“I need my chicken to come in drumstick form or I can’t eat it” fuck you either own the murder or change your diet coward
If you can’t stomach soldering fumes you shouldn’t get to use electronics. If you don’t acid etch your own circuit boards you disgust me.
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
Killing something yourself doesn’t make it better or worse, this argument just appeals to you because you know many people wouldn’t be able to. Wanting to make fewer people eat meat is cool and good, but vapid sophistry is not how you get there.
I think maybe you’re reading into my words a bit more deeply than I thought anybody would (though I am a vegan and you’re right, I do like the idea of setting a high skill floor on eating meat because I am a vegan).
My argument is merely that it’s okay to govern some treats differently than others because there are fundamentally distinct classes of treats and that therefore, proposing that people have to do the killing and/or butchering of an animal in order to acquire it is not analogous to requiring that people mine raw materials, process them into everything needed to produce semiconductors, and then build there own electronics “from scratch”.
Which isn’t really a Vegan argument,
Totally agree, but it would cut demand for industrial meat production so massively I have trouble rejecting the idea on these grounds alone
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.
You are giving the rocks the power to think. So I can only assume that they suffer
no but the workers do.
How does me killing my own meat stop animals from suffering? If anything OP is encouraging animal suffering. When amateurs kill animals there is more chance for the animals to have a prolonged and painful death. Encouraging amateurs to butcher their own meat will lead to more waste meaning more animals will die.
OP: I think “If not A, then not B.”
You: oh fuck they’re telling everyone to do B!
I think breathing solder fumes is disgusting. I pay for someone else to do it for me and they don’t get paid well. My using electronics is contributing to humans dying for pennies. How is that more ethical than paying someone to process meat instead of doing it myself?
If you want to talk about poor living conditions and inhumane slaughtering practices I cant argue against that. You want to debate that all living animals have a right to life I’ll ask why don’t plants have that right. But the OP’s argument is silly and not a solid argument against eating meat.
I have killed and butchered my own chickens and I have gotten pretty good at it but there were a few near the beginning that didn’t go as smoothly as I’d like. If anyone really cares about the suffering of animals they wouldn’t be encouraging amateurs to do it just to prove they are worthy of eating meat.
I think breathing solder fumes is disgusting. I pay for someone else to do it for me and they don’t get paid well. My using electronics is contributing to humans dying for pennies. How is that more ethical than paying someone to process meat instead of doing it myself?
Do you think someone breathing poison for pennies on the dollar is how it should be? Probably not, right? But you can change those. Better pay is possible, as is better working conditions. It’s just the option ain’t really there for meat
You’re talking yourself in circles.
OP’s point is very simple: many people do not confront the unnecessary violence in their habits. Commodities are decontextualized, as you’re attempting to say. To many, animal products just don’t seem like animals and they get very upset when they truly understand those products as being other thinking, feeling things. OP is challenging people to go through that exercise and, hopefully, recognize that they do actually care enough to make minor habitual changes and not kill the animals for entertainment purposes. They just hadn’t confronted it sufficiently.
Personally, I think you and others do understand this. Very few questions, lots of rationalization.
Re: your disgust at soldering, it’s obviously not the same. You’re not morally disgusted or upset by the existence of soldering fumes, which is the confrontation in OP’s post. You’re changing the basic nature of the disgust from discomfort at the idea of killing another thinking being to merely reacting to a smell. I think we all understand that these are very different bases of disgust and that the moral disgust has a component evoking personal moral consistency while the other is a simple physical response.
You did try to find a way to talk about moral consistency in consumption, as all leftists do when confronted with doing something immoral at the personal level that involves consumption or production. No ethical consumption under capitalism, right? No ethical production, either! Individualist. Moralizing. These thought-terminating cliches get trotted out whenever a lefty wants to avoid addressing these kinds of issues and it’s always highly selective. The same person will hate cops or get pissed about someone they know building baby-killing bombs for money or carry out one-person boycotts because they hate one particular company.
Anyways, the kernel of truth in your example is that you know it’s wrong that someone else is underpaid. You haven’t really said that you think the fumes are a problem for the workers doing the work you’re avoiding, so there’s nothing implied to be wrong with that. In bb fact, you didn’t explore what the alternatives would be at all, because this isn’t a serious attempt at counteepoint. But differential exploitation, especially with such vast differences due to imperialism, yes that’s something we agree should be abolished.
If we make your analogy fit despite the other flaws, that would make you someone who thinks the vegans are right but you’re personally not making your own changes.
Does that describe you? The vegans are right about all of this but dang it, you just can’t make the change?
I doubt it.
The point has been fully grasped, the point just happens to be very silly.
Then why are all the criticisms premised on basic misunderstanding? Are you saying parent is dishonest?
Everyone should learn how to solder. It gives them more of an appreciation for the equipment they use, and brings them closer to being able to repair or tweak or reinvent their own electronics.
Saying that you should participate directly in the production for yourself, and that this should be normalized, is not the same thing as saying that you should produce everything for yourself on an individual batch level.
