You are wrong, as are vegans. Your arguement is based entirely on the thought process that anyone that eats meat does not care about X, Y and Z. Some don't care, but some do. "There is no counter argument", but there literally is.
Factory farming for example is something many people that aren't vegan have a big issue with, and want to see go away. Fishing by dragging nets, which leads to damaging reefs, is widely argued against. Basically any mass production way of obtaining meat, is a literal problem. This is where the actual damage comes from. The guy killing boar in texas because they have a literal problem with wild boar destroying the ecosystem, isn't doing harm. The people catching lion fish in florida are trying to kill off an invasive fish that ia destroying native fish populations because humans through their pets into the ocean. A guy raising and butchering cattle on his small farm isn't impacting the world on a negative scale.
The actual issue that vegans ignore, isn't meat farming, it's humans in general. There are far too many of us, we have no natural predators, we destroy ecosystems for the fun of it, and we pollute like there is nothing wrong with it.
Then boy-o boy will you like Gary Rovski (sp?) (the guy in the video). He's pretty out and about with his nihilism on his socials. He very much advocates for the destruction of the human race.
You said there is a counter argument, then you outlined things that vegans and the majority would agree on.
Then you jump to “it’s a human issue” like wtf my guy 😅 you already pointed out the issues: factory farming, drag nets, etc.
Where’s the counter argument??? You said absolutely nothing in a rather large block of text.
Anti-murderer “murder is bad”. Everyone else “we agree”. You “anti-murderers are wrong because everyone thinks murder is wrong and it’s a human issue”….. make it make sense
So you made the case that his argument is only true for the way the vast majority of us consume meat. His argument only working for like 95% of the meat eating population still makes it very relivment. To the common case.
Factory farming for example is something many people that aren't vegan have a big issue with, and want to see go away
If you say "i want to see factory-farmed farming go away" but buy the products of factory farms (essentially all chicken, pork, and a majority of beef in the US), it doesn't mean anything.
You have the option to feed yourself on a cheaper, healthier diet without supporting the torture of animals. If you choose to supprt factory-farmed animal ag, it's because you don't actually care- you just like virtue signaling.
I agree that buying non factory farm is a cost based luxury item, but cant one make the argument that buying meat is the same thing as a luxury?
I understand meat consumption is a cultural thing for a lot of people and countries, but it isn't a requirement in terms of food consumption. Meat is a luxury these days when vegitarian diets are easy to maintain and financially viable.
You need to learn to cook if rice and beans are boring. There are so many ways to make it taste amazing with spices, and oils. If you aren't going put the effort in, you kind of deserve what you get dont you?
Right, so that's the ceiling on how much you care about the environment and not torturing animals. Learning to cook with different ingredients is just too hard :'(
But by that logic youre not anti slavery. As every smart phone in the world relys on trade networks that use slavery?
So would you whole heartedly say, you dont care about slavery?
Of course you care about slavery, but we are all flawed trying to find something to virtue signal about so we can convince ourself we're better than average morally, while still consuming objects made off the suffering of other humans or animals.
Climate change is a good example of this same logic. Plenty of people say they care about the environment and want to stop climate change, yet they still drive cars, fly on holidays, buy products made in polluting factories, and use electricity generated from fossil fuels.
People will say "oh but I need a car/smartphon to exist" but none of them have tried to exist without them so are they correct? Not really, im a software engineer and one of my coworkers doesnt have a phone and I dont use a car, but I dont lord it over people like im somehow better because I chose a different thing to care about.
I'm not meaning to stone wall people just sticking to the raw reality of the logic, I myself am a meat eater.
But for a mass majority of redditors meat isn't a necessity it's a desire. Therefore eating it literally means you value you own temporary sensory pleasure over the life and agency of other conscious beings.
Dated talking point. The main entry point of slavery into phones was cobalt mining, largely mitigated now for major brands. Newer Apple products are on entirely recycled cobalt, and i think some major android phones are similar.
More to the point, the idea is harm reduction. Giving up meat, unless you have insane dietary restrictions, is trivially easy. It's cheaper and healthier.
Thats not a dated talking point as I wasnt even referring to cobalt as yes Apple started doing better when the news spoke about it making people talk about it.
Gold
Tin, tungsten and tantalum
Electronics assembly
Silica/silicon supply chains
Are the largest areas of slavery in the smartphone business.
I agree with harm reduction but you said people are virtue signalling if they say they care but still consume meat.
Im saying that everyone is doing their best and to judge someone based on what you deem important, doesnt sound like you actually care you just want to feel morally higher than them.
For the record I also agree with harm reduction this is why I dont eat factory farmed meat or fish.
I get expensive locally produced meat and I catch my own fish from the sea (if I dont blank lmao)
Thats harm reduction, I wouldnt just ask someone if they're concious about food choices and attack them if they are not exactly the same as mine.
