I agree we probably wouldn't get any more Assassin's Creed or Deadpool and Wolverine. Very likely those kinds of media would die out in a world where no one pays for media. I have a hard time saying that's a bad thing. We'd instead have more weird little indie projects, which are so, so much better in every way. But sure, if you feel morally queasy about "stealing" (it's not stealing, it's copying) from giant corporations who make artistically bankrupt crap, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and it would be a waste of my time to try and do so.

Maybe I should point out here that sometimes I do go out of my way to pay for media (especially games) when I don't have to. I bought Dwarf Fortress on Steam, even though the devs give it away for free and I donated to them a couple times before they released it on Steam. They are living off the money people pay for Dwarf Fortress and I'm so glad they're able to do so. I also bought my sister a copy of Pathologic 2 she has never (and probably will never) play because I bought my copy on sale and loved it and felt bad that I hadn't paid full price to a dev team that put their heart and soul into the game and had it sell abysmally for some reason. (Side note, play Pathologic 2, it's good!) I bought the Celeste soundtrack from Lena Raine's bandcamp because I love it so much, even though it's extremely easy to find and I've actually lost access to my bandcamp account.

I guess I'm saying there's nuance here and I like it when actual artists who make good art are paid. It's just that in our current society, buying a DVD or paying for Netflix or paying for Xbox gamepass or anything like that doesn't benefit the artists, the vast majority of any money you spend to acquire media goes straight to wealthy executives and I just don't see anything wrong with not giving them more money than they're already getting.

While your claim is true---big budget movies, etc., need someone to pay for them---the unspoken corollary you're implying isn't true---that without the current economic model, no-one would pay for big budget productions, or that undermining the current model via piracy will reduce the rate at which they are funded.

The current model is: massive corporate copyright-holders can purchase the right the profit from an artistic production. They pay for its production up front. Even though we have a technology that can costlessly copy these products and very cheaply distribute them to almost everyone who wants them, the copyright holders maximise their profits by a) crippling this capacity by spend considerable money, labor and human expertise on technologies that artificially limit copying, and b) use state-supported coercion (e.g., fines, lawsuits, police, etc), to punish individuals who would circumvent these crippling technologies. To be clear, these copyright holders still make massive profits, vastly beyond what any individual they are persecuting for copyright infringement could ever dream of. Their policing of piracy is to make even greater profits.

Even though this is how big artistic productions are funded today, it is not true that in the absence of this economic model, big artistic productions would not be funded. The demand for these products would still exist, and if there's one thing our society excels at, it's directing capital to meet demand.

Alternative models that could fund big artistic productions:

• a centralised fund we all contribute to in proportion to our means (e.g., progressive taxation), that pays artists in proportion to how much their product is consumed (like the Spotify model, but publically administered, like TV licences)
• many small scale investors rather than corporate monoliths (like Kickstarter), whose investments are recouped by a) privileged access to get product and b) the still highly profitable cinema and dvd markets whose constraints (physical premises/media) are not compatible with free copying.
• a legislated solution that protects copyright until artists are sufficiently recompensed and then allows free distribution.

These are just some examples of the many possible alternative models for funding large art projects and deciding who should profit from them and how much. However the details aren't nearly as important (many different models could work), as the ultimate driver: whether our actions/systems/laws enhance or undermine demand for the art.

Piracy does undermine the current (corrupt, exploitative, reprehensible) economic model but it also increases demand for the media it distributes more widely and equitably. It doesn't, as you imply, reduce the likelihood of big budget media existing in the future, it increases the likelihood of it existing in a more fair and equitable way, that harness our ability to freely copy rather than crippling it for the benefit of the ultra-wealthy copyright-buyers.

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.

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.

Fish, are slightly more aware, but I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains.

"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.

But not all death is painful. Many humans seek a dignified and painless death.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 opinion, is that vegans are drawing a line in sand so feint that it is erased by the slightest breeze.

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.

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.

Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness.

Show

I have no issues with someone not supporting animal torture, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can't help but talk about how superior their choices are.

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.

This is a "begging the question" logical fallacy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.