75% of the anti-piracy discussions I see rarely blame companies like Nintendo or Disney and always try to talk about how piracy is immoral, and you should feel "dirty" for doing it. My question is why do people seem to hate those who pirate more than the bad practices of mega-corporations or the fact that they don't want to preserve their media?
This "vegans have a superiority complex" take is a thought-terminating cliché ultimately rooted in projection. Since vegans make you feel self-conscious about the unethicality of your carnist tendencies, you divert to accusations of a "superiority complex" when that is just the result of you internally grappling with the cognitive dissonance you have when it comes to funding animal exploitation that you have no proper justification for.
Veganism is a justice movement, and vegans express disdain for non-vegans because they often double down on their oppressive tendencies that keep animals enslaved, exploited, and slaughtered. I don't think I'm superior to you because, just like me, you have the capacity to understand why you shouldn't support the oppression of sentient beings. Not only do you have the capacity to understand it, but you can take that to its logical conclusion and live in a way that is in accordance with said understanding.
Also, the framing is off here. A principled ethical vegan doesn't see veganism as a "benefit;" we see it as a moral obligation and baseline. Saying that veganism comes with "benefits" is like saying that refraining from calling racial minorities ethnic slurs comes with "benefits," when it's actually just basic decency toward BIPOC.
Oh my, I literally read the comment you're replying to backwards! I thought they said that carnists hate vegans. I'm glad you're here to read properly and give a great response!
There’s no projection. I feel no guilt for eating the diet of every single one of my ancestors. Zero. I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering. It’s not that I don’t understand vegans. I do. But it’s like a religion - you have a fundamental belief, not in god, but in the consciousness of animals. Because we differ on that fundamental belief, we can reach no understanding about the ethics beyond that.
And I think it is a fair comparison. People who pay for media may also see it as an ethical baseline to pay for what you consume. And in both the case of vegans, and those who pay for streaming, the perceived benefit of that choice is in my opinion fundamentally flawed. But it’s really not a big deal to me. I was just trying to answer OPs question. I think your response only validates my analogy. Thank you.
Why do you think animals do not have consciousness? Do human animals have consciousness? And are non-human animal brains not remarkably similar to our own? Did we not come out of the same stuff, live on the same earth, and evolve from the same common ancestors? It seems the logical default to assume that non-human animals do experience the world in much the same way you or I do.
Holy mother of red flags.
Appeal to tradition.
Objectively false belief. Source
Also, saying "I do not equate death or servitude with suffering" is just using an absurd personal opinion to invalidate objective considerations. It'd be like me saying, "I don't associate shouting slurs at racial minorities with racism," to validate such an act. In either case, neither distortion serves as a justification for this wicked behavior.
False equivalence. One belief is speculative and far more abstract, but the other belief has legitimate concrete evidence to support it. Once again, read the very comprehensive analysis.
Again, this is a false equivalence, and it seems that you are abusing the notion of morality being subjective in order to justify an immoral act. You could also easily say something like "People who refrain from assaulting innocent people see it as an ethical baseline, but I don't" as a bad attempt at justifying assaulting innocent people, but it won't hold weight on its own. You have to provide a solid basis for why such an equivalence actually makes sense, but you do not. You just state it like it's plainly obvious and doesn't need further details.
This is so copey that it hardly deserves a full-fledged response. Please know that this comment isn't the "own" you think it is. You're embarrassing yourself.
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness. They are just as aware and alive as fungi and plants. Otherwise we would feel great remorse when examining all the slaughtered insects on the front of our motor vehicles. Fish, are slightly more aware, but I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains. Birds and mammals are on a higher level of consciousness than a lot of the animal kingdom. But not all death is painful. Many humans seek a dignified and painless death.
Domesticated animals for the most part have the ability to escape, if they wanted to express their consciousness and free will. The process of domestication is an evolutionary choice. Chickens and other livestock are suffering today because their ancestors gave away their freedom for security.
Actually I think dogs collectively suffer more than most of our livestock. For them, death is out of reach. Their suffering is prolonged. Their mutations and genetic deficiencies are cruel. Many dogs are born with such horrible genes and behaviors they have no hope of a quality life with humans. Very sad.
Anyway, there is no objective truth on this matter. But I know you care so much about suffering, I just want to reassure you, that I feel no sorrow for livestock. Everything we eat and purchase impacts the animals on this planet. To exist is to impose suffering on the Earth. And I’m okay with that. My opinion, is that vegans are drawing a line in sand so feint that it is erased by the slightest breeze.
