It's beacuse a mutation of covid was discovered in minks. I'm sure they have already been added to the list of Victims of Communism. Pure hellworld. Fuck everyone who wears fur coats.
It's beacuse a mutation of covid was discovered in minks. I'm sure they have already been added to the list of Victims of Communism. Pure hellworld. Fuck everyone who wears fur coats.
I’m genuinely confused why non-vegans are upset by this. Why get upset that minks being raised to be slaughtered for their fur were slaughtered for a different reason? Why be upset by this and not by the ongoing wholesale industrial slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, fish, ect. that simply dwarfs it in scale? Over 300 million cows alone were killed for food in 2016, but non-vegans aren’t publishing articles about how tragic that is or saying saying fuck everyone who eats burgers.
Is it just because people like burgers and don’t like expensive fur coats? Or because they think that minks are cute and cows and pigs are ugly? I’m really not trying to be accusatory, it’s just that even before I was a vegan I never understood why people attach emotions and assign moral value to one species of mammal over another.
If you can't tell the difference between slaughtering animals for goods meant for public consumption and slaughtering animals for incredibly inaccesible luxury products that aren't even meant to be consumed as food, then I don't know what to tell you lol.
Obviously wearing the skin of dead animals incites a more knee-jerk reaction than seeing meat so processed that it's next to impossible to tell what the origin of it is. In fact, you could replace all meat-products with lab grown meat and nobody will bat an eye,making me think that there's probably a better way to deal with slaughterhouses than feeling really guilty about it and voting with your wallet.
The condescending tone isn’t helping.
Meat is not needed for public consumption, it’s a wasteful luxury product only made affordable by massive subsidies. Not all animals that people are ok with slaughtering are used for food, either. For example, male chicks are simply fed into a giant blender as soon as they are old enough to have their sex identified because they aren’t as profitable as female chicks, and yet there is no outrage over this from the general public.
In other places around the world, animals like dogs and cats are used for “public consumption”, and yet the vast majority of Westerners don’t think that is morally acceptable despite it being a contradictory stance.
And of course, if the real moral difference is whether an animal’s body is sold to the general public or the wealthy elite, then why does no one ever become outraged about cows being used to make leather Lamborghini seats or $3,000 luxury steaks? Isn’t that just as bad as fur coats?
And it also leaves open the question of why should an animal’s moral worth be decided based on how it’s body parts are sold after it is slaughtered, or why we shouldn't apply the same standard to humans.
It actually doesn’t, or else people would react the same way to leather as they do to fur.
Yeah, that’s all that leftist vegans care about: Shaming people into voting with their wallet. I love it when other leftists tell me the exact same shit as chuds whenever veganism comes up. Because of course I can’t possibly have put a lot of time and effort into trying to understand the moral and systemic issues inherent in animal exploitation, because I’m obviously just a moral scold who doesn’t realize that cows were put on earth to become burgers and that’s just the way it is.
I was ready to be more confrontational for my retort but I really though about it and I'm still going to double down. But also I came up with a fucking wall of text and the only way I can get you to engage and hopefully retort with your own arguments is if you read it in good faith and I'm all for that shit. I don't mean to be condescending at all and that's on me. That being said here's a whooping wall of text:
I really dislike the argument that meat is a "luxury product" nor any argument that asks the reader to subscribe to some form of stoichal deprivation. Spices are also luxury items, and in many regards its supply chain every bit of exploitative (since they are sourced from the third world and available at reasonable prices through blatant imperialism) yet people would look at you funny if you intend them to limit their intake to flavorless gruel for ethical purposes, and for good reason.
But more crucially, I think people could all be painfully aware of where meat comes from, and they would still eat meat. Look at it like this, people know meat directly causes cancer and people still eat meat. And why wouldn't it cause cancer, we know meat with cancerous growths just have the visible tumors removed and still sold like it's a-ok meat. People joke about this shit, I've seen them laugh about it when eating unnaturally oversized chicken breasts and agree with you whole-heartedly about eating it being probably a bit hazardous while biting off a huge chunk of fried chicken breast. Like they could die painful deaths because of their meat eating habits and they still fucking do it, in the face of this, why would a moralizing argument about cows nobody has ever met work? Like it's their own well-being they're directly threatening. Practically self-harm and they still eat meat.
