The example honestly doesn’t make much sense to me. You take issue with someone daring to want to talk about the worker abuses in the gaming industry? Are we to forbid someone from being passionate about an issue?
Someone caring about the harm in an industry doesn’t make them think they are “morally superior”. Posting about the harms in an industry is to raise awareness of that harm. It’s not about one self at all
Your passion is no different than that of the antiabortionists.
You won’t accept nuance, you don’t want to have a discussion, you want your agenda to be heard and the world to bend to your view of how things ought to be.
I do accept discussion, and rely heavily on source based discussion. I cite nearly everything I say. See how I cited two sources earlier when I made a claim about meat industry funded astroturfing
When people have critiques based on their own sources, or methodological/other critiques of the sources I provide, there is a good back and forth.
Even when other people never provide a single source, I still converse and provide sources for my claims
I qualify my claims to reflect what the data and research actually says. That’s what nuance looks like. When people argue for a specific claim that makes things more complicated, I respond to their claim about that specific issue. That’s also what nuance looks like
Antiabortionists cite sources too. The passion and certainty are the same.
Vegans aren’t trying to clean up the food industry, they want to end it. Raising the issues with it just a means to that end. There are few if any vegans arguing for a cleaner animal husbandry practices.
Many vegans recognize it as a choice, like the abortion issue, they aren’t against any abortions they only choose not to themselves have an abortion. They aren’t discussing the horrors of the abortion industry on the internet.
> Vegans aren’t trying to clean up the food industry, they want to end it
If we’re going to talk about ignoring nuance, making statements like that isn’t doing any favors. Animal agriculture =/= the entire food industry. Plant agriculture exists as well
> Many vegans recognize it as a choice, like the abortion issue, they aren’t against any abortions they only choose not to themselves have an abortion
The problem with that characterization is that things can really only be a personal choice with no effects on any one else when we’re talking about non-sentient beings. Without that presumption the assertion makes less sense. For instance, most in the west generally don’t conceptualize killing a random healthy dog as a personal choice.
Even if we set aside the creatures themselves, the environmental factors alone make it difficult to conceptualize as a pure 100% personal choice. Is it a personal choice to let an industry keep us from climate targets on their own?
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
And the issue on that end is quite fundamental. It takes a lot of feed to raise non-human animals. They lose most of the energy using it to perform body functions, move around, etc. Even best case production just comes out worse than worst case plant production for humans
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
If you tried to use something like grass-fed production instead, you’d find it generally does not scale and ends up with increased methane production
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall
methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
Your idea of nuance would have us all sitting on our hands while unsustainable industries make the world we live in uninhabitable and put an end to humanity as we know it.
Look at it another way - do we REALLY need that much meat production? Probably not. Vegans have been living just fine this whole tome, and meat is very resource intensive to produce anyway, so one could argue you’d get even more food from stopping.
Is it causing massive issues even aside from the suffering of animals? Yeah, agriculture plays quite a significant part in CO2 emissions. Not to mention the polluting of rivers.
Also, I don’t really see your point of ‘they don’t want to have a discussion’. You’re literally having a discussion with them right now.
Of course not. Animals are inferior by nature and were made to be owned by humans. It’s just the natural order of things. We even have a special word for it. We call it husbandry, isn’t that cute? Just like how a husband owns his wife, women being creatures that act on instincts and emotions instead of reason.
Veganism is the logical extension of abolitionism and feminism. If you’ve ever wondered what side of history you would’ve been on, now you know.
“Animal Liberation” may sound more like a parody of other liberation movements than a serious objective. The idea of “The Rights of Animals” actually was once used to parody the case for women’s rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, her views were widely regarded as absurd, and before long an anonymous publication appeared entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. The author of this satirical work (now known to have been Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher) tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft’s arguments by showing that they could be carried one stage further. If the argument for equality was sound when applied to women, why should it not be applied to dogs, cats, and horses? The reasoning seemed to hold for these “brutes” too; yet to hold that brutes had rights was manifestly absurd. Therefore the reasoning by which this conclusion had been reached must be unsound, and if unsound when applied to brutes, it must also be unsound when applied to women, since the very same arguments had been used in each case…
Difference being if we end animal husbandry Earth simply won’t have those animals anymore. More a genocide really.
How many draft horse does the average farmer have now that we have tractors?
Once we lose or reduce these genetic lineages, there is no going back.
Vegans want to pretend they are protecting animals but they aren’t, their ideas result in a less genetically diverse biosphere. They are hurting the longevity of our species by attempting to force others down a path that relies on technology they take for granted or more likely do not understand. You see this when they talk about animal feed corn and think we can replace those same fields at the same yields as sweet corn. They aren’t agriculturists but want to tell us how agriculture ought to be.
