this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
123 points (98.4% liked)
chapotraphouse
13473 readers
1 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do components suffer in order to be produced into useful electronic devices?
You're making a separate argument. The argument OP is making is that people shouldn't be able to eat animals if they can't butcher them. Which isn't really a Vegan argument, or even an argument against making animals suffer since it implies that people should be able to eat meat as long as they have experience hunting and butchering. As someone else said
Asking carnists to confront their own inconsistency is probably one of the oldest vegan arguments.
Like watching self-proclaimed "animal lovers" go on and on about how much they love bacon. Point out that the bacon is an animal with basically the same emotional and cognizant status as their dog and they get pretty upset. It's the inconsistency that drives this response and it's these agitations that lead to personal action.
Same thing applies to political agitation btw. We make agitprop intended to play on personal moral consistency like not wanting babies to get bombed, like thinking of themselves as non-racist, like "a full time job should be enough", etc.
There are many people out there who would not slaughter their own food because they don't want to harm the animals. There is an easy solution to this: make minor lifestyle changes. What prevents it is the decontextualization that prevents them from setting a red slab as an animal, the disconnect between primary production and their consumption, and a series of reactionary thought patterns that are reinforced by lefties just as much as, if not more than, their liberal counterparts.
Well if it's intended as a rhetorical strategy to get carnists to confront themselves, then great. That works. I was arguing with it because it was presented as a reformist proposal.
I don't even know how this could be a reformist proposal. What is being reformed, what's the alternative, and how is OP proposing it?
never mind, you're not the person I was talking to yesterday. I was thinking of a different conversation. apologies.
No biggie it's all good