It will get worse. Veganism will continue to gain popularity, especially among young people. This is because, at heart, most people are empathetic toward others and weaker beings. The question of veganism boils down to a simple question: whether or not one prefers personal enjoyment to the suffering of animals. And I am sure that this question will increasingly be answered with a “no.” Animal suffering will then become an increasingly important political issue. As a result, a lot of people who today consider themselves progressive, open-minded, and generally good people will change political sides. They will join those who already convince people on other issues (poverty, deportation, LGBTQ, etc.) that cruelty and suffering are simply part of reality and that they therefore don’t need to feel bad about it.
Mm I mean I agree just not fully, I think most people just don’t make the full connection. For most people it’s like saying to stop using your right hand, it’s causing mass suffering. The initial reaction is to say that’s just ridiculous. It’s just so normalized and ingrained, and meals are very important for a lot of people. It’s that lack of connection between what you do and the actual effects, and also just people not wanting to know (a friend i know has an idea it’s bad but specifically tries to avoid learning anything about it). So not necessarily they don’t have empathy, it’s just willingly or unknowingly not making the connection between their actions and the actual animal.
Imagine being so full of snobbish “moral superiority” that you deem animal rights a more important and immediate matter over the many problems that affect humans that haven’t been solved yet.
Where do you read that I say “animal rights are a more important and immediate matter than the many problems that affect humans”? That sounds like a straw man.
But what you are doing here is a classic pattern of argumentation that is used time and again to prevent or reverse social progress. For example, this is how the abolition of USAID was justified. It was said that Americans had to be helped first before foreigners could be helped. From the MAGAs’ point of view, the decisive quality characteristic is not being human, but being American. Suffering for anyone who is not American is therefore legitimate. This othering is justified by the argument that one must first help one’s own kind, and that this is normal. And one’s own kind is then defined as Americans, rather than all humans, which would also be possible. The same thing happens in my country whenever it comes to humanitarian aid or refugees.
That’s why I’m going to say the same thing to you that I always say to these guys: Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
Since you’re on Lemmy, it’s likely that you don’t agree with this reasoning above. But structurally, it’s exactly the same as what we do to animals, isn’t it? We tolerate avoidable suffering in other living beings because we only consider humans to be our own kind. But our own kind could also be living beings in general. But they are simply ‘the others’.
For vegans, it is simply not convincing to make this harsh distinction. At least not when it comes to something as fundamental as avoidable suffering. And the suffering is avoidable. We don’t have to cause it. So we could refrain from doing so. That’s the whole argument.
I’m not morally obligated to help people or animals every moment of my life. I am morally obligated not to be the cause suffering I could easily prevent.
This world, Earth, exists thanks to the chaotic nature of , well, nature. The animals who evolved here did so in a way that would allow them to survive this chaos. This world evolved monsters, some cute, some ugly, but monsters in the end.
But unlike animals, humans have the choice not to be a monster. Some people make use of this choice, but most do not. And I think it’s worth thinking about how our society manages to inflict this suffering on animals, even though most people would refuse to inflict suffering on other beings if you asked them.
I’m going to catch lots of flak for this opinion here, but you’re absolutely right and it’s why I’m ok with deer hunters (NOT TROPHY HUNTERS!).
Cause a deer meeting its end with a bullet or arrow is so much quicker than getting too old to outrun a bear, coyotes, or mountain lion. Mountain lions especially are known for leaving them alive but paralyzed for their kittens.
I couldn’t kill bambi’s mom personally but I don’t have a problem with others doing it ethically. But anyone that brags about a whatever number point buck can fuck right off though.
Vegan activists tend to consider hunting to be a low priority for reasons similar to what you’ve described. It doesn’t add much suffering overall assuming the death is quick. Instead, the focus is on the tremendous suffering involved in the meat industry.
it amazes me how kind, sweet people will suddenly go “actually I fucking love killing” as soon as you suggest the meat industry might be kinda bad
It will get worse. Veganism will continue to gain popularity, especially among young people. This is because, at heart, most people are empathetic toward others and weaker beings. The question of veganism boils down to a simple question: whether or not one prefers personal enjoyment to the suffering of animals. And I am sure that this question will increasingly be answered with a “no.” Animal suffering will then become an increasingly important political issue. As a result, a lot of people who today consider themselves progressive, open-minded, and generally good people will change political sides. They will join those who already convince people on other issues (poverty, deportation, LGBTQ, etc.) that cruelty and suffering are simply part of reality and that they therefore don’t need to feel bad about it.
