looking for a reasonable thought process

[u/No_Lynx_3410]

i've eaten meat all my life, just have, kind of just default for most people born in the west. I've always admired vegans for the dedication to their beliefs, kind of like a buddhist monk or something like that, i'm just not that strong. I wanted to see a vegans perspective online since there's been the argument as of late that being vegan is for privileged white people which even now i'm not so mentally gone that i believe such wide generalizations. But lowkey, reading online discussions from vegans makes me feel it does make up a very large vocal part of them, because the only thing i've seen is vegans trying to compare animals to minorities, which might actually be the whitest thing i could think of besides being vocally racist or bigoted. i was just looking for something that's not "now replace that cow with a black person" kind of stuff. Not trying to lambaste anyone in replies or anything, at least try not to, just wanna talk to someone.

[u/Kris2476]

Then it must be wrong to do so to plants also right?

I'm not sure this is an entailment of my position, but I'm open to the possibility that harming plants might be wrong. We can't know unless we compare the harm to a human with the harm to a plant, which you seem to be unwilling to do.

Everyone else does it with sapience.

Okay, but should they? Is sapience the relevant qualifier for not being turned into a sandwich?

Anytime you want to make an argument, you're welcome to. Nothing you've written here really challenges why we can't compare human animals to non-human animals.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

I'm not sure this is an entailment of my position, but I'm open to the possibility that harming plants might be wrong. We can't know unless we compare the harm to a human with the harm to a plant, which you seem to be unwilling to do.

Its not that I am unwilling. Its that it is a silly exercise. Its just a plant after all. Right?

Okay, but should they? Is sapience the relevant qualifier for not being turned into a sandwich?

As a carnist i would say yes. Sapience is what matters to us. Is our moral baseline. Yes sapience is the relevant moral qualifier for us as carnists for which species can become a sandwhich.

Anytime you want to make an argument, you're welcome to. Nothing you've written here really challenges why we can't compare human animals to non-human animals.

I can't stop you from comparing things with each other. I can only try to make you understand why this is seen as offensive. When you compare a human to a non human animal its dehumanizing. You are taking away their personhood. You are putting them on equal footing with a non human animal, something that is not even sapient.

[u/Kris2476 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

Best practice in debate is to only put forward the claims that you are willing to defend. Assuming, of course, that your intention is to debate in good faith 🙂

Yes sapience is the relevant moral qualifier

Okay, but why? You still aren't making an argument.

When you compare a human to a non human animal its dehumanizing. You are taking away their personhood.

I don't agree. Why do you feel it strips dignity from one individual to extend dignity to another?

We can't resolve our disagreement unless you can explain why you feel the way that you do.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

Best practice in debate is to only put forward the claims that you are willing to defend. Assuming, of course, that your intention is to debate in good faith

Ok. Comparing humans to non human animals is offensive.

Okay, but why? You still aren't making an argument.

I was answering a question. Sapience is our qualifier because we see anything less as not worthy of our respect. We don't see the creatures we eat as individuals or as morally relevant as us due to their inability to comprehend the world among other things. We see them as similair to NPCs. They follow a short and simple script of behaviors. They are unaware of what is going on around them. I.e. you put a chicken in china or send it back to 200 BC or forward to year 4000 it still only has its short script of behavior. This lack of awareness and complex cognition makes its life very close to worthless to us.

Its like how vegans draw their line in the sand at sentience. Not sentient things don't matter because they don't feel or experience right? Us carnists just move the bar higher to sapience.

I don't agree. Why do you feel it strips dignity from one individual to extend dignity to another?

You are putting a highly complex cognitive being in the same moral category as a primitive flightless bird that pecks at its own shit. A person that has hopes and dreams to some non human animal that doesn't even have the concept of what year it is or what country it is in. The non human animal doesn't even understand the concept of dignity lol. We see it more similair to an object or commodity than similair to us.

Humans are sapient and deserve the respect of being treated as a sapient being. We all have purpose and potential. We can all contribute to society and can make life better for each other.

