It's because killing an animal companion for being disobedient and then telling your children what happened and why you did it, is textbook serial killer behavior.
It's not the same as say running a homestead and telling the children why some of the livestock are gone now.
Only speaking for myself as I can't get into others heads, the red flag is her power trip. The dog only existed to serve her despite her daughter's attachment to it and would have lived to old age if only it obeyed. That's the terrifying part.
People who killed the family pet for failing to be obedient tend to eventually work up to humans.
People who work the buzzsaw at a chicken plant, as gross as it is, don't.
That's a different definition of "serve".
Pigs aren't trained to do tasks then slaughtered if they fail.
They're bred specifically for slaughter and then killed when they reach prime weight.
A "life on the farm" story doesn't convey an implied threat of if you cause me problems you may get shot in the head like this does.
Sure but that's a separate convo.
I just answered the question of why the governor of South Dakota boasting about shooting her (and her daughter's) dog dead because it wasn't progressing along with training in a way she approved of is more horrifying to me than the existence of the slaughter industry.
It's fair to say this person is much more deranged than the average meat defender, but the core issue of animal slaughter remains in this instance and in meat consumption. An animal's life was cut short because a human decided they wanted to do that
A "life on the farm" story doesn't convey an implied threat
it would if the children in the metaphor see the family livestock being treated by their parents the way industrial dairy and beef cattle are typically abused instead of some homestead fantasy
I answered the question asked, why this is different, and more upsetting, than livestock slaughter.
Animal ethics aside, the weird kid who keeps killing outside cats for meowing too much is much scarier than the weird kid who eats nothing but hotdogs and chicken nuggets.
If you can't understand that I don't know how else to explain it to you.
Can you explain why some animals are livestock that can be killed whenever you feel like eating them and some are animal companions that deserve to live until old age? 🤔
wait the steakhouse from the simpsons is real? I thought there was some kind of schedule dictated by agricultural processes and cyclic demand projections.
hmm, i'd have to talk to some homesteaders but I think that process is high enough effort that they're not going "oh i want steak tonight" and chowing down on a fresh kill
It's ultimately treating animals as property to be done with as the human sees fit with no regard for the animal's desire to live
Sure, this is more mask off in that regard, but it's still the same core issue. All animals deserve to live whether they were brought into the world to be used for the clothing industry, factory farming, or a pet
Food is a basic need, killing something for fun isn't. There are many situations where it's important for people to eat meat even in the modern era. I see veganism as a technological issue, if you can do it, that's great. Many people can't for a wide variety of reasons, though those reasons can be solved through better technology, socialism, and the refinement and advent of new vegan foods, binding agents, etc.
Animal byproducts obviously do not require the death of the animal, yet vegans also reject this. You can treat the animal far better than it would receive in the wild, you eat some eggs, and vegans also reject this. There is also a tendency to reject history, some vegans here have argued things like "hunter gatherers ate only vegetables". This is false, the Inuit had a diet of mostly meat, as did many peoples in arid and arctic regions. Why? Because there are foods we cannot digest well that are in abundance in these areas, that other animals can. This was common historically and in many places now, until humans began domesticating and replacing local plants over tens of thousands of years, there were not large quantities of food that were edible to us. In most of human diaspora out of Africa, humans were in fact scavengers and would frequently compete in a niche reserved for Giant Hyenas (pack animals the size of a horse), our main competitor at the time.
There are many people that have digestive issues due to chemical poisoning by capitalism, or by genetics. If you research this phenomenon, these people become averted to any sort of sugar in plants, plant proteins, and even bulky carbohydrates. Certain types of meat are also issues. These people are essentially forced to eat meat and some very select vegetables in order to meet their dietary requirements. Until this is technologically solved, a vast swathe of people would starve to death, among other ailments, under a vegan only regimen.
Am I vegan? Technically, yes, I eat only plant stuff 99% of the time, but it's also because it's a thing I can handle.
