city
The Holocene extinction event has been going for millenia. Every acre of farmland is an acre where wild animals can’t live. There’s more cows but the aurochs are gone. There’s more cats but they kill the birds. We genocide native species in favor of domesticated species.
I think that’s a bit pedantic. When talking about the genocide of animals it’s generally in the context of their suffering, not in the context of climate change.
Killing them by itself is not “bad” for the climate, but having too many of them and having them take up loads of resources is.
Plus there may not be extinction because we keep breeding them, but the number of animals slaughtered every year would put the Holocaust to shame if we held animals into higher regard than currently (hence this topic being brought up)
No, it’s serious and I’d disagree, it isn’t on topic there’s a clear implied meaning given recent events.
Does it fall on the fringes of the same reasoning? Yes. However given that reply is structured as a rebuttal in contrast to the post it appears to me to imply a missed issue with hasn’t been addressed despite the discussion of the intended message which would be whataboutism.
Also questioning others comprehension just looks pretty in an “I am very smart way”
I don’t see how it’s a rebuttal. And in my mind he got the same reaction people would give in “those times” when somebody mentioned that slavery or segregation is bad.
“Yeah sure the Holocaust was bad but this is whataboutism, it isn’t on topic, we’re not talking about slavery here” has the same vibe as your post.
Sure I can understand the topic being the USA going fascist mode, but it’s not obvious and the topic of the image is literally “things can be legal and immoral”. Imo (and I hope) that animal rights will be seen some day as the fourth example in this image. Without people getting attention to it, nothing will change. And instead of talking about it, it’s shut down.
He’s not derailing the entire post, he has posted an opinion that goes in the same direction as the op and he’s being chastised because it doesn’t align with your views.
If you just want to discuss authoritarianism more than the moral/ethics aspect of it, you’re welcome to. But to say that this doesn’t have its place here is wrong imho.
Btw sorry for the ad hominem, but it’s grand coming from you when you directly compared the guy to an incel because he expressed an opinion. (Plus that section was clearly sarcastic so if you take offense from this… Well…)
You sound like someone from .world… Oh… You are!
can you imagine jumping in instance based discourse instead of trying to defend your position.
What is there to defend? You can see what is happening for yourself at https://watchdominion.org/
You’re the one that has to defend your continued support of abuse of other animals.
franklin’s comments are so typical of his instance 🙄