I don't usually use 'evil' to describe things but I don't know any other word to describe settler states and their tendency to massacre and torment people they stole their land from and gleefully brag about all the horrific atrocities they've committed/want to commit. Never before have I seen a group people that take more joy in the suffering of others than the kinds of people that want to wipe out entire societies and claim their land for their own.
This is the kinda shit where if you write villains that act exactly like this people will slam you for bad or unrealistic writing, but no, it would actually be perfectly in line with reality all things considered.
EDIT: ps I know me not good at writing things. Wish I can write my thoughts on this better, but I can't really get it into right now
that's not meat eating..
He was answering your question, which was "why should I be treated differently than non-human animals with regards to morality".
He gave a concrete example, but I'll speak to the general principle. Non-human animals aren't civilized moral agents, they lack the capacity to rationally consider the harm they're causing, and by extension they have no moral obligations. "Ought implies can". Without the ability to act morally, they can't be obligated to be moral.
Humans are different. We have the capacity to act rationally and morally. Since we have the ability to consider the harm we're causing and stopping, we are obligated to. That's why you're different than non-human animals.
this argument does however does undermine the previous argument that humans are just another animal and therefore should treat other animals as our equals
Very young children and severely mentally disabled people don't have the same moral capacity as a typical adult but that doesn't make it okay to treat them as objects.
they also are people and not just animals though
I'd encourage you to read chamomile's post on this subject:
I feel that is an unfair comparison to make I have always upheld an extremely consistent definition of personhood and have never excluded from that definition any human life
I don't however see how you could possibly compare the life of an animal to the life of a human. I love dogs but for example if a human you hate is at risk of dying and a dog you love is at the same risk it would be monsterous to not prioritise the human
I don't consider the comparison unfair, but that may be because I've been on the wrong side of it.
I'm autistic. I struggle a lot with things that allistic people can typically do very easily or even effortlessly - things many would consider fundamental to being human, like socialization and romantic relationships. Over the course of my life, countless people have said and done things to me that make it clear that they view me as less than human. I've seen them say and do things to other autistic people because they make it clear they view them as less than human. This immediately gives me very good reason to be critical of the thought process that says "They're not human, so we get to be cruel to them."
Except I don't think that's what's actually going on. One of the unexpected benefits of learning communist theory has been being able to better frame my own experiences, and the experiences of other autistic people, through the lens of historical materialism. If you look at the reasons bullies give for being cruel to autistic people, they never hold up. "They should just try harder at being normal!" - yeah, that doesn't work for us and never did. It's like saying we should just try harder to see ultraviolet. Our brains and bodies aren't wired for that. "Their behaviors are unhealthy and we need to bully them into stopping them!" - except, of course, bullying doesn't accomplish the stated goal, it just makes us more miserable and withdrawn.
And that's where historical materialism comes in. Of course these reasons don't stand up to close scrutiny. They weren't arrived at out of a good-faith effort to do the best possible thing. The excuses that bullies of autistic people give are just there to give a veneer of legitimacy to what they're doing. They weren't dispassionately looking at autistic issues and deciding that the best way to handle things was to be shitty to autistic people. They wanted to be shitty to autistic people, so they needed to come up with a reason to justify to others (and perhaps even more critically, themselves) why that was an okay thing to do.
Similarly, it's not "I've reasoned that animals are inferior, so it's okay for me to eat them." It's "I want it to be okay for me to eat animals, so I need to come up with a reason they're inferior to me." I was a carnist for close to 3 decades and I can say firsthand that this is what was going on in my mind.
Your hypothetical about a human and a dog at risk of death isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand and not something I care to argue one way or the other because, generally speaking, the decision of whether or not to eat meat isn't a matter of choosing one life or another. It's a matter of choosing to end an animal's life for your taste pleasure vs. eating something else. If you have even a sliver of moral consideration for animals, that shouldn't be a difficult choice at all.