This is pretty into the weeds, the vast majority of people could stand to at least attempt vegetarian diets rather than meat for every meal which is where the original commenter's point on "industrial torture industry" comes from
If everyone who is able to do so were doing so, the fraction of a fraction of the population who was unable to for whatever reason would not result in the torture factories present today
You're a regular poster and I know this is good faith, but it's using niche situations to cover for regular, widespread atrocities
This is pretty into the weeds, the vast majority of people could stand to at least attempt vegetarian diets rather than meat for every meal which is where the original commenter's point on "industrial torture industry" comes from
You're a regular poster and I know this is good faith, but it's using niche situations to cover for regular, widespread atrocities
Roughly 30% of western society has ailments that could prevent them from going full vegan. This argument is similar to other arguments, "only a handful of people die of covid", "only 1% of society is trans, there is no need to accomodate or discuss".
I do of course agree that most people should reduce or annihilate their intake of meat, not for moralistic reasons but for efficiency and environmental reasons. I also think that synthetic meat and heavily processed GMO plants like soy are getting better and are necessary for ideological veganism, and anyone that thinks it is unnecessary is fooling themselves.
I recall finding some study for all digestive ailments being about 30%, but here are two common diseases. I really need to start keeping track of my source but I always forget to. Each are somewhere around 10-30% of the US or the west depending on the study. Not all of this 30% is completely unable to go vegan, but a good portion are. About 60-70% report their conditions as being 'moderate to severe'. IBS sufferers have significant comorbidities with other diseases, further complicating matters. It should be noted that IBS is much lower in nonwestern countries, perhaps this is due to how many processed foods have excessive fodmaps (high fructose corn syrup, garlic and onion concentrate), perhaps its due to certain common medicine interactions, maybe its a reporting issue.
I'm not nitpicking, but I did say at least attempt a vegetarian diet which would address the crux of the original comment regarding widespread animal torture which never explicitly even mentions veganism
It's not as though there is going to be some sweeping legislation to outlaw meat and kill meat eaters which is akin to examples you're making here wrt COVID or trans people. If 70% of the population made a conscious effort to stop eating meat that would be a tremendous benefit for their health, the welfare of animals, and the climate. And as a bonus, they'd save money doing it
It's not as though there is going to be some sweeping legislation to outlaw meat and kill meat eaters which is akin to examples you're making here wrt COVID or trans people. I
There are plenty here that think it should be fully outlawed, just because you aren't one doesn't mean it isn't a common sentiment
I'll be honest, I don't know if I've ever seen a post like that made in sincerity and it's not what I'm advocating for
I don't deny a subset of the population may have legitimate dietary constraints, but their existence doesn't excuse the vast majority who do not. I have seen those who do not use the existence of those people as a shield for their own spinelessness in refusing to cut meat from their diet for purely selfish reasons
And this is coming from an autistic person who cannot stand the texture of beans even today and would sit at the table for hours as a kid refusing to eat vegetables I did not like. If it's important enough, adjusting your diet is an accomplishable task. It's clear that some posters here do not feel the unnecessary suffering of animals is important enough for them to make a relatively simple lifestyle change and it's disturbing
This type of “what about if I had a disease that would kill me if I didn’t eat meat” concern trolling is intended to distract from the underlying issue of mass slaughter. The actual justification that this kind of industrial-scale suffering is acceptable because the food tastes good annd non-human animals don’t matter isn’t as clean an image as disability-rights advocate.
what about if I had a disease that would kill me if I didn’t eat meat
This exists. I never said I had that issue, but I do know people who do. Continue to live with your head in the clouds if you want.
If you want me to educate you on the science relating to this, I can. If you're not willing to educate yourself on disabilities and how to help people with them, maybe you should.
Sure, educate me, but don’t pretend that every Reddit-tier anti-vegan is arguing from a sincere concern for these people. I know that there are certain conditions that make going vegan very difficult. However this is a systemic failure to provide alternative sources of protein and nutrients.
Killing billions of sentient beings every year is bad. And if you want to argue otherwise, I don’t see why it would then be unethical to kill and eat a dog. And from the animal’s point of view, your reasons for killing them don’t matter.
Every time someone cites a medical condition, I’ve been able to explain that it doesn’t absolutely require eating meat. It’s harder, but it’s preferable to murder, which is the underlying issue you seem unwilling to confront.
I’m not a medical expert so I’m not going to question what you said. I know people in person who claim that they cannot go vegan because of a nut allergy or something similar so that is what I was referring to earlier.
My reaction is because of my background. I grew up in a family that raised livestock. All throughout childhood I had these books that taught me to think of animals as friends. I liked to play with the chickens. And then one day they would be gone. For me it might as well have been grandma being taken out back and shot.