So a more interesting question is why people eat meat despite all of it, despite it coming from dead animals and despite it being directly and provably harmful to oneself. And I think that it's the way meat is presented as an inert product, with all its background and origin erased. And the immediate reaction is that we need to make everyone painfully aware of what meat is made of and by God, PETA has tried, because they understand this very well and it doesn't work. And it never will because the consumption impulse doesn't even happen entirely at the conscious level, because performance displays about dead people labeled as meat is fighting against the sea of meat products represented with logos of happy cows in sterile refrigerators.
And I like to think that lefties, of all people, should be immediately aware of commodity fetishism within the context of the meat industry because it could be easily reversed. Capitalism can commodify your own guilt and put a price tag on it. Capitalism can transform your guilt into a premium and sell it back to you as guilt-free meat. Capitalism can simply resort to selling meat alternatives as a premium alternative to meat, because that's where the profit motive is, and never aim to replace meat at all, which is what I presume the end game of any vegetarian.
And I mean, I do see an alternative, maybe we should really run with how whitewashed meat is as a commodity, a meat that is only as valuable as it's own texture and flavor is, that is, the inmediate sensorial experience it provides, and just replace it with a "non-meat" alternative at the same price point. And it'd be a win-win, it's cheaper, it's healthier, environmentally friendlier and nobody would be none-the-wiser because nobody really eats meat because they like to see animals suffer, actually. Nobody would really think that much about it, if there was an alternative with no animal sacrifice involved that is experientially the same at the same price. Everybody would take it.
And I do believe this is a nice segue that lets me take it back to them fucking minks and why people who wear mink coats are not as defensible, and why people detest them more. That's because people who purchase mink coats are really really concerned with them being made of mink. They simply cannot take any alternative because the entire value of a mink coat comes from the fact that it comes from a dead mink. Unlike meat, synthetic fibers that are made to resemble mink fur in just about every way already exist, and the sole reason why rich people still spend significantly more in authentic mink fur is because they really want to know it comes from a dead animal. The origin of a mink coat is not made invisible, it's ingrained into the commodity itself. It is flaunted for everyone to see. Ersatz mink simply would not do, it needs a written guarantee that several minks died while doing it and possibly even an appellation of origin.
I don't want to be mean to anyone who chooses to not eat meat though. If they feel like they're living lives more authentic to their values, more power to them. And I myself am trying to eat less meat (it IS harmful lol), but like I'm also still aware that this is happening under capitalism, that my grocery preferences are a big whoop of nothing, and I'm not going to refuse a nice chicken soup from my grandma any time soon.
edit:love 2 not be notified of a reply
I am discussing in good faith, but this particular discussion is shitty because you don't seem to be engaging with any ideas that are relevant to the ethics of animal exploitation. You don't seem to have any real knowledge of the ethical critiques vegans make and instead just assume you have enough knowledge to argue authoritatively on the subject and it's aggravating to say the least. The entire point that I've been discussing is about having a consistent ethical justification for animal exploitation, and you seem to be dead set on talking about literally anything else.
Ok, you're just starting off by assuming that vegans are trying to make people into ascetics and deprive them of enjoying luxuries, for some reason. It's things like this that make having a good faith discussion incredibly difficult, because I have to spend my time correcting your assumptions about veganism instead of just discussing it directly. To put it simply, meat isn't a luxury because people enjoy eating it, it's a luxury because it is both unnecessary and expensive to produce. Luxuries aren't inherently bad, but killing a sentient being purely for luxury consumption is surely wrong.
Sure, but this has nothing to do with whether it's morally acceptable to kill animals for pleasure. Most people are ok with consuming products they know are made by slave labor, exploitation, and imperialism, but that doesn't mean that any of those things are somehow moral or acceptable. Should we tolerate slavery because most people are ok with purchasing the products the slaves create?
The vast majority of people who eat meat do not consider it to be a significant cause of cancer. Seriously, try telling people to stop eating meat because it is a carcinogen and see how many people come out of nowhere to tell you that can't be true because eating meat is natural and can't be harmful because evolution. And this is also not relevant to whether slaughtering animals for pleasure is ethical.
