There are just some things I am not willing to make comparisons of
I agree with you. It’s not that animals aren’t suffering and that it shouldn’t stop, but it’s not anywhere near the same thing as humans butchering humans for entirely meaningless and hateful reasons. That’s the sticking point for me: reason. Yes, the treatment of some animals - not all, by the way - raised for food is appalling, but at least there’s a reason behind it - food - rather than no reason that anyone with a compassionate mind can even begin to understand. Comparing it to hate crimes is like… I don’t even know, I can’t think up a crazy enough example.
Everything has a reason behind it. Mein Kampf is full of Hitler’s political idealogies and rationalizations. Just because an action has a flawed reason behind it, does not validate it, or make it somehow more acceptable.
Slaughter is slaughter, genocide is genocide, innocence is innocence, and compassion is compassion. And it seems as though these have been warped and distorted to suit personal opinions.
By your logic, faeriee: The Holocaust would have been acceptable if the Germans had eaten the Jews, or what?
Maybe you should question why you don’t like those comparisons instead on trying to call out those who do. You don’t seem to know, other than it being a knee-jerk reaction to the mention of something you have been told was unparalleled in it’s cruelty.
You’ll soon find that there is no logical way to object to these comparisons and remain non-speciesist.
(This post still provides no counter to the arguments brought to you; just another reiteration of your initial post. All you have done is add that you think that it is OK to kill non-human animals for food…)
Did I really just see someone compare eating meat to the fucking HOLOCAUST. On some real shit, what the fuck is wrong with you people?!?! You’re comparing Jewish people to livestock and see no problem with this. What in the ever loving fuck is going on in your brain to make you think that’s ok? For future reference, don’t you EVER do that shit again.
Hey supervegan, if you’re gonna give absolutist philosophical constructs to rationalize your own argument, then how exactly are animals and humans the same? How is a pig the same as a marmot, a person the same as a swan, a rainbow trout the same as a mosquito?
Because, aside from common sense, I’d still have to wonder at how (or if) you’re divvying up these concepts of abuse, slaughter, oppression, or whatever. Because I’d only be able to continue that line of thinking if you were uniformly lumping all these creatures into the collective concept of ‘animal.’ I’d just be curious where you draw the line. Do sponges count as animals? Does the superorganism of a kingdom of ants count as an animal? Do viruses, or algae, or archae, or prokaryotes, or invertebrates? Would these all be animals?
Are animals only things that react to touch? Because I’d think it’s strange, then, if you’d exclude animals, such as people, with HSAN and leprosy simply because they cannot feel. Is it only animals that would have the capacity to react? Because that would exclude a few phyla, wouldn’t it? Or is it only the ones who would be able to have the capacity for certain chemical reactions to external stimuli who would be considered? Because that’s starting to sound a little individualistic.
I guess my point is that following your logic, I still don’t arrive at your conclusion to be able to control these concepts without treating them individually.
Plus, ladyatheist is totally right. Don’t you fucking equate the holocaust with whatever the fuck you want to equate it with. My reasoning for that is basically the same above, if you want to know.
But seriously, don’t.
Seriously, I want to know.
She is right, huh? She didn’t even make a statement. She just alluded to her distaste for the comparison and provided no solid backing for her distaste.
Where do I draw the line? Sentience. You’re all so busy picking out our differences and trying to name creatures that have no bearing on anyone’s choice to become vegan that you totally miss the point:
Farmed animals, companion animals, wild animals etc… are all capable of the same basic desires as us (some more than others). They all have a desire to avoid pain/discomfort, they have a desire to live and be free, plenty will seek companionship in others. They can communicate, solve problems and learn. Why should I give this being less consideration? Because he looks different and I can’t understand him via language?
Stop using sentient beings as ‘livestock’ and I’ll stop making Holocaust comparisons.
This argument is over, though: you speciesists don’t get where I am coming from. Before you say it: I get where you are coming from just fine, thanks. I acknowledge how absolutely disgusting humans treat each other and I understand that millions of humans have lived and died in circumstances I will never know (and don’t want to).
P.S. Something that may be beneficial to all of you: learn the fucking difference between ‘holocaust’ and ‘the Holocaust’…
Damn right this argument’s over with. This is beyond my tolerance, and I’m not in the mood to pound this out any further; if someone wants to take the wheel, by all means.
Do you fucking hear yourself? “Sentience.” That’s where you draw the line. “Sentience.” You know that all livestock except for the rare pig does not recognize its own reflection right?