Still, it took until I was 25 before I went vegan. It finally occurred to me that I couldn’t justify eating meat. I still cannot justify it, under any circumstances. So I am left with a feeling of understanding, yes, but the horror will always be there. I’m an emotional person.
Yeah think I'm going to tap out of my second experience in this specific topic struggle sesh. It's so tiring seeing people who know better advocating pointless cruelty when they'll criticize libs and chuds for the exact same thought patterns
This justification can be used for killing and eating your dog, the local squirrels, your next door neighbor, your grandma, and literally anything else that can be digested on the planet. The fact that you must eat something does not mean that it is morally justifiable to eat anything.
Did she eat the dog? Or did she just kill out of pure malice when it didnt conform to her desires? There is a difference between killing a dog that provides companionship and the evils of mass farming.
Probably worthwhile for most but there's something particularly fucked up to most people about killing pets, I'd hope at least. With livestock there's a whole historical context of homo sapien omnivorousness to explain it.
that kind of post is just pretending to not understand the cultural significance of pets. If there's actually a point behind it besides antagonizing people in a post about child abuse and violating social norms, I don't know what it is.
Either you think pets are higher tier beings than the equally smart and full of personality animals killed for food or you don't. It's not that hard
nah i think it's social categories, not moral ones. Cool i've deconstructed the categories of "pet animal" and "food animal" and think that if you want to keep a holstein as a pet or raise cats as livestock that's a little weird (historically, culturally, and logistically) but not some great sin just because the animals are flipped around.
people keep lizards and weird bugs as non-traditional pets too, maybe it's easier to see compared to mammals that the thing that's special about a pet is that it's a pet, not the species.
No, the thing that is special about all of them is that they're living creatures that can experience pain and have desires to live in their natural environments
Your example isn't doing any favors here. It's honestly more concerning that all that matters to you is the label you assign to a being that gives its life worth. You're explicitly acknowledging anything could be a pet that is meaningful to someone but some just get the shit end of the stick and are killed after a lifetime of torture instead
I'm a vegan, but I can recognize murdering your own pet as being even worse than murdering any other animal. The problem isn't that the dog is a pet, but rather, her pet. She just murdered a member of her family for pissing her off. That's serial killer shit.
I had pet chickens before I was a vegan and if anyone killed them back then I'd fucking- well. They wouldn't kill anything ever again.
I don't know what part of the thread I'm in at this point, but I've said elsewhere here that I agree this is more unhinged than average carnism defense. The underlying issue I'm trying to tease out here is the imposition of a human's will upon the life of an animal because the human wanted to do that and didn't care about the animal enough to make a different choice
The parent to this developing struggle session was not equivocating the two, it was asking why one made carnists feel a certain way and the mass torture of animals for food doesn't
The question necessarily implies hypocrisy on the part of carnists i.e. "if this woman murdering her dog makes you feel bad, you should feel bad when you murder animals" or even "you murder animals all the time, what right do you have to judge her for doing the same thing?"
I certainly read it as you trying to equivocate the two! And I doubt I was the only one.
If you eat meat and this kind of story upsets you, please do some careful examination of why the industrial animal torture industries do not.
The Internet is text based, assigning a tone to what is typed is purely a personal problem to put it bluntly.
They are asking why industrial animal torture is not upsetting but killing a pet dog is. Why is someone who feels upset about the suffering of a dog not also upset about the suffering of a pig, cow, or chicken? If it's purely the label of pet, we get back to the comment you replied to
Vocabulary creates tone and "the industrial animal torture industries" is far from a neutral phrase. If you can't read tone it's a skill issue.
They are asking why industrial animal torture is not upsetting compared to killing a pet dog because they are equivocating the two.
"Pet" is not purely a label, it is the social relationship between pets and their families. That is what is so upsetting to people. Equivocating would make more sense if she had a dog-meat farm, because those aren't pets. Horrible, but only as horrible as any other blood farm that raises animals for slaughter. Killing pets, though, is clearly different. That's killing family. People are going to get upset about it.
this is about interrogating why people think pets are different from livestock, something common to mammals (and talking about desires gets a little weird, but anyway) isn't going to be the difference between them.
You're explicitly acknowledging anything could be a pet that is meaningful to someone but some just get the shit end of the stick and are killed after a lifetime of torture instead
yes. although to slide in part of another comment i saw pop up while typing this
If it's purely the label of pet, we get back to the comment [queermunist] replied to
i think it's the social relation itself rather than the label being a talisman. We even attach to inanimate objects the same way sometimes.