Yeah, we can't ever talk about ethics because some people will just be unethical anyways. Why say murder is wrong when people will still murder others? Or why say slavery is immoral because there are always people who will purchase products made from slave labor? Maybe we should just stop moralizing about murder and slavery and accept that people will just do what benefits them even if it causes mass suffering and death.
And this is also not relevant to whether slaughtering animals for pleasure is ethical.
So we can't say killing animals for pleasure is bad because people are just helplessly manipulated by all-powerful marketing campaigns? Why should we even bother being leftists if capitalist marketing can just always mid control people into being mindless consumers?
And this is also not relevant to whether slaughtering animals for pleasure is ethical.
Vegetarians are vegans are completely different. It's like saying liberals and communists are the same thing. This basic lack of knowledge of the subject is why having a discussion with you is so frustrating and difficult.
And yet again, this still has no bearing on whether slaughtering animals for pleasure is ethical.
Things like the Impossible Burger and Beyond Beef exist and have existed for a while now and somehow meat eaters still hate them. It turns out the vast majority of meat eaters don't give a shit about animal suffering, unless it's a cute animal they happen to like.
Really, this is just infuriating at this point. You blatantly have no idea about anything related to veganism and animal exploitation and that doesn't stop you from just claiming to know all the answers.
None of this is unique to mink, people do the exact same shit with leather vs synthetic leather, turkey vs tofurkey, beef vs beyond beef, and on and on. Please learn more about the subject before trying to argue it, I'm begging you.
Yeah, I'm sure the animals that were tortured and slaughtered really appreciate how chill you are with all of it. I'm sure the chickens feel their lifelong imprisonment and early death is worth it so long as you don't make Grandma feel awkward. I mean, if my Grandma offers me some nice dog soup, I can't refuse that and hurt her feelings, can I?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Living vegan is damn near impossible for many areas of America, let alone the world. Access to healthy food at affordable prices is not guaranteed for a whole hell of a lot of people.
I agree with going vegan, it's better in literally every way, but get off your high horse. You sound exactly like a smug liberal, and not the "haha we're all liberal" kind, the globe emoji kind.
deleted by creator
Americans across the class spectrum consume way more meat than the average country does. It's less about poverty and more about food infrastructure design, which is unsustainably beef-centric in the US. There's nothing inherently cheaper about meat, it's the opposite.
All true points, but that doesn't change the fact that many impoverished Americans live in food deserts with little access to healthy, fresh vegetables/ food. While this has been improving in some areas, it is the foremost reason for unhealthy food consumption, and the diseases that causes.
It gets back to the same solution for so many ailments of society: government programs. Tax meat, subsidize vegetables, I'd go as far as build free food kitchens with cooked, healthy meals in impoverished areas. Bean dishes with veggies, rice, etc.
fur is bougie for one, and has been at least passe for like, decades? I'm frankly shocked it's still a major industry.
but the mink cull was absolutely the right call and the only mistake they made/could make is not doing it faster (or not finishing it)
Yeah, but fur being bougie and passé really just means that people are ok condemning animal slaughter so long as they don’t personally enjoy the result. I’m just confused that so many people seem to think this is ok and morally consistent? Simultaneously thinking it’s ok to slaughter cows for a leather jacket but wrong to slaughter minks for a fur coat just seems like it should cause some cognitive dissonance or something. I don’t know, it might be just because I’m neurodivergent, and sometimes I struggle to understand how some people apparently are ok with not having a consistent ethical worldview in regards to animals.
There's more to the equation than 'animal die for human purpose'. The purpose and aim of the killer is something people interrogate. It's why they feel differently about a vet putting down a dog and someone beating one to death. A bougie product almost no-one has access to, which is a symbol of aristocracy doesn't seem a justifiable motive to these people, whereas eating probably does.
I don’t think that’s really a difference of intent, but of action. The real difference between a vet putting down a dog and dog being literally beaten to death is absolutely not the intent of the killer, it’s the suffering of the dogs. Even if both people had nothing but good intent for the dog (for example, my uncle beat his pet rabbit to death with a bat to “put it out of its misery” because he wrongly thought it would be instantaneous), the vet would still be the better one for not causing unnecessary suffering.