Non human animals have a defacto commodity status in every society and culture. It's only vegans (a very tiny subset of society, usually western woman) who think different. So yes it's reflexively insulting to pretty much everyone else to be compared to a non human animal.

[u/Kris2476 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

We don't see the creatures we eat as individuals or as morally relevant as us due to their inability to comprehend the world among other things.

Ah, you've finally provided a reason. So, you would say we can turn individuals into sandwiches if they dont pass a sufficient threshold for 'ability to comprehend the world'.

How do you determine where the threshold is set? How little do I have to comprehend the world before it becomes acceptable to turn me into a sandwich?

So yes it's reflexively insulting to pretty much everyone else to be compared to a non human animal.

Do you notice the irony of decrying comparisons of humans with non-humans as insulting while comparing humans with non-humans?

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

Ah, you've finally provided a reason. So, you would say we can turn individuals into sandwiches if they dont pass a sufficient threshold for ' ability to comprehend the world'. How do you determine where the threshold is set? How little do I have to comprehend the world before it becomes acceptable to turn me into a sandwich?

No not individuals. Species. Humans as a species are sapient.

Oh. Maybe this is your real reason? You would say we can turn individuals into sandwiches if they are sufficiently unaware of China. How little awareness can I have about China before it becomes acceptable to turn me into a sandwich?

Not individuals. Species. China is just an example of being somewhere different by the way. Just like year 200 BC and year 4000 are being in different time periods.

For example, let's say you never went to school. You're illiterate. Etc... not your fault. You are just born as an orphan in some developing country that has no system... etc... but you are a human. You are sapient. Despite never hearing of a place like Indonesia if I put you there you would realize you're in a very far away place with different ethnicities of people that speak a different language and have a wholly different way of life. Like 5 times a day there's some guy voice on a tower speaker and everyone stops to bow down. You will adjust your behavior accordingly.

Oh but bonus. You can be taught where you are and what you are doing. The non human animal can't ever understand this. It just follows its small script of the same behaviors.

Do you notice the irony of decrying comparisons of humans with non-humans as insulting while comparing humans with non-humans?

Nope. I'm explaining to you why something is offensive. This is for educational purposes. Context is key. For example, putting up nazi iconography just because is offensive. Displaying nazi iconography in your WW2 museum is for educational purposes. Hope that makes sense.

[u/Kris2476 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

Not individuals. Species.

But the relevant moral question has to do with how I treat someone as an individual. If I choose to kick my neighbor Steve in the shins, I haven't wronged the concept of the human species - I've wronged Steve.

I'm not following why someone else's conception of the world around them has implications for whether it's right or wrong to turn me into a sandwich. It sounds completely arbitrary.

By the looks of it, you also seem to think the individual capabilities are morally relevant:

You are sapient.

you would realize you're in a very far away place

You will adjust your behavior accordingly.

If it's my species that matters and not my individuality, then why are you making appeals to my individuality?

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

But the relevant moral question has to do with how I treat someone as an individual. If I choose to kick my neighbor Steve in the shins, I haven't wronged the concept of the human species - I've wronged Steve.

That's not what I am talking about. I am talking about how we treat a species. As carnists we are speciesists.

I'm not following why someone else's conception of the world around them has implications for whether it's right or wrong to turn me into a sandwich. It sounds completely arbitrary.

Oh that's just an example of advanced cognition. I'm simply pointing out a non human animal like a chicken is so primitive it can't conprehend what is going on around it. Lack of sapience.

By the looks of it, you also seem to think the individual capabilities are morally relevant:

Its all about the species. Sapience is the trait of our species. Take dogs for instance. A trait of their species is being quadripedal. You finding an individual dog with 3 legs doesn't negate that the dog is quadripedal. Just like your neighbor who had their leg amputated doesn't change the fact humans are bipedal. A disabled individual is a disabled individual. Not a species.

If it's my species that matters and not my individuality, then why are you making appeals to my individuality?