Mm I mean I agree just not fully, I think most people just don’t make the full connection. For most people it’s like saying to stop using your right hand, it’s causing mass suffering. The initial reaction is to say that’s just ridiculous. It’s just so normalized and ingrained, and meals are very important for a lot of people. It’s that lack of connection between what you do and the actual effects, and also just people not wanting to know (a friend i know has an idea it’s bad but specifically tries to avoid learning anything about it). So not necessarily they don’t have empathy, it’s just willingly or unknowingly not making the connection between their actions and the actual animal.
Imagine being so full of snobbish “moral superiority” that you deem animal rights a more important and immediate matter over the many problems that affect humans that haven’t been solved yet.
Your comment implies the same moral superiority you criticize but in the opposite direction
Where do you read that I say “animal rights are a more important and immediate matter than the many problems that affect humans”? That sounds like a straw man.
But what you are doing here is a classic pattern of argumentation that is used time and again to prevent or reverse social progress. For example, this is how the abolition of USAID was justified. It was said that Americans had to be helped first before foreigners could be helped. From the MAGAs’ point of view, the decisive quality characteristic is not being human, but being American. Suffering for anyone who is not American is therefore legitimate. This othering is justified by the argument that one must first help one’s own kind, and that this is normal. And one’s own kind is then defined as Americans, rather than all humans, which would also be possible. The same thing happens in my country whenever it comes to humanitarian aid or refugees.
That’s why I’m going to say the same thing to you that I always say to these guys: Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
Since you’re on Lemmy, it’s likely that you don’t agree with this reasoning above. But structurally, it’s exactly the same as what we do to animals, isn’t it? We tolerate avoidable suffering in other living beings because we only consider humans to be our own kind. But our own kind could also be living beings in general. But they are simply ‘the others’.
For vegans, it is simply not convincing to make this harsh distinction. At least not when it comes to something as fundamental as avoidable suffering. And the suffering is avoidable. We don’t have to cause it. So we could refrain from doing so. That’s the whole argument.
every minute spent on animal rights is a minute not spent helping people
Actually I just went to the store and did NOT grab the steak. Surprisingly this took me less time than going to the meat section.
and then you spent time making this comment instead of helping people end their oppression
I’m not morally obligated to help people or animals every moment of my life. I am morally obligated not to be the cause suffering I could easily prevent.
avoiding the meat aisle doesn’t prevent any suffering
It ends the conversation quickly.
Well, the meat industry is objectively bad, but it’s not like it’s just killing for fun
this post is trying to make it sound fun
I didn’t perceive it that way, it’s not the “killing” that is fun, but rather the response that was
This world, Earth, exists thanks to the chaotic nature of , well, nature. The animals who evolved here did so in a way that would allow them to survive this chaos. This world evolved monsters, some cute, some ugly, but monsters in the end.
They kill, consume…their hunger is endless.
We, Humans, are just like that too.
But unlike animals, humans have the choice not to be a monster. Some people make use of this choice, but most do not. And I think it’s worth thinking about how our society manages to inflict this suffering on animals, even though most people would refuse to inflict suffering on other beings if you asked them.
There’s a difference between killing and eating an animal and the meat industry.
I’m going to catch lots of flak for this opinion here, but you’re absolutely right and it’s why I’m ok with deer hunters (NOT TROPHY HUNTERS!).
Cause a deer meeting its end with a bullet or arrow is so much quicker than getting too old to outrun a bear, coyotes, or mountain lion. Mountain lions especially are known for leaving them alive but paralyzed for their kittens.
I couldn’t kill bambi’s mom personally but I don’t have a problem with others doing it ethically. But anyone that brags about a whatever number point buck can fuck right off though.
Vegan activists tend to consider hunting to be a low priority for reasons similar to what you’ve described. It doesn’t add much suffering overall assuming the death is quick. Instead, the focus is on the tremendous suffering involved in the meat industry.
I know. Killing within melee range is for savages or primitives.
Real advanced species kill from afar. Even better, with just the press of a button. We must learn ways to skip the unnecessary steps
I was agreeing with you. What’s with the hostility?