Why should I interrogate my own beliefs when I can completely ignore them and make a bad faith argument turning it into a personal attack on my fragile carnist ego?
Ask me why I think the systemic mass slaughter of sentient beings is ok? How fucking dare you? Have you considered culture you stupid vegan? Stop antagonizing me!
Why should I interrogate my own beliefs when I can completely ignore them and make a bad faith argument turning it into a personal attack on my fragile carnist ego?
Ask me why I think the systemic mass slaughter of sentient beings is ok? How fucking dare you? Have you considered culture you stupid vegan? Stop antagonizing me!
could you show me where i called someone stupid? there's plenty of real things to be mad about you don't have to make up more.
Ancient carnist strategy: distract from the actual issue, make it about yourself.
Another bad faith comment. I know you’re well aware of the bullshit you’re spewing but for all the toddlers out there learning how communication works, you don’t have to quote someone verbatim when caricaturing them.
there's plenty of real things to be mad about
I know the mass slaughter of sentient beings is a nothingburger to you but that doesn’t mean it is to everyone else :)
you don't have to make up more.
Indeed, it would be hard to make up something more depraved.
But now you’ve upset me, responding to you made me forget about the oven and now my broiled dog is ruined. Please don’t antagonize me with your western morality btw.
That’s tautological though, they’re asking us to interrogate why we have a cultural importance and pets statistically and citing the cultural importance itself as the only reason doesn’t work
it's tautological because that's all there is. There are historical reasons why some animals made better draft animals or whatever than others, but our pets are special to us because we adopt them. You could adopt a cow or a shark too, we just usually don't because of the logistics.
The carnist apologia in this thread is something else. The contortions people (sadly, including leftists) will go through just to try to assuage their cognitive dissonance and justify what they must know on some level is naked hypocrisy is truly is wild.
Hexbear carnists engage in self-crit challenge: impossible.
If you eat meat and this kind of story upsets you, please do some careful examination of why the industrial animal torture industries do not.
It's because killing an animal companion for being disobedient and then telling your children what happened and why you did it, is textbook serial killer behavior.
It's not the same as say running a homestead and telling the children why some of the livestock are gone now.
Only speaking for myself as I can't get into others heads, the red flag is her power trip. The dog only existed to serve her despite her daughter's attachment to it and would have lived to old age if only it obeyed.
That's the terrifying part.
People who killed the family pet for failing to be obedient tend to eventually work up to humans.
People who work the buzzsaw at a chicken plant, as gross as it is, don't.
Uh.. What do you think animals bred for slaughter are?
That's a different definition of "serve".
Pigs aren't trained to do tasks then slaughtered if they fail.
They're bred specifically for slaughter and then killed when they reach prime weight.
A "life on the farm" story doesn't convey an implied threat of if you cause me problems you may get shot in the head like this does.
Yes, instead they're bred explicitly to kill, they don't even have the chance to earn the right to live a full life serving humans
Sure but that's a separate convo.
I just answered the question of why the governor of South Dakota boasting about shooting her (and her daughter's) dog dead because it wasn't progressing along with training in a way she approved of is more horrifying to me than the existence of the slaughter industry.
It's fair to say this person is much more deranged than the average meat defender, but the core issue of animal slaughter remains in this instance and in meat consumption. An animal's life was cut short because a human decided they wanted to do that
it would if the children in the metaphor see the family livestock being treated by their parents the way industrial dairy and beef cattle are typically abused instead of some homestead fantasy
I answered the question asked, why this is different, and more upsetting, than livestock slaughter.
Animal ethics aside, the weird kid who keeps killing outside cats for meowing too much is much scarier than the weird kid who eats nothing but hotdogs and chicken nuggets.
If you can't understand that I don't know how else to explain it to you.
Can you explain why some animals are livestock that can be killed whenever you feel like eating them and some are animal companions that deserve to live until old age? 🤔
wait the steakhouse from the simpsons is real? I thought there was some kind of schedule dictated by agricultural processes and cyclic demand projections.
hmm, i'd have to talk to some homesteaders but I think that process is high enough effort that they're not going "oh i want steak tonight" and chowing down on a fresh kill
This is pedantic and avoids the underlying point.
