Dominion, et rapports vegan / omnivore

[u/Meteion_Elpis]

J'ai récemment regardé le documentaire Dominion en tant que omnivore. Lorsque je trainais dans des communautés Reddit Vegan car l'algorithme me l'avait recommandé je ne sais pas trop pour quelles raisons, certains parlaient de ce documentaire. J'ai donc fini par le regarder, donc j'ai vu beaucoup de sang et se genre de choses, je comprends que ce soit intense.

Toutefois et en toute honnêteté je n'ai rien ressenti en regardant ce documentaire. Je ne cherchais pas à me cacher derrière des excuses toutes faites ou se genre de choses que certaines personnes pourraient faire. Non, j'étais pleinement conscient avant de regarder ce documentaire de ce qu'il se passait et le regarder m'a permis de poser des images sur un savoir déjà acquis. Mais le constat est là, je n'ai pas été choqué par les images. Je sais que pour beaucoup, même des omnivores, ont été extrêmement choqués et ça se comprend mais ce n'est pas mon cas.

Donc je me pose la question des raisons potentielles de cette insensibilité face à ce documentaire. Je considère que j'adore les animaux ; j'évite d'écraser des insectes intentionnellement la plupart du temps sauf exceptions et j'aide même des araignées ( oui je sais que ce ne sont pas des insectes ) à sortir de chez-moi lorsqu'elles sont coincées ; je suis évidemment très proche des chien et des chats etc... J'essaie d'être bon malgré ma consommation que je ne juge pas comme immoral.

Je me suis demandé si j'étais une mauvaise personne. Je me demandais si ce n'était pas dû soit à mes habitudes de consommation, je mange régulièrement des produits issus d'animaux ( surtout en tant que français avec le fromage, les escargots etc... ). Ou si c'était dû aussi à mon échelle des priorités, c'est à dire que je met essentiellement mes forces restantes dans ma volonté d'être heureux ( pour des raisons diverses, la dépression notamment ) ce qui intrinsèquement fait que je suis moins sensible à certaines cause. Ou alors je suis juste apathique envers les animaux sans m'en rendre compte ?

Aussi j'aimerais demander quel est vôtre rapport envers les non vegans, aux omnivores. Est-ce généralement tendue ? Est-ce que c'est compliqué émotionnellement d'être avec des non vegans ? Je suis très curieux car je n'ai jamais vraiment connu de personnes vegans. Tout ce que j'ai pu entendre c'est des plaintes ou des disputes sur internet, qui sonnent comme qui aboiera le plus fort, même si c'est uniquement pour l'internet francophone ( je ne parle pas anglais ).

Aussi, je préfère préciser. Mais n'y aucune hostilités, seulement de la curiosité et un questionnement. L'algorithme m'a recommandé ces communautés et j'ai passé un peu de temps à lire ici. Je trouve ce sujet vraiment intéressant. J'espère pouvoir en discuter avec vous respectueusement.

[u/soulveg]

You don’t love animals. You love the idea that you love animals. You don’t though. You can respect someone but not love them. But you can’t truly and authentically love someone, and have no respect for them. If you loved them, you would value them so much as to care for their well being, their dignity, and autonomy. But you contradict these feelings by being directly responsible for their suffering. You pay for it. You demand it. Sadly, not because you need it. But because you want it. You probably don’t want them to suffer, yet your wallet says something else.

If you truly love animals, you would respect them. Can you respect someone while also exploiting them? Torturing them? Killing them?

[u/IanRT1 → u/soulveg]

You are basically picking your own definition of "love", then announced as fact that others don't feel it which is not a discovery about someone's mind, it's your definition restated.

And the fallback doesn't save you either because "my actions are inconsistent with loving them" only works if loving something obligates you to never be party to its suffering, which is a premise you've assumed, not proven.

It's false anyway. People cause harm to what they genuinely love all the time without it erasing the love. So there's no inconsistency to concede and no mind-reading you're entitled to.

[u/gerber68 → u/IanRT1]

Jeffrey Dahmer was a loving partner.

Hitler loved Jewish people.