Whether an animal is slaughtered to make a luxury product or an affordable product is also not a difference of intent, but of action based on profit-seeking. And that still seems like such strange moral reasoning to me. Do people really just think: “Killing minks for fur coats is morally wrong because I can’t afford fur, but killing cows for leather jackets is fine because I can afford leather”? Like, that the suffering of the animals is only morally important if you don’t stand to personally benefit from it? And people are just ok with that, despite generally believing that “what personally benefits me” is absolutely not an acceptable way to assign moral worth? It’s just baffling to me.
Minks are cute and don’t have a euphemism for their livestock potential.
I think you’re right in part, that definitely does provoke a knee-jerk emotional reaction from people. But do they just never really think it through at all? Before I was vegan I still thought it was important to have a consistent ethic that justified the mass slaughter of animals for personal pleasure, but maybe that’s not something other people really consider?
Or maybe it’s just because they don’t really care about the actual minks and just don’t like the idea of a cute animal being killed for a product they don’t personally want. Which would explain why people just get upset at hearing about the slaughter but don’t demand any kind of mass action to end it and then forget about it as soon as it stops being reported on. I don’t know, I just struggle to understand how people can feel such selective empathy for animals and be completely unbothered by the incoherent ethics they have to embrace as a result.
selective empathy for animals takes place all the time
living things die, and those living things that survive are sustained by that death and re-circulation of energy/nutrients... it's not an ethical position to say that animals & plants & fungi all depend in varying degrees on the deaths of one another
that doesn't mean animals can't feel pain or don't have personality, but selective empathy is literally the name of the game.
Jains don't eat root vegetables because they believe these veggies have more spirit than leafy greens etc.
these are inconsistent metrics & emotionally wrought positions, not well-established doctrines
Of course it does, as does selective empathy for other humans and even for inanimate objects. I’m not confused by the existence of selective empathy, just that so many people accept it uncritically for the fundamental basis of their ethics. I know it’s super common, I just can’t really wrap my mind around it. Maybe it’s just because I’m neurodivergent? Or something?
Isn’t this basically “the circle of life exists, therefore the exploitation and slaughter of any and all animals is ok because that’s just how the universe be”? It’s just a strange thing to bring up because it’s not actually what people believe, or else they wouldn’t be bothered by minks or dogs being killed. Sure, some people will claim to believe it to justify why it’s ok to eat burgers or make leather jackets but obviously it isn’t a standard they universally apply to animals, let alone to other humans. I’m just confused because it seems so obvious to me that people are applying openly contradictory moral standards and yet it doesn’t seem to bother them and I can’t relate to that.
And of course it’s an inherently ethical decision to say that slaughtering one species of mammal for personal pleasure is wrong but doing it to a different species of mammal is justified. Just because death and consumption exist doesn’t mean they are somehow entirely outside of the scope of ethics.
But we generally don’t accept selective empathy as a basis for morality for other humans because at it’s core it’s just an arbitrary mental response to certain stimuli, not a reasonable way of recognizing the moral worth of human and non-human animals. I understand that many people do effectively base their morality around their selective empathy, I just don’t understand how they don’t realize it or how it doesn’t deeply bother them on a fundamental level. I just really care about understanding other people and why they think the way they do, but a lot of the time it feels like we’re so fundamentally different that I can’t really get them.
Exactly! This is what I really don’t get. Is this something billions of people are just ok with? Like, they don’t spend their time doing everything they can to continually develop a consistent moral framework because they feel like they must do the Right Thing? Do people just not think about ethics all that much? It’s just incomprehensible to me, I can’t imagine how people can constantly talk about morality and claim to be moral people and then just... not think about it all that much. What’s that like? I just don’t get it.
i didn't say anything justifies eating burgers or making leather jackets, I said that without any ethical considerations made by concerned individuals, there is still an energy & nutrient cycle that humans must participate in
if we can't get interpersonal & intersubjective human dynamics right, then I think it's a tall order to expect average people to take such an all-encompassing & immaculate/morally hygienic approach to their individual consumption
in other words, you are right to say that wholesale slaughter & exploitation of meat/dairy/fur animals should be more closely examined, but I don't think that finger wagging or shaming strangers in vague ways is how we go about it
But remember we live in a society & people have "preferences" as well as aversions. we can't let the real material concerns of veganism & food ethics be swept up in marketized atomized concerns and petty grievances
Ok, I think I was confused because I don’t see how this has anything to do with anything I’m saying. Literally no one on earth would dispute that we must ingest nutrients to live and that’s historically why humans have consumed animals. Is there any reason you think it’s important to point this out?
