• CarbonScored [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Feel free to go and busy yourself making the world better for rocks or something? You draw your own line at making the world better for things that sufficiently ‘like you’, too. I deem humans sufficiently ‘like me’, and there are plenty practical reasons for encompassing all humans in a just world, too. You just deem animals also sufficiently ‘like you’, but I don’t personally see sufficient reasoning to extend that far.

    • artificialset [she/her, fae/faer]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      you really need to self crit and think about why you think beings only like you deserve safety and freedom from oppression. that really is so incompatible with everything we talk about here

      • MattsAlt [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Oppression and subjugation of a living thing is fine so long as it can’t speak to me and tell me it doesn’t like it. Extra points if it’s tasty!”

        • 1simpletailer
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is actually adequate scientific evidence that many animals have a much greater awareness and emotional intelligence then we often attribute to them, this includes most if not all of our domesticated animals. You could argue that the act of meat eating isn’t in itself amoral, but the mass suffering facilitated by the conditions within the meat industry certainly is. Not to mention the conditions it subjects its workers to. There is no ethical industrialized meat consumption.

          • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not to mention the conditions it subjects its workers to. There is no ethical industrialized meat consumption.

            yes, the labor conditions are something that harms people, especially in slaughterhouses.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          pure idealism

          Says the ideologically pure antinatalistic clown that declared that all life that has been should never have been and that everyone alive today should not exist because they didn’t sign a consent waiver before being born and that no future life should be born either, all while trying to justify “fuck you got mine don’t tell me what to doooooooooooo” takes on everything from speed limits to dae le epic bacon. 🤡

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Recognizing the capacity of animals to understand and suffer is basic science, not idealism. People with pets understand this and we know they should protect the health and well-being of the animals they keep. In fact, they often support laws requiring that pets are treated well enough.

          But the moment it’s a designated food animal, this goes out the window and brains shut off.

          So anyways are you gonna eat dogs and cats or are you an “idealist”?

    • SixSidedUrsine [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It has nothing to do with where I personally draw the line, asshole. It has everything to do with the scientifically established reality about who is capable of suffering. Rocks can’t. Cows, pigs, etc. can. Just because your sphere of empathy is arbitrarily drawn to reinforce what’s convenient for you doesn’t mean that by necessity everyone else is so shallow, cruel, and morally inconsistent.