Well, that’s hardly the typical response an omnivore might give, although it certainly fits the unfair stereotype that many have of vegans as angry and preachy.
This might be a fairer articulation:
Hello, @pigfender. It’s really not complicated at all. It is a conflict of interests that one can resolve oneself if one considers that the victims are more important than taste desires or social acceptance. The same can be said of the cessation of black slavery in half the world: it is not a matter of difficulty, but of convenience (money, power, strength).
I have spent many years studying the phenomenon of human slavery and its analogy with animal slavery (domestication). I give talks, some of them available on YouTube, but they are in Spanish. We know that both forms of oppression arose in the Neolithic as humans began to establish civilizations with unrelated members. This was the transition from the “tribe” to the “village”.
Enslaving other members, of the same species or another, benefited the hegemonic group because it took away daily chores. From a biological point of view, slavery could be defined as the use of the biomass of other living beings to carry out work (energy conversion) without oneself having to do it from their own reserves. The same as a normal job, but without pay and being treated as a manipulable and disposable object.
Historically, any social benefit requires a narrative to sustain itself. This is the case because humans are moral agents (subjects with moral thought). For this reason, human beings have always sought supremacist arguments based on some criteria: religion, race, sex, nationality, etc.
Contrary to what it might seem, humans do not discriminate against animals because they are less intelligent; we discriminate against them for not being human. In the hypothetical case that there were animals as intelligent as a human being, they would still be discriminated against if they did not have the power or organization to defend themselves.
We take advantage of the fact that animals are less intelligent to dominate them more and better than other humans. A severely cognitively impaired human has legal rights; on the other hand, a dolphin that could have the consciousness of a 10-year-old does not have them at all. With this, I point out that the current foundation of the law does not reside in the degree of an attribute, but in the absence of attributes, arbitrarily considered, that make us special and different from other animals.
Since our discrimination is based on the species, the term “speciesism” is used to designate it. However, this term is used quite badly nowadays. The large animal organizations do not defend animals or their rights, they only propose small profitable changes against “animal abuse”. In addition, such organizations discriminate between animals based on commercial interests and people’s social reactions. Such a message obviates the fact that we can live without exploiting animals and that violence against animals exists and spreads because they are legally allowed.
Humanity cares much more about cats and dogs than pigs or cows. This is why, ironically, the Western world curses the Chinese for eating dog meat while our society kills hundreds of millions of other animals every year for the same discriminatory criteria.
Since we are in a forum full of writers, I think it is very importunate to recommend the works of Gary L. Francione, Doctor of Laws and the greatest eminence in the field of Animal Rights. He has written several books in which he talks about discrimination against animals, welfarism and how the ideology of utilitarianism has been the great trigger for all oppressions and injustices:
Regards.
Aha!
A very important “if”, that one.
And if you had a different viewpoint, your viewpoint would be different too.
1 Like
1 Like
Is that your only response to a long argued message? Am I really arguing with adults here?
If ethics were relative, then the laws would also have to be, since both are based on logic. If you think that laws should be relative, then you don’t know what a law means or its foundation for the defense of the individual.
Moral relativism implies that if someone considers it legitimate to hurt you, then they would be entitled to do so. If you think it’s okay to hurt animals because you like the taste of meat, then you lose any moral legitimacy to ask others not to steal or kill you, as such actions may seem right and convenient to your offenders.
Moral relativism was discarded from the legal world since the Enlightenment, I am afraid that many people remain in the Middle Ages or wish to go back to that period.
We didn’t start or invent eating animals (and using animal products) back then, though. We just stopped running after them.
1 Like
After that fried chicken I just had… Yeah, why not.
If you read my message (something that should be easy for you because you are a native English speaker), I have talked about animal slavery as the beginning of a historical period and the maintenance of animal exploitation to this day due to moral prejudices.
I have not said that animals were not hunted before. The human being has hunted animals and raped women since its origins, no event, by itself, constitutes a moral criterion. I imagine that no one in this forum will find it relative that raping women if someone likes it, right?
That cartoon criticizes the double standard and both of you only show that same double standard.
Am I?
True, but then why are you mentioning it as if there’s some kind of correlation? There isn’t. We ate animals before domestication and after. The way we obtained those animals changed.
There’s no double standard. If I want to eat it, and it’s legal to eat it, I eat it. That’s just one standard.
Human slavery WAS legal too. “If I want to enslave a negro, I enslave a negro”.
I imagine that if you had lived 200 years ago you would have said the same thing. Thanks for validating it.
The laws do not establish what is correct, but what is permitted. To know what is correct or not correct, we need ethics. If you feel wrong to harm a human for being human but feel right to harm an animal for being an animal, you display a double standard. Its origin and foundation I have already explained and it is explained better by the author whom I quote.
For my part, I am not going to continue wasting time in this conversation. Even people with primary education are usually able to show cordiality and do not incur unnecessary irony (“fried chicken”) when someone questions your actions and thinking. In fact, even people with less education show a trait that I have not found in this forum: intellectual humility or interest in learning from others. In fact, I have lost all initial interest in this forum.
It doesn’t matter if someone writes about politics or history, and it doesn’t matter if he or she is for or against something. The ability to argue says a lot about an author. Dialectic is the basis of the rational use of language.
I don’t know what books you write, but if your arguments are like those a teenager would express, I have no interest in reading them.
Please refrain from insulting other participants in the thread.
Sarcasm and mockery are tools, just as a lengthy analysis is a tool. Part of the art of public debate is choosing which tools are likely to be most effective.
2 Likes
Straw men, misrepresentations, mockery, contempt, avoidance of arguments and malpractice are not typical of a rational or acceptable debate.
I thought this is an intellectual forum, not a reality show.
And no, that’s not insults. Ignoring my paragraphs to blurt out nonsense is a complete lack of respect for whoever writes to them.
Hell, I didn’t even read it. Waaaaay too long. Waaaaaaaaaay too argumentative.
I stopped reading the second I noticed your entire position was based on an unsupportable presumption. Which was sentence two, if you don’t count the “hello”. (Hello, by the way!)
I never claimed to be an adult. And I’m not arguing at all. I’m just here for entertainment.
2 Likes
It is obvious. If I insulted you for entertainment and for wasting my time with your nonsense, I would be the “bad guy” in the conversation.
Adiós.
It is as intellectual, or not, as the participants choose to make it. You can choose to participate on those terms, or not, it’s up to you.
1 Like
Hogwash.
If you think it’s okay to hurt plants because you like the taste of vegetables, then have you lost any moral legitimacy ask others not to kill you?
1 Like
According to this logic… If you imagine me killing someone, does this “validate” that I’m a murderer? 
Feel free to imagine what you want. I don’t care if I live rent-free in your head. But that’s not a legal contract.
That was no irony. It was literally fried chicken. Like in… actual, tasty fried chicken. With rice and kimchi and stuff.
Bye 
I already responded to that argument in another thread on this forum. If you’re not going to read my arguments, stop posting new rebuttals. Have some dignity and respect for your interlocutor.
Well, I’m that case I’m convinced. Good job.
2 Likes
I’m afraid I’m going to close this thread for a bit again. Everyone needs to take a deep breath.