Also yeah I'll echo that you don't seem to understand the very basics of what's being discussed here so maybe you should ask yourself why you have such a strong reaction. If I were so ignorant, I would be asking questions or going to self-teach.
Veganism is not about vegans being a marginalized group.
I think the idea is that the other creatures, like animals bred in captivity for their meat, are the ones which aren't protected. Vegans don't seem to speak for them (as say, a liberal might for a marginalized group while denying them their voice) rather use inductive reasoning to reflect contradictions in meat-eaters and their ethics in practice, particularly around ideas of self-oriented material interest.
If we use genocide as the mass slaughter of any life (we'll probably conveniently ignore microbes and only stick with multicellular life) rather than human life, animals bred for consumption (as well as those affected by humanity's effect on the environment) are deliberately genocided and it's done to some anticipation. The scale makes this far worse, other humans can be a meaningful threat and thus for the oppressor it is reasonable to eliminate them if their very existence poses a threat, as is the case in settler-colonial societies.
I don't know why you or others might treat non-human life differently than human life, and that is what I consider to be occurring. Feel free to disagree, I would be curious to read your thoughts as it's not a perspective I would say I understand. Three reasons for my prior comment which come to mind are 1. anthropocentrism, 2. lack of empathy and 3. solipsism. For the second there is a relevant quote which I think captures this well:
"In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy." — G. M. Gilbert
If instead of 'fellow men' you put 'fellow creature' I think you might understand where some of the arguments come from. Don't get me started on eugenics and how we are more or less perfecting it with plants and domesticated animals.
This is both not what genocide is and it also trivializes actual genocides. You're right to call this view anthropocentric, but I'm not going to say that animal life is a 1:1 equivalency with human life. Industrial farming is fucked up I agree, and should be ended. I also agree that veganism is a good thing, better than eating meat. But overall it is not the same thing, not at all.
Vegans aren't a marginalized group of people, they aren't being genocided by Evangelical fascists, full fucking stop
Trans people deserve to be considered a protected class here, vegans don't
This is a poor analogy. Vegans are not the exploited party they are simply the ones who match their morals with actions.
Do you have any thoughts as to why the pushback has the exact same patterns?
Also yeah I'll echo that you don't seem to understand the very basics of what's being discussed here so maybe you should ask yourself why you have such a strong reaction. If I were so ignorant, I would be asking questions or going to self-teach.
Veganism is not about vegans being a marginalized group.
Vegans are arguing about the oppression of animals, not themselves. Animals are being genocided, and in the most extreme way seen in history.
yeah 100%, im going to stay on the news mega from now on what the fuck are these arguments
I think the idea is that the other creatures, like animals bred in captivity for their meat, are the ones which aren't protected. Vegans don't seem to speak for them (as say, a liberal might for a marginalized group while denying them their voice) rather use inductive reasoning to reflect contradictions in meat-eaters and their ethics in practice, particularly around ideas of self-oriented material interest.
If we use genocide as the mass slaughter of any life (we'll probably conveniently ignore microbes and only stick with multicellular life) rather than human life, animals bred for consumption (as well as those affected by humanity's effect on the environment) are deliberately genocided and it's done to some anticipation. The scale makes this far worse, other humans can be a meaningful threat and thus for the oppressor it is reasonable to eliminate them if their very existence poses a threat, as is the case in settler-colonial societies.
I don't know why you or others might treat non-human life differently than human life, and that is what I consider to be occurring. Feel free to disagree, I would be curious to read your thoughts as it's not a perspective I would say I understand. Three reasons for my prior comment which come to mind are 1. anthropocentrism, 2. lack of empathy and 3. solipsism. For the second there is a relevant quote which I think captures this well:
If instead of 'fellow men' you put 'fellow creature' I think you might understand where some of the arguments come from. Don't get me started on eugenics and how we are more or less perfecting it with plants and domesticated animals.
"genocide as the mass slaughter of any life"
This is both not what genocide is and it also trivializes actual genocides. You're right to call this view anthropocentric, but I'm not going to say that animal life is a 1:1 equivalency with human life. Industrial farming is fucked up I agree, and should be ended. I also agree that veganism is a good thing, better than eating meat. But overall it is not the same thing, not at all.
Even if cows are worth 0.0001% of a human, animal agriculture is by far the worst genocide and indeed the worst crime ever committed on Earth.