You are a disgusting human. I'm actually appalled reading the shit you're writing. It's not often that I read such concentrated evil. You don't think death and servitude cause suffering? You think domesticated animals choose to stay in factory farms? You're a fucking ghoul.
First of all, current data on the sentience of insects, crustaceans, and mollusks are, at the most, uncertain regarding whether or not these animals have sentience, not definitively conclusive in the direction of them not having sentience. And even if they were to actually not be sentient, this is honestly just a red herring unless these are the ONLY animals that you are responsible for the enslavement, exploitation, and slaughter of, but you are clearly very disingenuous. Other animals that you endorse being exploited and tortured, such as cows and pigs, objectively have been confirmed to have consciousness (read the fucking study), so how is this even relevant? As far as the point about running them over with motor vehicles, some degree of animal suffering like this is inevitable, but to purport that the existence of inevitable unintentional animal suffering justifies deliberately funding farm animals being shoved into gas chambers just for personal pleasure is nothing more than an appeal to futility fallacy. Humans have died in the construction of houses, but I'm not seeing you say that it's okay to deliberately murder humans to eat them simply because so many people are living in houses and they cannot guarantee that the construction of such houses did not cause any human death.
"I don't attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains."
By you using such "I" phrasing, you are inadvertently admitting that you are not going off of scientific consensus (which you've already proved yourself to be really fucking bad at anyway), but rather "personal vibes about their tiny brains, bro." Like, even this study provides support for this claim within the very first sentence of its abstract, in addition to all of the intricacies pertaining to the research conducted to gain this information, of course.
This is irrelevant, as we don't necessarily say that it is morally acceptable to take the life of a human so long as you do it in a painless way. In these scenarios, you are referring to a human going through a "dignified and painless death." These often involve matters of consensual euthanasia and/or mental illness.
If someone went into your house while you were sleeping at 3 AM and did an instantly lethal, painless blow to your head with a firearm, would you consider that morally acceptable due to the "painless" nature of the death?
I am baffled by how much you can reach. You are claiming that because humans have been able to seize the wild ancestors of modern-day domesticated farm animals, that means these animals "gave their freedom away." You're so rhetorically illiterate that I keep thinking with each read of your words that I will not see mental gymnastics more absurd than what you've already put out, but you keep proving me wrong! This is also a baseless claim, as you obviously were not around to witness how humans went about capturing these wild ancestors. It reeks of a victim-blaming mentality as well, saying that "If the animals didn't want humans to exploit them, they should've just escaped!" This is not shocking for someone who "does not equate death or servitude with suffering," though.
As far as the animals we have today, domesticated animals cannot last in the wild, so escaping could lead them into a dangerous situation as well; that's exactly why we call them DOMESTICATED. Exploitative humans have selectively bred and genetically modified these animals to be meat, milk, and egg-producing machines. By utilizing manmade restraining devices, such as those that are literally called r--- racks. I should add, humans keep these animals unable to escape, but they still try to escape in whatever capacity they can.
Wait a minute. I thought that you did not believe in the sentience of animals, so why do you worry about dogs? You're contradicting yourself! Also, yes, dogs are also victims of speciesism, human supremacy, and animal exploitation, so don't support the pet industry, and if you want to be logically consistent, eschew the dairy, egg, and meat industry while you're at it.
There are studies that objectively indicate these things, but seeing as how undialectical and unscientific you are, you have deliberately chosen to neglect the actual peer-reviewed studies I have sent you because you know that being faced with information that makes a strong case against your already abhorrent rhetoric would strike too much of a nerve.
Saying "I feel no sorrow for livestock" is just giving your personal opinion on a matter, but lacking sympathy for another sentient being still does not serve as a moral justification for the exploitation and slaughtering of that sentient being. If a Klansman said, "I feel no sorrow for black people," surely you wouldn't think that his lynchings are now morally justified, right?
Once again, this is an appeal to futility. Yes, we all cause some degree of harm and suffering just by existing, but that doesn't mean deliberately going out of your way to uphold harm and suffering is morally acceptable, and it certainly does not make the slavery aspect of animal oppression morally acceptable either. This isn't about whether or not you're okay with these things. Morality is a two-way street, just like how the Klansman in that hypothetical isn't morally justified by neglecting the interests of his black victims and only focusing on what he thinks alone.