And it’s clearly an emotional position because you will reject any logic or reasoning they are present. They feel they are right and their righteousness is part of the argument.
Animal agriculture is the main cause of deforestation and a leading contributor to CO2 emissions. And we don’t need to replace every acre of farm land grown for animal feed with farms for human consumption. Animal calories and protein are, at best, 15% efficient. As in it one calorie of meat requires 6 calories of crops. We only need 15% of that farm land to be useable for human edible crops and the rest can be returned to nature. And domesticated animals are selectively bred monsters. Chickens so huge that 70% of them have debilitating leg issues. Pigs are constantly hungry, so much so that pigs intended to live longer than a few weeks (i.e. for breeding) need to be denied food so they don’t eat themselves to death. This denial of food often results self multination and aggression. Extinction would be a mercy for these animals. And there should never have been billions of pigs or chickens or cows to begin with. One species of bird should not account for 70% of bird biomass. The majority of mammal biomass should not be found in factory farms.
To be clear, that’s a yes on genocide, cloaked by eugenics.
I can only assume you view farmers has evil since they are the ones breeding these animals.
You believe all farm animals are treated poorly and spend their lives suffering or are willing to genocide them all because some are based on information that either you cherry picked or was cherry picked for you. Likely the later
You belief without doubt these animals would rather not exist than be born. That alone more closely aligns you with “the wrong side of history” – I am unaware of any reports on animals mass suiciding so I’m guessing they are happier than humans, who coincidently commit suicide a large rates…maybe we should cull that herd instead, they are the ones responsible for deforesting the Amazon. I know you’d rather blame the existence of animals but I’m not aware of any cows reasonable for cutting down trees.
The reality is that you care more about how these animals make you feel than how they feel. You’ve clearly never asked a pig if it wanted to die.
You may be surprised to know that if you were to chase a pig with knife while calmly explaining it’s what’s best for her, she would be content to trample you rather than accept your mercy killing for being of a sullied bloodline.
ah, but much of the crops that are fed to animals are the byproducts of our own agricultural processes. by feeding them to cattle we get more calories than we would, since we won’t eat, for instance, cottonseeds and corn stalks.
Yes. Mostly one topic posters.
Vegans posting about the meat industry are the like non-gamers posting about the evils of the gaming industry with a dash of moral superiority.
It’s weird for someone to center their entire online personality around something they do not do.
The example honestly doesn’t make much sense to me. You take issue with someone daring to want to talk about the worker abuses in the gaming industry? Are we to forbid someone from being passionate about an issue?
Someone caring about the harm in an industry doesn’t make them think they are “morally superior”. Posting about the harms in an industry is to raise awareness of that harm. It’s not about one self at all
Your passion is no different than that of the antiabortionists.
You won’t accept nuance, you don’t want to have a discussion, you want your agenda to be heard and the world to bend to your view of how things ought to be.
I do accept discussion, and rely heavily on source based discussion. I cite nearly everything I say. See how I cited two sources earlier when I made a claim about meat industry funded astroturfing
When people have critiques based on their own sources, or methodological/other critiques of the sources I provide, there is a good back and forth.
Even when other people never provide a single source, I still converse and provide sources for my claims
I qualify my claims to reflect what the data and research actually says. That’s what nuance looks like. When people argue for a specific claim that makes things more complicated, I respond to their claim about that specific issue. That’s also what nuance looks like
Antiabortionists cite sources too. The passion and certainty are the same.
Vegans aren’t trying to clean up the food industry, they want to end it. Raising the issues with it just a means to that end. There are few if any vegans arguing for a cleaner animal husbandry practices.
Many vegans recognize it as a choice, like the abortion issue, they aren’t against any abortions they only choose not to themselves have an abortion. They aren’t discussing the horrors of the abortion industry on the internet.
> Vegans aren’t trying to clean up the food industry, they want to end it
If we’re going to talk about ignoring nuance, making statements like that isn’t doing any favors. Animal agriculture =/= the entire food industry. Plant agriculture exists as well
> Many vegans recognize it as a choice, like the abortion issue, they aren’t against any abortions they only choose not to themselves have an abortion
The problem with that characterization is that things can really only be a personal choice with no effects on any one else when we’re talking about non-sentient beings. Without that presumption the assertion makes less sense. For instance, most in the west generally don’t conceptualize killing a random healthy dog as a personal choice.
Even if we set aside the creatures themselves, the environmental factors alone make it difficult to conceptualize as a pure 100% personal choice. Is it a personal choice to let an industry keep us from climate targets on their own?