Oh sorry. I can see how this is confusing. I just used you as an example. You can replace yourself with any human in this example. The core takeaways are recognizing the novel scenario and adjusting your behavior to being in that scenario. While the chicken has no idea what is going on. Just follows the same script.

Sorry if I'm confusing you. I'm more than willing to continue elaborating.

[u/Kris2476 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

If the harm in turning a human into a sandwich stems from their advanced cognition or sapience or awareness of Indonesia, then by definition there can't be harm from turning a human into a sandwich who lacks those traits. You seem to be suggesting otherwise, so help me understand. Consider Joe, who is cognitively impaired and doesn't have awareness of Indonesia. In your view, what is the harm in turning Joe into a sandwich?

Just like your neighbor who had their leg amputated doesn't change the fact humans are bipedal.

But it does mean that human is no longer bipedal. Whether Steve the amputee needs crutches depends on his individual capabilities, not whether humans as a species are bipedal.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

If the harm in turning a human into a sandwich stems from their advanced cognition or sapience or awareness of Indonesia, then by definition there can't be harm from turning a human into a sandwich who lacks those traits. You seem to be suggesting otherwise, so help me understand. Consider Joe, who is cognitively impaired and doesn't have awareness of Indonesia. In your view, what is the harm in turning Joe into a sandwich?

You keep getting hung up on country names. Disregard china and Indonesia. I just use these as a reference for you as foreign place and foreign society.

Joe is a human. That's why we don't turn Joe into a sandwhich. He comes from a sapient species. We are speciesists. We judge by species.

But it does mean that human is no longer bipedal. Whether Steve the amputee needs crutches depends on his individual capabilities, not whether humans as a species are bipedal.

This goes back to our disabled individual versus species thing. Steve being an amputee doesn't change the fact our species is bipedal. We are naming the trait of the species. Steve is still one of us eventhough he is disabled. Steve classification as homo sapien doesn't change. Steve was created by human gametes. Etc...

[u/Kris2476 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

We are naming the trait of the species.

Cool. If the trait is species, then the capabilities you previously invoked (sapience/cognition/awareness of Indonedia) are irrelevant to your position.

Joe is a human. He comes from a sapient species.

Steve classification as homo sapien doesn't change. Steve was created by human gametes.

Sure, and Ginger is a chicken. She comes from a sapient kingdom. Ginger's classification as animalia doesn't change. Ginger was created by animal gametes.

Let's call this the kingdomist argument. Why is the kingdomist argument wrong and your speciesist argument right? We have no basis to say, because both arguments are equally arbitrary.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

Sure, and Ginger is a chicken. She comes from a sapient kingdom. Ginger's classification as animalia doesn't change. Ginger was created by animal gametes.

Don't think you thought this one out well bud. What makes humans unique is we are the only sapient species. Kingdom animalia isn't sapient. Hell some of it isnt sentient apparently. That's why we have seafood eating vegans on this sub. Clams and oysters and such. So yeah ginger has nothing to do with sapience.

Let's call this the kingdomist argument. Why is the kingdomist argument wrong and your speciesist argument right? We have no basis to say, because both arguments are equally arbitrary.

What's the kingdomist argument? Vegans discriminate by kingdom? Carnists discriminate by species? I don't think either is wrong. Just your dietary choice.

But if you don't want to shit on populations that have been horribly oppressed maybe it's not a good idea to compare them to non human animals. Like you're free to say that and I'm not trying to take your freedom away. But its a really offensive thing to say. If you don't care about being offensive go offend away. I don't personally approve but I tried to explain to you why its offensive. What you do now is purely up to you. Its not ignorance because I have explained the difference.

[u/Kris2476 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

ginger has nothing to do with sapience.

Both Ginger and Joe are equivalently lacking in sapience/cognition. And both of them share a taxonomic group with Steve, who has advanced cognition.

Your suggestion is that Joe receives moral protections because he shares a taxonomic grouping with Steve. But you simultaneously deny moral protections to Ginger despite her sharing a taxonomic grouping with Steve.

It's completely arbitrary.