My brother in Christ, you are the one who literally rejected fish sentience on the basis of pure vibes rather than evidence. If you're going back to what you said about insects, crustaceans, and mollusks, then once again, I challenge you to tell me exactly how that justifies what you're doing to animals that are not within those categories. You also seem to have sympathy for dogs even though you literally stated, "I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering," so whose lines are arbitrary again?
I nearly spared you this because you are so deeply unserious and one of the worst instances of a rhetorically illiterate carnist who spouts absurd takes in an effort to come off as some degree of logically consistent, but quite frankly, it'd truthfully just be far more honorable for you to own up to your shortcomings here.
You didn't even have to bring up veganism to begin with, as the original thread has nothing to do with it. You brought it upon yourself because you saw a sliver of some chance to cope. If it's striking that much of a nerve that you need to grasp at so many straws to attempt to defend carnism this poorly out of nowhere, then go vegan for fuck's sake.
And why do you believe that?
So you wouldn't have any objections if you were taken as a slave and worked to death, right? Because those aren't suffering?
deleted by creator
And here's that exact superiority complex on display for all to see.
How so? I literally stated that they have the exact same capacity as me to understand why veganism is a moral obligation. Such an understanding isn't hard to grasp, and I'm no ascended, especially enlightened person for being vegan. If I believed myself to be, I'd have no reason to hold others to the same standard. The incentive lies in the fact that carnism comes with victims; veganism isn't about me.
Regardless, this is an ad hominem and, as I stated, a thought-terminating cliché. It's a loophole to avoid engaging with ideas via focusing on the people expressing such ideas instead. Do you have any actual insight regarding the assertions I'm making or is it just cope?
This is a "begging the question" logical fallacy
What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they're morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another? You're projecting here.
I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can't help but talk about how superior their choices are.
How is asserting "It doesn't seem morally superior to hold others to the exact same moral standard as me" circular reasoning? Explain in detail; don't just say it like it's obvious and a "no shit" kind of take.
You are disingenuously undermining what veganism is by phrasing it as a trivial dietary choice. And once again, this isn't about whether vegans are "morally superior" or not. You can engage in ideas without using such an ad hominem as a cushion for your own guilt, but you are still actually refusing to do so. There is no reason why veganism, as a subject, should get an automatic quick dismissal via accusations of a "superiority complex" than any other subject. For instance, I take it and hope that you wouldn't say "anti-racists think they're so superior to racists 🙄," but doing so holds the exact same amount of weight as what you're doing right now with veganism. You're using a thought-terminating cliché to degrade the person asserting an idea rather than discussing the idea itself.
There is a reason why I said "veganism isn't about me." You are committing victim erasure by glossing over the fact that I made very clear that veganism is a justice movement that takes a stand for victims. And once again, you are just repeating the same exact issue of ad hominem and a thought-terminating cliché by calling vegans "self-righteous" and disingenuously strawmanning them as people who just want to circlejerk about the "superiority of their choices" rather than engage in and advocate for a justice movement.
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that your morals are the "correct morals" while everyone else who doesn't align with you is incorrect. That's a textbook definition of this fallacy.
That's exactly what it is. Disagree? Explain in detail; don't just say it like it's obvious and a "no shit" kind of take.
Where has that happened here? I challenge you to quote the comment stating as much. Seems like you're strawmanning here.
"Veganism isn't about me, but if you criticize me personally, you're criticizing veganism!"
This is hilariously illogical. It reads like someone whose brain is short circuiting from all the cognitive dissonance.
There is no functional difference between your original text and my bolded replacement. To be a carnist is to, through your actions, support animal torture.
Hmm. Claims to not support animal torture yet joins hexbear and tortures all of us mammals on Lemmy any time one of you "writes" a comment. I'm seeing a disconnect in your reasoning here...
Carnists don't count
This is such a shitty "joke". Fucking hell. I hope you experience even half of the suffering a dairy cow experiences during their life. You won't, because the world isn't fair, but if I could imprison you and exploit your reproductive system until you're too old and worn out to be worthwhile and then kill you, I would do so.
Lets say you see a moral wrong that others ignore, often while admitting that they're wrong to do so, and you alone act against that moral wrong despite it being hard and being mocked for your decision. How else would you feel? If you felt that being vegan was morally equal then you wouldn't have become a vegan for ethical reasons in the first place. So by definition, you must believe yourself (in this specific area) morally superior, and based on that one data point, it's probably safe to generalize that you're morally superior to the majority of non-vegans, just like how you probably consider yourself morally superior to people who litter or hit their kids.