CreedAngelus t1_irzwcjw wrote on October 12, 2022 at 8:08 AM

Reply to comment by PugPockets in Hundreds of Dogs Saved From Nevada Breeding Farm in Huge Police Operation by NotACapedCrusader1

The original statement the guy made was that there was no excuse to not be vegan. My argument breaks it.

Now unless someone countered my argument the issue becomes...

If we're "allowed" to eat animals because we're poor, who made vegans the authority to tell people with more than us what they should eat? This "permission" to eat meat comes off as a pity party for people without food.

It comes off as "look at them. They're so backwards they have to eat animals while we don't. I feel bad for them."

That is the undertone delivered. What happened to being treated equally?

We work so we can afford choice. Ease quality of life. Are we supposed to lose freedom of one aspect of our lives upon being capable of affording more than basic needs? Do we not deserve comfort for successfully pulling ourselves up?

And again, if we were not denied that in acknowledgement of our struggles, but people from first world nations are, is that not a pity party? A marker displaying the difference between them and us?

So when will we be viewed as equal?

Finally, social dynamics aside...

if people can justify our consumption of meat because we're poor then it is admission that animals cannot be prioritized compared to us. Because in a pinch, we are human and they are not.

PugPockets t1_is03agk wrote on October 12, 2022 at 9:52 AM

I think (?) I see where you’re trying to go, but no. It’s about privilege, not pity, and equity, not equality. In my value system, I try to minimize the amount of harm I cause, and try to mitigate harm where I encounter it - that is what makes moral sense to me. It is impossible to live in our world and not cause harm, and I am nowhere near perfect, nor even cutting out everything in my life I could to get closer. To me, a non-negotiable is veganism, because it’s wholly possible. We do not gain “freedom” by causing harm, which is what mass-scale animal agriculture is, full stop. It is not necessary for us to survive, and no, I don’t believe anyone is entitled to the lives and autonomy of other sentient beings under the guise of “comfort”. The abject torture that is all most animals in feedlots and factories will ever know is not okay, and not excusable.

To your last point, we are animals, and have a survival instinct. I will not judge anyone doing what they can to keep themselves and their family alive, because it would be a nonsensical expectation. I think I’m maybe in the middle ground of vegans in that I view things from a harm reduction lens and view things on a spectrum - so with my current privileges I would never subsistence hunt or buy eggs from my neighbor, but these things do cause less overall pain and suffering than buying a Big Mac and do think there’s a moral difference between those and engaging in the standard American diet when you have and are aware of the many other options.

CreedAngelus t1_is06zj1 wrote on October 12, 2022 at 10:41 AM

There is a fundamental incompatibility betwen the idea of preventing harm to sentient beings when given the option, and the fact that animals that are not our own species see no harm in hunting when other options exist.

Pigs are omnivores and will eat an unconscious human given the chance. And yes it has happened. Apes are largely herbivorous but do not shy away from eating grubs and lice off of each other. Hedgehogs will eat their young when threatened because in their minds, if the threat will kill their kids anyway, better they utilize the energy than a predator. Parasitic birds are technically capable of raising their own young but opt not to even at the expense of the young of other birds. Dolphins will bully puffer fish for their toxins in order to get high. They do not need to do this but they do. Orcas will body boats and animals alike and risk self harm because they think it is fun and challenging. Cats will kill for sport.

These are intelligent animals seeking comfort at the expense of other species. Because it is natural to prioritize one's own species over another, similar to how it is natural to prioritize one's family over another.

The counterpoint to this should be that as humans we are more advanced than animals and do not have to act like them. But then if we acknowledge that there is a difference, well... That difference is what allows us in the third world to eat them without guilt.

Thing is, if we grew up eating a mix of meat and vegetables to survive, we already value ourselves more than animals. Even if someone here does get rich, it is unrealistic to expect a sudden development of empathy for what we see as food.

PugPockets t1_is1ghgx wrote on October 12, 2022 at 4:42 PM

I’m not seeing a point here. You are welcome to do mental gymnastics however you want, but this isn’t a philosophical exercise, it’s just a day to day choice. It’s wild to me how complicated people will make their arguments rather than just saying, “I know there is mass-scale suffering that animals are experiencing, I know I could make different choices, and I don’t want to because I value my [convenience, tradition, comfort, taste buds, etc] above this.”

CreedAngelus t1_is1hvgt wrote on October 12, 2022 at 4:50 PM

It's hardly gymnastics at all.

The point is I see animals as food because of the fact they sustained me when plants alone would not suffice.

Can't see them as equals just because I get out of the country and move to a better life because that would necessitate feeling guilt that I contributed to the killing of thousands of equals in order to have a half decent quality of life.

I mean obviously we wouldn't kill thousands of people to make our one life better. But you acknowledge that people can eat animals to survive and you wouldn't judge them.

Thus their death is secondary to my comfort. Just as to animals, the suffering of other species they actively choose to make suffer is secondary to their comfort. The only difference is that I have the awareness to choose not to have the chicken in my backyard suffer in the moments before it ends up on my plate.

PugPockets t1_is1n4w5 wrote on October 12, 2022 at 5:25 PM

Context is important, for sure, and you have a life experience that is different from my own. I think what comes in here is a fundamental disconnect between the realities of mass scale animal agriculture and subsistence farming or hunting. Most vegans grew up thinking of animals as food, and cultural differences and traditions are really important to acknowledge and respect. And yet, again, if and when we have the privilege to be able to choose, we have the ability to choose something different. People will do a lot of things to avoid feeling guilt, and even though I don’t believe you would need to feel guilt for eating animals to survive, actively avoiding engaging with the reality of a situation to avoid uncomfortable feelings is Big Ag’s sweet spot. They will do pretty much anything to get people to avoid feeling guilty. Like I said, I cannot pretend my choices cause no harm (I drive a car, have an Amazon prime membership, etc). I know that in those instances I am prioritizing my convenience over the greater good. I feel guilt about that. Veganism is just a no-brainer for me, because the violence is on such a giant scale and I have the ability to opt out as much as I can. You get to make whatever choices make sense for you.