I haven’t even been arguing that people should be vegan! I explicitly said that I had consistent ethics regarding animal exploitation as a non-vegan and I’m confused why so few people seem to have a consistent view themselves, even if it isn’t vegan. I haven’t told people to be vegan, or shamed people for eating meat, or anything of the sort.
Really this is why I hate talking about veganism. Regardless of what I say, people will assume I’m a moral scold who expects everyone else to be perfectly pure all the time, and that makes me the unreasonable one so I should just stop talking about the ethical considerations of animal exploitation. It’s the exact same shit I get from chuds and it’s just exhausting to deal with.
Seriously? I can talk about the ethics of human exploitation all day here and no one will accuse me of being a vague moral scold, but if I discuss that people don’t seem to have internally consistent ethical frameworks for animal exploitation and suddenly I’m “finger wagging”?
Me: End the exploitation of the working class!
Random chapos: Yes, reasonable, good take, all leftists must agree.
Me: Why don’t people have consistent ethics regarding animal exploitation?
Random chapos: No, scolding, rude, just mentioning it is judgmental.
No shit? I haven’t said a damn thing about what people should do, I’m just confused that people apparently don’t put much thought into it and why they’re ok with that because I’m neurodivergent or some other reason.
You can have a consistent framework that says all non-human animals have a inherently lower moral worth and that their lives and well-being are of less importance than human needs and desires. It’s literally what I used to think, and I’m confused by how few people I’ve encountered have any similar kind of understanding instead of just uncritically basing their view off of selective empathy or whether they personally can afford the animal products. My issue isn’t that not everyone is vegan, it’s confusion about why so many people are averse to critically and systematically applying ethics to non-human animals.
you mean applying "human" morals/ethics to non-human animals
Nope, that’s definitely not what I mean.
That said, I have no idea why you put human in quotes or what part of my posts you’re replying to with this.
because of the last sentence in your post
expecting people to apply a similar level of emotional attachment & ethical consideration they reserve for their children & loved ones onto random meat or dairy animals on factory farms is a tall order... and I think we are fooling ourselves in expecting others to consider the equivalency even as a rhetorical device or thought experiment
that's why I think making larger ecological & political/societal arguments about maintaining a level of "progress" while navigating climate & biodiversity concerns is more important&effective than attempting to humanize those animals born & bred & raised for consumption
What you wrote has no connection to my last sentence or anything I’ve been saying. I’m talking about having internally consistent ethics, not what ethical standards out to be applied to human or non-human animals.
I swear to God you aren’t reading anything I’m writing here. Of course I don’t expect people to have a similar emotional attachment to animals as they do to their own children because that’s a completely ridiculous thing to expect. For the fifth time, I’m just confused about why people don’t seem to care about having consistent ethics regarding animals, even if their ethics conclude that animal exploitation is a morally good thing.
Here’s how our conversation has been going:
Me: people should have consistent ethics regarding the treatment of animals
You: You can’t judge people for not loving all animals like their own children.
Do you see how your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m saying? Am I just not communicating this well to you? Or do you just feel defensive because I’m vegan and that makes you think I’m judging people like you? Whatever it is, you have consistently not been replying to any point I’ve actually brought up despite me repeatedly clarifying myself in the plainest language I can manage and it’s frankly tiresome.
Then it’s a good thing that I’ve never said or thought they were equivalent, and I have no idea why you would think otherwise.
I happen to strongly disagree, but I’m not going to get into it because this has absolutely nothing to do with anything I’ve been saying.
Why are you so convinced that I’ve been trying to convince people to be vegan or even argued for the end any kind of animal exploitation? Seriously, I keep telling you I’m saying nothing of the sort and then you just ignore me and keep arguing against things that no one is even saying.