Vegans or not, everyone feasting on the bait today
Very different to kill an animal for fun (because she definitely enjoys the act of killing) than for food
It's ultimately treating animals as property to be done with as the human sees fit with no regard for the animal's desire to live
Sure, this is more mask off in that regard, but it's still the same core issue. All animals deserve to live whether they were brought into the world to be used for the clothing industry, factory farming, or a pet
Food is a basic need, killing something for fun isn't. There are many situations where it's important for people to eat meat even in the modern era. I see veganism as a technological issue, if you can do it, that's great. Many people can't for a wide variety of reasons, though those reasons can be solved through better technology, socialism, and the refinement and advent of new vegan foods, binding agents, etc.
Animal byproducts obviously do not require the death of the animal, yet vegans also reject this. You can treat the animal far better than it would receive in the wild, you eat some eggs, and vegans also reject this. There is also a tendency to reject history, some vegans here have argued things like "hunter gatherers ate only vegetables". This is false, the Inuit had a diet of mostly meat, as did many peoples in arid and arctic regions. Why? Because there are foods we cannot digest well that are in abundance in these areas, that other animals can. This was common historically and in many places now, until humans began domesticating and replacing local plants over tens of thousands of years, there were not large quantities of food that were edible to us. In most of human diaspora out of Africa, humans were in fact scavengers and would frequently compete in a niche reserved for Giant Hyenas (pack animals the size of a horse), our main competitor at the time.
There are many people that have digestive issues due to chemical poisoning by capitalism, or by genetics. If you research this phenomenon, these people become averted to any sort of sugar in plants, plant proteins, and even bulky carbohydrates. Certain types of meat are also issues. These people are essentially forced to eat meat and some very select vegetables in order to meet their dietary requirements. Until this is technologically solved, a vast swathe of people would starve to death, among other ailments, under a vegan only regimen.
Am I vegan? Technically, yes, I eat only plant stuff 99% of the time, but it's also because it's a thing I can handle.
This is pretty into the weeds, the vast majority of people could stand to at least attempt vegetarian diets rather than meat for every meal which is where the original commenter's point on "industrial torture industry" comes from
If everyone who is able to do so were doing so, the fraction of a fraction of the population who was unable to for whatever reason would not result in the torture factories present today
You're a regular poster and I know this is good faith, but it's using niche situations to cover for regular, widespread atrocities
Roughly 30% of western society has ailments that could prevent them from going full vegan. This argument is similar to other arguments, "only a handful of people die of covid", "only 1% of society is trans, there is no need to accomodate or discuss".
I do of course agree that most people should reduce or annihilate their intake of meat, not for moralistic reasons but for efficiency and environmental reasons. I also think that synthetic meat and heavily processed GMO plants like soy are getting better and are necessary for ideological veganism, and anyone that thinks it is unnecessary is fooling themselves.
do you know where i could read more about this? tried googling the figure but couldn't find anything
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9486601/
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/acid-reflux-ger-gerd-adults/definition-facts
I recall finding some study for all digestive ailments being about 30%, but here are two common diseases. I really need to start keeping track of my source but I always forget to. Each are somewhere around 10-30% of the US or the west depending on the study. Not all of this 30% is completely unable to go vegan, but a good portion are. About 60-70% report their conditions as being 'moderate to severe'. IBS sufferers have significant comorbidities with other diseases, further complicating matters. It should be noted that IBS is much lower in nonwestern countries, perhaps this is due to how many processed foods have excessive fodmaps (high fructose corn syrup, garlic and onion concentrate), perhaps its due to certain common medicine interactions, maybe its a reporting issue.