(emphasis mine)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
And the issue on that end is quite fundamental. It takes a lot of feed to raise non-human animals. They lose most of the energy using it to perform body functions, move around, etc. Even best case production just comes out worse than worst case plant production for humans
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html
If you tried to use something like grass-fed production instead, you’d find it generally does not scale and ends up with increased methane production
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401
Removed by mod
Your idea of nuance would have us all sitting on our hands while unsustainable industries make the world we live in uninhabitable and put an end to humanity as we know it.
Look at it another way - do we REALLY need that much meat production? Probably not. Vegans have been living just fine this whole tome, and meat is very resource intensive to produce anyway, so one could argue you’d get even more food from stopping.
Is it causing massive issues even aside from the suffering of animals? Yeah, agriculture plays quite a significant part in CO2 emissions. Not to mention the polluting of rivers.
Also, I don’t really see your point of ‘they don’t want to have a discussion’. You’re literally having a discussion with them right now.
Removed by mod
I don’t commit genocide in ukraine and I very much don’t support it. Why would that be different for animals that are treated even worse?
???
Yeah, and those abolitionists man. Like, I get it, you don’t own slaves. Can’t they just shut up and lay off the slave owners?
Are you comparing animal husbandry to owning slaves?
Militant vegans are a silly people.
Of course not. Animals are inferior by nature and were made to be owned by humans. It’s just the natural order of things. We even have a special word for it. We call it husbandry, isn’t that cute? Just like how a husband owns his wife, women being creatures that act on instincts and emotions instead of reason.
You seem surprised that we have a special word for something that humans have been doing before written history.
Do you have any clever musings on the encompassing term, agriculture? Perhaps how it has culture in it and culture is emotions instead of reason.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I assume the title is IaM14aNDtHisDEEP!
Veganism is the logical extension of abolitionism and feminism. If you’ve ever wondered what side of history you would’ve been on, now you know.
Animal Liberation, Peter Singer
Difference being if we end animal husbandry Earth simply won’t have those animals anymore. More a genocide really.
How many draft horse does the average farmer have now that we have tractors?
Once we lose or reduce these genetic lineages, there is no going back.
Vegans want to pretend they are protecting animals but they aren’t, their ideas result in a less genetically diverse biosphere. They are hurting the longevity of our species by attempting to force others down a path that relies on technology they take for granted or more likely do not understand. You see this when they talk about animal feed corn and think we can replace those same fields at the same yields as sweet corn. They aren’t agriculturists but want to tell us how agriculture ought to be.
And it’s clearly an emotional position because you will reject any logic or reasoning they are present. They feel they are right and their righteousness is part of the argument.
Animal agriculture is the main cause of deforestation and a leading contributor to CO2 emissions. And we don’t need to replace every acre of farm land grown for animal feed with farms for human consumption. Animal calories and protein are, at best, 15% efficient. As in it one calorie of meat requires 6 calories of crops. We only need 15% of that farm land to be useable for human edible crops and the rest can be returned to nature. And domesticated animals are selectively bred monsters. Chickens so huge that 70% of them have debilitating leg issues. Pigs are constantly hungry, so much so that pigs intended to live longer than a few weeks (i.e. for breeding) need to be denied food so they don’t eat themselves to death. This denial of food often results self multination and aggression. Extinction would be a mercy for these animals. And there should never have been billions of pigs or chickens or cows to begin with. One species of bird should not account for 70% of bird biomass. The majority of mammal biomass should not be found in factory farms.
To be clear, that’s a yes on genocide, cloaked by eugenics.
I can only assume you view farmers has evil since they are the ones breeding these animals.
You believe all farm animals are treated poorly and spend their lives suffering or are willing to genocide them all because some are based on information that either you cherry picked or was cherry picked for you. Likely the later
You belief without doubt these animals would rather not exist than be born. That alone more closely aligns you with “the wrong side of history” – I am unaware of any reports on animals mass suiciding so I’m guessing they are happier than humans, who coincidently commit suicide a large rates…maybe we should cull that herd instead, they are the ones responsible for deforesting the Amazon. I know you’d rather blame the existence of animals but I’m not aware of any cows reasonable for cutting down trees.
The reality is that you care more about how these animals make you feel than how they feel. You’ve clearly never asked a pig if it wanted to die.
You may be surprised to know that if you were to chase a pig with knife while calmly explaining it’s what’s best for her, she would be content to trample you rather than accept your mercy killing for being of a sullied bloodline.
ah, but much of the crops that are fed to animals are the byproducts of our own agricultural processes. by feeding them to cattle we get more calories than we would, since we won’t eat, for instance, cottonseeds and corn stalks.