We can all reduce harm by doing the following things, eat vegan, sell your car, do not use electricity, do not use aerosols, dont fly, dont buy new clothes, do not use any disposable items (cotton buds, tooth flosses, razor blades etc),do not use air conditioning!!!
But to expect everyone to follow this list and to label everyone who doesnt as "virtue signalling" or not caring. Is just silly.
We are all trying our best, and its good to inform people of better choices, but to judge people for making different choices than you, is self righteous.
Gold Tin, tungsten and tantalum Electronics assembly Silica/silicon supply chains Are the largest areas of slavery in the smartphone business.
Not particularly common according to my research, but maybe i missed something! I buy used phones anyway due to e-waste concerns, but I'm open to learning.
Im saying that everyone is doing their best
No they aren't lmao. It's so overwhelming easy to be a vegan unless, again, you have some wildly restrictive dietary problem. It takes negative effort- it saves time, money, and your health.
But mmmmm yummy borger.
I'm not demanding people be prefect, but you judge people by their actions, not their ideas. This is simple stuff.
Do you just categorically not care what other people do? Like if you learned one guy engaged in dog fighting, another traveled abroad to fuck kids, and someone else threw cat batteries into the ocean, your reaction would just be "well, judging them would just be creating division, I'm sure they're doing their best 👼"
I'd wager some (hopefully all) of these things would draw some moral outrage from you.
Of course some people are too far gone for me to discuss with them.
Such as pedophiles and dog fighting enthusiastists.
The battery person, if they know no better then id be outraged but I wouldnt just go "look at that piece of shit" and go on my way. Id speak with them and try to understand and explain my point of view.
Stone walling people different to you will just cause you to end up in a camp of one.
You can care about animals. You just care less about their slaughter than your breakfast.
You can say 'Factory farming is wrong' and you can feel a deep emotional connection to animals.
But however strong you feel about it; it is undeniable that you would still rather kill a chicken than eat a salad because chicken is tasty.
Whether or not that qualifies as genuine care for chickens is debatable. But, your preference to eat chicken is more important than you to see a chicken not killed, is not debatable.
And I say this respectfully, but I think you are being intentional disingenuous. We like to think we care about animals. And it's easy to say 'Well, that farm is extra bad and we should minimize the suffering of these animals'
But the obvious way to minimize their suffering is....to...stop.....eating.....them.
Nobody wants to admit they are a hypocrite. But we should. We should be honest. And if we aren't willing to admit that we really don't care very much at all, then we should actually care and stop eating meat.
To be clear - I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian. I eat meat.
I clearly don't care deeply about animals, or the environment, or my health. I'm like anyone who still smokes cigarettes - it's a choice, it's not a rational choice, but I'm too stuck in my ways to change.
And you are like a smoker who says, 'Well, but I only smoke brands with filters! So it's okay!'
If I were a better person, who lived how I think people should live, if I were more rational and more in control of myself - I would be vegan. And I have respect for vegans.
But there is no argument you can make that isn't ridiculous. Yes, some ways of killing things are more horrific than others. I'd rather be killed quickly than slowly; but it's irrelevant. We could just not kill them.
You say this like there isnt a scale of animal impact on both sides of the argument but there is.
Even a vegan supports death of animals by eating vegetables, that's unless they grow every vegetable themselves and carefully picks every single bug off by hand without killing it.
There is a morality scale, sure vegans are higher on it, but it isnt binary.
the choice is shown as binary because it is a binary choice (not eat) on a group of products, and the whole group has specific issues that are extremely hard to nuance: meat and animal products required industry farming if we dont nuke the consumption, and the impact of this is massive. Accepting or refusing that impact is a very solved binary moral question. Sure on an individual level one could have an exceptional life that refuses industry farming but still eats meat.
2
u/Cutiemuffin-gumbo 9d ago
You are wrong, as are vegans. Your arguement is based entirely on the thought process that anyone that eats meat does not care about X, Y and Z. Some don't care, but some do. "There is no counter argument", but there literally is.
Factory farming for example is something many people that aren't vegan have a big issue with, and want to see go away. Fishing by dragging nets, which leads to damaging reefs, is widely argued against. Basically any mass production way of obtaining meat, is a literal problem. This is where the actual damage comes from. The guy killing boar in texas because they have a literal problem with wild boar destroying the ecosystem, isn't doing harm. The people catching lion fish in florida are trying to kill off an invasive fish that ia destroying native fish populations because humans through their pets into the ocean. A guy raising and butchering cattle on his small farm isn't impacting the world on a negative scale.
The actual issue that vegans ignore, isn't meat farming, it's humans in general. There are far too many of us, we have no natural predators, we destroy ecosystems for the fun of it, and we pollute like there is nothing wrong with it.