I'm not nitpicking, but I did say at least attempt a vegetarian diet which would address the crux of the original comment regarding widespread animal torture which never explicitly even mentions veganism
It's not as though there is going to be some sweeping legislation to outlaw meat and kill meat eaters which is akin to examples you're making here wrt COVID or trans people. If 70% of the population made a conscious effort to stop eating meat that would be a tremendous benefit for their health, the welfare of animals, and the climate. And as a bonus, they'd save money doing it
There are plenty here that think it should be fully outlawed, just because you aren't one doesn't mean it isn't a common sentiment
I'll be honest, I don't know if I've ever seen a post like that made in sincerity and it's not what I'm advocating for
I don't deny a subset of the population may have legitimate dietary constraints, but their existence doesn't excuse the vast majority who do not. I have seen those who do not use the existence of those people as a shield for their own spinelessness in refusing to cut meat from their diet for purely selfish reasons
And this is coming from an autistic person who cannot stand the texture of beans even today and would sit at the table for hours as a kid refusing to eat vegetables I did not like. If it's important enough, adjusting your diet is an accomplishable task. It's clear that some posters here do not feel the unnecessary suffering of animals is important enough for them to make a relatively simple lifestyle change and it's disturbing
This type of “what about if I had a disease that would kill me if I didn’t eat meat” concern trolling is intended to distract from the underlying issue of mass slaughter. The actual justification that this kind of industrial-scale suffering is acceptable because the food tastes good annd non-human animals don’t matter isn’t as clean an image as disability-rights advocate.
I don’t recommend further engagement.
This exists. I never said I had that issue, but I do know people who do. Continue to live with your head in the clouds if you want.
If you want me to educate you on the science relating to this, I can. If you're not willing to educate yourself on disabilities and how to help people with them, maybe you should.
Sure, educate me, but don’t pretend that every Reddit-tier anti-vegan is arguing from a sincere concern for these people. I know that there are certain conditions that make going vegan very difficult. However this is a systemic failure to provide alternative sources of protein and nutrients. Killing billions of sentient beings every year is bad. And if you want to argue otherwise, I don’t see why it would then be unethical to kill and eat a dog. And from the animal’s point of view, your reasons for killing them don’t matter.
Every time someone cites a medical condition, I’ve been able to explain that it doesn’t absolutely require eating meat. It’s harder, but it’s preferable to murder, which is the underlying issue you seem unwilling to confront.
deleted by creator
I’m not a medical expert so I’m not going to question what you said. I know people in person who claim that they cannot go vegan because of a nut allergy or something similar so that is what I was referring to earlier.
My reaction is because of my background. I grew up in a family that raised livestock. All throughout childhood I had these books that taught me to think of animals as friends. I liked to play with the chickens. And then one day they would be gone. For me it might as well have been grandma being taken out back and shot.
Still, it took until I was 25 before I went vegan. It finally occurred to me that I couldn’t justify eating meat. I still cannot justify it, under any circumstances. So I am left with a feeling of understanding, yes, but the horror will always be there. I’m an emotional person.
Yeah think I'm going to tap out of my second experience in this specific topic struggle sesh. It's so tiring seeing people who know better advocating pointless cruelty when they'll criticize libs and chuds for the exact same thought patterns
what do you mean by this?
Some people seem to have the goal of a fully vegan society. Veganism for yourself right now is obviously a personal choice.
This justification can be used for killing and eating your dog, the local squirrels, your next door neighbor, your grandma, and literally anything else that can be digested on the planet. The fact that you must eat something does not mean that it is morally justifiable to eat anything.
Am I a non-cannibal? Technically, yes, I eat only non-human stuff 99% of the time.
This is a governor. She's eating meat purely for fun, just like 99% of Westerners. She doesn't need it.
Did she eat the dog? Or did she just kill out of pure malice when it didnt conform to her desires? There is a difference between killing a dog that provides companionship and the evils of mass farming.
She ate the dog so it's cool
This comment is so confusing.
Would eating her dog make this less horrible?
If you're gonna be a puppy killing monster, the least you can do is make sure the meat doesn't go to waste.
I would say someone who murders and eats their victims is actually worse than someone who just murders them.
Oh it's friday night on hexbear again lmao
Probably worthwhile for most but there's something particularly fucked up to most people about killing pets, I'd hope at least. With livestock there's a whole historical context of homo sapien omnivorousness to explain it.
that kind of post is just pretending to not understand the cultural significance of pets. If there's actually a point behind it besides antagonizing people in a post about child abuse and violating social norms, I don't know what it is.
You're deliberately misreading their post
It says "why industrial animal torture industries do not" not that "industrial animal torture doesn't upset you just as much"
Either you think pets are higher tier beings than the equally smart and full of personality animals killed for food or you don't. It's not that hard
nah i think it's social categories, not moral ones. Cool i've deconstructed the categories of "pet animal" and "food animal" and think that if you want to keep a holstein as a pet or raise cats as livestock that's a little weird (historically, culturally, and logistically) but not some great sin just because the animals are flipped around.
people keep lizards and weird bugs as non-traditional pets too, maybe it's easier to see compared to mammals that the thing that's special about a pet is that it's a pet, not the species.