" Like, they don’t spend their time doing everything they can to continually develop a consistent moral framework because they feel like they must do the Right Thing? Do people just not think about ethics all that much? It’s just incomprehensible to me"
That is what you said, so how else am I being led to believe that you aren't trying to stigmatize others' decisions & moral frameworks based on your own personal preferences? Most people don't consider animals, particularly domesticated meat & dairy animals, as having the same moral importance as other humans... I don't think the calculus is that difficult, but I never said it was "justified"
You are one of the most aggravating people I’ve tried to have a discussion with.
That quote in context is literally just me stating I am neurodivergent and expressing my confusion that so many people seem to not think very deeply about ethics in general. That’s it!
Most people do not seem to have an INTERNALLY CONSISTENT moral framework for non-human animals and that seems strange to me, as a person who is neurodivergent. This is the only thing I’ve been trying to discuss, it’s almost the dozenth time I’ve explained this and I truly don’t get why you insist on misrepresenting me.
Or is “why don’t most people think critically about ethics?” just an inherently offensive question to you? Am I not supposed to try and understand neurotypical people? Do you truly think that having internally consistent ethics is an unreasonable thing to expect of anyone and that even mentioning it is judgmental and insulting?
I just don’t get what your problem is. You’re clearly upset about something but nothing you say has anything to do with my questions so I’m just confused.
No fucking shit, Sherlock. I have not once said anyone should consider other humans and other animals as having the same moral importance as other humans or expressed any confusion over why they don’t. Where are you getting this shit from?
My entire point is that most people don’t seem to have INTERNALLY CONSISTENT ethics, whether they eat animals or not, and it doesn’t seem to bother them. That seems odd to me, because I don’t think that way. That’s it! Am I wrong for not understanding neurotypical people? Am I being offensive just by asking why other people think differently than I do?
contradictions are the stuff of life... nobody is internally or externally consistent on pretty much anything, that's kind of where we're at.
meateaters aren't all "neurotypical", and neurodivergence & ASD don't enable individuals to have some broad all-encompassing secret knowledge of ethics. it's not a smooth or straight ideological surface either way
perfection isn't necessarily attainable either materially or idealistically... I don't think we should hold anybody to these inconsistent & personally-charged standards, and self-criticism is always preferable. But in my view, praying for animals in factory farms is as useless & as misplaced as shaming meateaters or having a big confusion over them being too "normal"
“Things just are the way they are because that’s how things are so you shouldn’t even imply we should try to do differently.” Amazing analysis. Why even have ethics or care about morality at all?
You keep insisting on correcting me on things I’ve never said and don’t believe, and it’s insulting at this point. Where did I ever say that only neurotypical people eat meat? Where did I say that I or any other neurodivergent person has a better understanding of ethics than anyone else? Why do you keep responding to things I’m not saying? At this point I’m not even expecting answers, this is purely rhetorical.
I can’t help feeling anxiety around having good ethics so that I can try and act morally, and that makes me think about it constantly. I’m not more ethical or more intelligent or more wise than other people, I just can’t help obsessively thinking about it and it kinda confuses me that so many other people don’t, even though they talk about morality constantly and consider it to be of incredible importance in their lives.
No shit! No one on earth would disagree with this! And that’s why I haven’t expected anyone to be perfect! You’ve just convinced yourself that I’m a self-righteous moral scold and at this point I think it’s actually impossible to change your mind no matter what I say.
I’m not holding people to my own ethical standards or any others! I’m asking why they don’t think through their own ethics! Why do you keep ignoring what I’m saying to lecture me on irrelevant shit?
God, you’re such a fucking asshole. Yeah, I’m just so fucking confused because other people are normal and I’m not.
I’m done with this discussion.
You're obviously not done with the discussion because you keep responding in these drawn-out ways. Also, people aren't making incorrect & personally damning moral judgments just because they eat meat. Additionally, I don't think you need to fret just because you have the impression that others don't think about food ethics as carefully as you do.
But that's only because I don't think it's constructive toward these other ends, you can of course think whatever you want.
I didn't say you were a moral scold, but you are attempting to say that people aren't as morally sanctified or consistent as yourself just because they have different lifestyle choices than you do.
I admit that no one is "justified" in eating meat, but they don't have to pass our litmus tests in order for us to consider them "morally consistent"... and I don't think that we are justified in assuming others haven't made these careful determinations for themselves
:PIGPOOPBALLS: