• ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Let’s assume for a moment that somehow your salad was conscious. That’s an even bigger reason not to eat an animal that has to be fed on plants for a long time.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Or maybe its just a fundamental fact of life that something has to die in order for you to live and virtue signaling about the degree to which you participate in that death is a pointless exercise.

        • Ignotum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          “our new cancer drug is 99% effective!”

          “So it doesn’t work in 1% of cases? Then what’s the point, throw it away, we just have to accept that cancer is going to happen”

        • mildlyusedbrain@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          These arguments are exactly why people hate vegans. It’s nonsense.

          Not only do you jump to an insane straw man. You showcase that you ignore a clear increasing contradiction around your world view and choose reactionary nothing.

          If you care about life realize the harder question. If you care about the environment realize clear inefficiencues. Currently, you showcase nothing more than crude thoughtlessness.

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I’m not a vegan. Their argument was literally that morally there is no difference in the amount of death caused by any person for the purposes of consumption.

          • BlackDragon@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not only do you jump to an insane straw man.

            It wasn’t an insane strawman though? It was literally the argument they made. Something has to die for you to eat, therefore it doesn’t matter how many things you kill or how necessary those deaths are. The fact that you must kill something absolves you of any guilt for any amount of killing, is the ridiculous argument the person made (and which carnists often make) which we are making fun of for being obviously evil and wrong.

            • mildlyusedbrain@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              It is - it’s a super affirmative position. It takes an extreme position within the sphere it’s trying to criticize to make an exaggerated point to attack. It’s literally a classic strawman.

              Your follow up is in the same vein. Its empty rhetoric

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                That’s called Reductio Ad Absurdum and is a valid, classic form of argumentation. If you take their premises to their logical conclusion, the result is absurd, so their premises must be false.

                You don’t get to arbitrarily limit where a premise gets applied in order to pick and choose which conclusions to stand by. It isn’t a strawman to show that someone’s premises lead to conclusions that they would disagree with, that’s literally the point.

          • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I’m not a vegan but it’s foolish to think that vegans aren’t objectively correct. Let’s even say that plants are conscious beings on the level of cows or pigs. The conditions these plants are grown in are a million times better than that of the average factory farm animal. Additionally, in order to sustain ourselves on cows and pigs, exponentially more of these conscious plants need to be killed to fatten the conscious animals we are eating.

            If we just ate the plants instead there would be several orders of magnitude less suffering in the word, antibiotic resistant bacteria would be a less immediate issue, a significant amount of our greenhouse gas emissions would disappear, and we’d all probably be healthier to boot.

            Yes, something has to die in order for any organism to continue it’s existence. Let’s not pretend that only plants dying aren’t a better alternative in every way to animals dying in order to further our collective existence. You accuse vegans of being reactionary but your comment smacks of knee-jerky defensiveness for something you seem to understand is wrong

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        This logic doesn’t make sense in any other context. Like, if I say we should try to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere, you could point out that emitting CO2 is a fundamental part of human life, so something something virtue signaling blah blah blah. Just because something is unavoidable to a certain degree doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to minimize it.