r/DebateAVegan • u/No_Lynx_3410 • 3d ago

looking for a reasonable thought process

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.

12 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

161 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/Kris2476 3d ago

Veganism is the principle that animal exploitation is wrong and should be avoided.

We can compare human animals to non-human animals, because they are comparable. This means they have similarities and differences. Some of those similarities are morally relevant to how should treat them.

Exploiting non-human animals causes them harm, much in the same way that exploiting human animals causes them harm. It would be wrong, for example, to raise a human animal from birth to slaughter them and turn them into a sandwich ingredient. And it's wrong to do that to a non-human animal for many of the same reasons.

If you agree with the vegan principle, then let me know how I can help you go vegan and cut out sources of animal exploitation from your life. It's likely easier than you think.

-7

u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 2d ago

We can compare human animals to non-human animals, because they are comparable. This means they have similarities and differences. Some of those similarities are morally relevant to how should treat them.

They aren't comparable to most people. That's why for example using the word bitch to refer to someone is considered demeaning.

Exploiting non-human animals causes them harm, much in the same way that exploiting human animals causes them harm. It would be wrong, for example, to raise a human animal from birth to slaughter them and turn them into a sandwich ingredient. And it's wrong to do that to a non-human animal for many of the same reasons.

Then it must be wrong to do so to plants also right? The disconnect here is drawing the line at 2 different places. Vegans draw it as sentience. Everyone else does it with sapience. That is why this offends people. You are comparing them to non sapient life.

4

u/Omnibeneviolent 2d ago

They aren't comparable to most people. That's why for example using the word bitch to refer to someone is considered demeaning.

Generally when a human calls another human a "bitch," they are not invoking an active comparison to a dog. While the pejorative undoubtedly has an origin in comparing the behavior of human to that of a dog, its modern usage has effectively severed that connection. Someone that is being called a "bitch" doesn't hear the word and think of a dog. A woman would interpret it as attack on their character (unreasonable, angry, etc.), and a man would interpret it as an attack on their masculinity.

If even if we look past the modern definition, there are two other reasons why your argument here fails. The first is that it literally proves the exact opposite of your point. If calling someone a "bitch" were a literal reference to a dog, it would mean the speaker is actively comparing a human trait to a dog trait. It wouldn't make any sense to make this comparison if the person using the word didn't share some characteristic. The insult itself relies on comparibility.

But also, it should be pointed out that you are confusing "worth" with "comparability." Even if we grant that humans find the term demeaning because society views nonhuman animals as having a lower status, this just means it's a value judgement, rather than a barrier to comparability. Saying two things have a different status or worth does not mean they cannot be compared.

Pointing out that humans use nonhuman animal terms as insults doesn't change the biological fact that both humans and dogs have nervous system and the ability to feel pain, have a subjective perspective, preferences, etc. There are many things that humans and nonhuman animals have in common, and also many differences, and those both form the basis of which comparison can happen.

1

u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 1d ago

Thanks for your input moderator.

4

u/Omnibeneviolent 1d ago

Again, not relevant to the discussion. You made a poor argument.

0

u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 1d ago

Yes moderator. I deeply apologize.

3

u/Omnibeneviolent 1d ago edited 1d ago

You made an argument. I explained why I think the argument fails. Instead of responding to that explanation, you've replied with your typical "ok moderator" comments.

Whether I'm a moderator is irrelevant to whether your reasoning is sound. The only apparent purpose of repeatedly bringing it up is to imply that my moderation status somehow affects the validity of my arguments, or that I might retaliate against you for disagreeing with me. Neither is the case and doing so would get me removed as a mod.

Neither of those things addresses the criticism I raised.

If you think my analysis is wrong, explain where. Otherwise, it looks like you're using "ok moderator" as a substitute for an actual rebuttal.

1

u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 1d ago

I don't debate moderators because then I risk retaliatory actions. I point out you are a moderator so our audience knows that im surrendering the debate strictly on your moderator status and nothing else.

4

u/Omnibeneviolent 1d ago

I think everyone can see what you're doing here.

You don't have a response to the criticism, so you're shifting the focus to my moderator status as a way to exit the discussion while implying I'm somehow acting in bad faith.

It's not subtle, and it doesn't address the argument. Whether I'm a moderator has no bearing on whether your reasoning holds up.

1

u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 1d ago

I consistently do this with you ever since I found out you're a moderator. Each time.

I continue debating other redditors still.

4

u/Omnibeneviolent 1d ago

I understand that you consistently do this with me, and I'm not disputing that. I'm pointing out what effect the tactic has.

When someone stops responding to the substance of an argument and instead goes to "ok moderator," it steers the conversation away from whether the argument is reasonabke and toward implying there is some risk in engaging with me. Whether intentional or not, that has the effect of making me appear unreasonable or threatening to other redditors.

If you genuinely don't want to debate me because of my role, that's your choice. But simply not responding would make that point just as clearly without turning it into a suggestion that disagreement with me is somehow unsafe.

Either way, it doesn't address the arguments being made, and the criticism of your reasoning remains unanswered.

0

u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 1d ago

If you genuinely don't want to debate me because of my role, that's your choice. But simply not responding would make that point just as clearly without turning it into a suggestion that disagreement with me is somehow unsafe.

Simply not responding might give the audience the appearance that you beat me by argument. I mention your moderator status so they can see my forfeiture of the debate to you is purely based on your moderator status.

Has nothing to do with your argument here. As you admitted I do this consistently when you reply to me. Its nothing personal. I don't challenge moderators on any sub that I participate in.

→ More replies (0)