I’m not going to argue that ‘animals are stupider than we are, so therefore we can dominate them’—but I’m not going to pretend like we think the same, or are all sentient the same. Holy fucking hell. I’ll admit, what I’m about to say does not have total scientific support, but from what we know collectively and I now personally, our ‘desires,’ no matter how complex or basic or common, have been determined by billions of years of evolutionary honing, and do not just neatly cross from species to species. Even if you perceive a sheep expressing love or maybe even devotion as you would, you cannot conclusively argue that those desires drive its actions. I’m not trying to debase a sheep’s will to live, I’m trying to look at it realistically without personifying it.
Also, (and don’t worry, supervegan, I haven’t been addressing this at you for a long time now) for anyone listening, I eat animals because when I get to them the product I’m consuming has been dead for at least several hours. I’ll admit that under relatively normal conditions, I couldn’t kill something, even to eat it, but I’m not going to turn away from something that I know will sustain me, replenish me, make me feel better, and taste good. I don’t care if that sounds hypocritical, I’m fucking allowed to be hypocritical. I’m a goddamn animal, not a motherfucking saint. I enjoy cooking, I enjoy eating, and I don’t enjoy killing at all.
Fuck you supervegan for assuming shit about why I’m not a vegan, and fuck you for thinking everyone should be just like you.
Also, your whole “learn the difference between ‘holocaust’ and ‘The Holocaust’” is the greatest pile of bullshit I’ve heard today. You’re an ignorant person and an idiot.
No. No. No. FFS!
I had family that died in the Holocaust, my grandmother’s family lost all their money because of it. It was and still is a disgusting moment in human history that cannot be rationalised in any shape or form. And that includes denying the existing parallel of what is happening to livestock animals all across the world. To claim that they are not worthy or significant equals to what happened to victims of the Holocaust is an extremely anthropocentric view, and to those who are not aware of this concept it considers human beings as the most significant entity of the universe from an exclusively human perspective. Of course losing my family is more personal and heartbreaking than losing an animal I’ve never met or known, but my vanity is not so precious that any stranger that is murdered is a smaller loss in comparison.
The Nazi reasoning for cultural cleansing was completely pointless and meaningless, yes we can agree on something. But so is cultivating billions of animals in the most cruel conditions, and for not just one reason but many. We could feed the world seven times over with the grains we feed to livestock. The agricultural industry is absolutely devastating for our environment, causing a tremendous waste of water, massive amounts of fossil fuels, deforestation, pollution, faecal contamination into our waterways, and soil erosion. Livestock animals are also massively drugged with antibiotics, growth hormones, steroids etc that enter our bodies and are causing new strains of disease and increasing our chances of cancer. The industry also contributes along with many other factors to global hunger, as grains grown in developing countries that should go to feed their own population are fed to our livestock. And it is a very known fact that most people in the West can have a sustainable diet devoid of any animal product that is more environmentally friendly, but it is people like you that continue to live under the illusion that these reasons do not qualify as significant enough parallels to other human atrocities.
The act in which you end an innocent being’s life is an injustice. And to separate the enslavement and merciless treatment of animals from the enslavement and merciless treatment of humans is simply a product of human arrogance and moral weakness. And if I need to remind you of this quote, “through out history, those responsible for genocide and enslavement of others have sought to marginalise those they exploit by presenting them as worthless and unimportant”. To rationalise and downplay our treatment of animals compared to the Holocaust or any other genocide not only perpetuates this attitude but will continue to justify future human atrocities to come and our massive punishment and complete disregard of other creatures that we live on this earth with, not apart from.
To jensenjaundice and ladyathiest and the other ignorant people who have equipped themselves with absolutely no logic or rational arguments in their attempts to join this discussion, please go and do some research. Oh wait and before you come back with a survival of the fittest argument that supposedly justifies everything humans do on this earth, Charles Darwin considered vegetarianism in the later period of his life and it was his adversaries that recalled your very argument of how superior humans are as they claimed it was impossible for humans to have descended from a “savage” and “primitive” ape. Didn’t you learn anything in school? If I were your parents I’d ask for the fees back.
this is getting out of control
I’m going to work and pretending like all of this stuff isn’t here
I’ll just answer you when I come back tonight
or y’know you can just send me your hatemail
I like responding to those too
For the record, I thought the preferred term was Shoah?
But yeah, this is kind of extreme.