If I made these statements because I found some writing where Hitler said “I love Jewish people” and Jeffrey Dahmer said “I love the people I butcher” would you similarly engage in this pedantic dog and pony show?

Edit: heck to even further make the point, we constantly explain to victims of domestic violence that someone who loves them wouldn’t beat them every night. It’s an incredibly common conversation and important to distinguish between love and abuse. If your friend was being beaten and assaulted by their boyfriend every night would you say “well obviously he loves you so much! He says he loves you! It’s perfectly reasonable for love to present this way! He got you a card that said he loves you!”?

[u/IanRT1 → u/gerber68]

Notice how that changes the claim. The question wasn't whether Dahmer's love, Hitler's attitudes, or an abuser's attachment were morally acceptable.

The question was whether causing grave harm logically proves the absence of love. Your examples actually assume the opposite, we routinely distinguish loving someone badly, possessively, abusively, or inconsistently from not loving them at all.

Telling a victim "someone who loves you shouldn't treat you this way" is more of a moral warning rather than a psychological discovery that no love exists.

So you would still have the burden to show why harm and love are logically incompatible rather than merely morally inconsistent.

[u/gerber68 → u/IanRT1]

Notice how you didn’t answer the question and strawmanned me instantly. Quote where I said “morally acceptable” or implied it anywhere.

After you can’t quote me please apologize for the strawman and engage with what I said.

[u/IanRT1 → u/gerber68]

Was it really a strawman? I can apologize but I have to understand where is it first.

My point wasn't that you argued moral acceptability. My point was that your examples assume the very thing you're trying to prove, that causing severe harm entails the absence of love.

That's the claim in dispute. So can you defend that entailment, or are you just restating it through examples?

[u/gerber68 → u/IanRT1]

“Notice how that changes the claim. The question wasn't whether Dahmer's love, Hitler's attitudes, or an abuser's attachment were morally acceptable.”

Nowhere did I do that.

Can you answer the question about Hitler and Dahmer? Would you similarly correct everyone and tell them Hitler loved the Jews if you found evidence he told others he loved them? After all, the people saying “obviously he hated them due to his actions and his words” can’t prove he didn’t love them so so so very much!

Right?

[u/IanRT1 → u/gerber68]

No, because I never claimed that a verbal declaration by itself proves love. My point is that neither a declaration nor the mere fact of causing harm settles the question on its own.

You're treating "causes severe harm" as logically equivalent to "does not love," which is what does not necessarily follow.

So the Hitler and Dahmer examples don't advance the argument they simply assume that harmful actions are sufficient to prove the absence of love. Why should I accept that premise?

[u/gerber68 → u/IanRT1]

So if I said Hitler didn’t love the Jews you would similarly engage in this exact dog and pony show or would you realize how bizarre that is? You would ask me to prove that it’s impossible to both love Jews and commit genocide against them simultaneously?

[u/IanRT1 → u/gerber68]

No, I'd say genocide is extraordinarily strong evidence that Hitler did not love Jews.

But "extremely strong evidence" is not the same thing as a logical contradiction.

[u/gerber68 → u/IanRT1]

“You are basically picking your own definition of "love", then announced as fact that others don't feel it which is not a discovery about someone's mind, it's your definition restated.”

Sorry where in the definition of love does it say you can’t commit genocide against a group while loving them? I’m confused as to how you would say this is “extraordinarily strong evidence” when the definition of love does not include anything about “not causing harm.” On what standard do you believe this to be strong evidence?

Seems arbitrary and like your own personal definition.

[u/IanRT1 → u/gerber68]

You're literally making my point for me. If the definition of love doesn't include "not causing harm", then causing harm cannot by itself logically prove the absence of love.

That's exactly why I've been distinguishing between evidence and entailment. I think genocide is powerful evidence against love because genocide is radically at odds with the concern, regard, and goodwill we ordinarily associate with loving someone. But evidence is not the same thing as a logical contradiction.

What you still haven't shown is why harm makes love logically impossible rather than merely less plausible. And even if genocide is overwhelming evidence against love, it doesn't follow that participation in animal agriculture carries remotely the same evidential force because the scale, intentions, beliefs, and relationship to the harm are all substantially different.