No, the thing that is special about all of them is that they're living creatures that can experience pain and have desires to live in their natural environments
Your example isn't doing any favors here. It's honestly more concerning that all that matters to you is the label you assign to a being that gives its life worth. You're explicitly acknowledging anything could be a pet that is meaningful to someone but some just get the shit end of the stick and are killed after a lifetime of torture instead
Now hold on.
I'm a vegan, but I can recognize murdering your own pet as being even worse than murdering any other animal. The problem isn't that the dog is a pet, but rather, her pet. She just murdered a member of her family for pissing her off. That's serial killer shit.
I had pet chickens before I was a vegan and if anyone killed them back then I'd fucking- well. They wouldn't kill anything ever again.
I don't know what part of the thread I'm in at this point, but I've said elsewhere here that I agree this is more unhinged than average carnism defense. The underlying issue I'm trying to tease out here is the imposition of a human's will upon the life of an animal because the human wanted to do that and didn't care about the animal enough to make a different choice
The parent to this developing struggle session was not equivocating the two, it was asking why one made carnists feel a certain way and the mass torture of animals for food doesn't
The question necessarily implies hypocrisy on the part of carnists i.e. "if this woman murdering her dog makes you feel bad, you should feel bad when you murder animals" or even "you murder animals all the time, what right do you have to judge her for doing the same thing?"
I certainly read it as you trying to equivocate the two! And I doubt I was the only one.
The Internet is text based, assigning a tone to what is typed is purely a personal problem to put it bluntly.
They are asking why industrial animal torture is not upsetting but killing a pet dog is. Why is someone who feels upset about the suffering of a dog not also upset about the suffering of a pig, cow, or chicken? If it's purely the label of pet, we get back to the comment you replied to
Vocabulary creates tone and "the industrial animal torture industries" is far from a neutral phrase. If you can't read tone it's a skill issue.
They are asking why industrial animal torture is not upsetting compared to killing a pet dog because they are equivocating the two.
"Pet" is not purely a label, it is the social relationship between pets and their families. That is what is so upsetting to people. Equivocating would make more sense if she had a dog-meat farm, because those aren't pets. Horrible, but only as horrible as any other blood farm that raises animals for slaughter. Killing pets, though, is clearly different. That's killing family. People are going to get upset about it.
this is about interrogating why people think pets are different from livestock, something common to mammals (and talking about desires gets a little weird, but anyway) isn't going to be the difference between them.
yes. although to slide in part of another comment i saw pop up while typing this
i think it's the social relation itself rather than the label being a talisman. We even attach to inanimate objects the same way sometimes.
Why should I interrogate my own beliefs when I can completely ignore them and make a bad faith argument turning it into a personal attack on my fragile carnist ego?
Ask me why I think the systemic mass slaughter of sentient beings is ok? How fucking dare you? Have you considered culture you stupid vegan? Stop antagonizing me!
could you show me where i called someone stupid? there's plenty of real things to be mad about you don't have to make up more.
Ancient carnist strategy: distract from the actual issue, make it about yourself.
Another bad faith comment. I know you’re well aware of the bullshit you’re spewing but for all the toddlers out there learning how communication works, you don’t have to quote someone verbatim when caricaturing them.
I know the mass slaughter of sentient beings is a nothingburger to you but that doesn’t mean it is to everyone else :)
Indeed, it would be hard to make up something more depraved.
But now you’ve upset me, responding to you made me forget about the oven and now my broiled dog is ruined. Please don’t antagonize me with your western morality btw.
2/10
That's pretty generous lol
That’s tautological though, they’re asking us to interrogate why we have a cultural importance and pets statistically and citing the cultural importance itself as the only reason doesn’t work
it's tautological because that's all there is. There are historical reasons why some animals made better draft animals or whatever than others, but our pets are special to us because we adopt them. You could adopt a cow or a shark too, we just usually don't because of the logistics.
The carnist apologia in this thread is something else. The contortions people (sadly, including leftists) will go through just to try to assuage their cognitive dissonance and justify what they must know on some level is naked hypocrisy is truly is wild.
Hexbear carnists engage in self-crit challenge: impossible.
deleted by creator