I don't have all the links I had saved on reddit anymore so I'm trying to get ahead of the next struggle session and I think it would be beneficial for everybody if we planned it out ahead of time. We should at least figure out what it will be about and when it should start. Any ideas? I was thinking we should do something a little bit different than the usual.

    • eduardog3000 [he/him]
      12·
      4 years ago

      Ooh, I'll address the environmental argument:

      Fossils fuels have a much larger effect on the environment to the point where non fossil fuel greenhouse gases from animal agriculture are an afterthought. On top of that, individual action with regards to the climate is useless.

      Here's Kurtis Baute going over his carbon footprint as much as he does to make his footprint extremely low (including veganism) is basically cancelled out by one person's private flights, and he recognizes as much. And that's still not even getting into the system as a whole.

        • eduardog3000 [he/him]
          1·
          4 years ago

          The first one is flat wrong. Non CO2 animal ag emissions are the 18% figure at best. No way in hell are they 50 fucking percent.

            • eduardog3000 [he/him]
              2·
              4 years ago

              Ok, let's look at the EPA source. 76% of ghg emissions are CO2, 65pp of which are from "fossil fuels and industrial processes", only 16% come from Methane. If animal ag truly made up 51% of ghg emissions, most of that would be from fossil fuels.

              Then scroll down. 24% of emissions are from "Ag, Forestry, and other land use", which includes animal ag, plant ag, forestry, and more. So animal ag only actually makes up <24% of ghg emissions.

              The image lists it as a source without actually using it as a source...

        • eduardog3000 [he/him]
          1·
          4 years ago

          It is true that large-scale societal changes rarely happen as a result of one person’s efforts. Rather, these changes happen when a number of people begin to live in alignment with their shared values.

          That's not true. Changes happen at a systemic level.

                • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                  3·
                  4 years ago

                  Not right does not necessarily equal wrong. Insisting that everyone should be vegan is the thing that's wrong.

                    • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      Brb killing a living being for literally no reason.

                      This kind of language is rooted in the idea that anyone not being vegan is bad.

                      No response to the EPA thing? That's the issue where I actually care and would be potentially willing to accept changes based on.

      • Utopia [none/use name]
        6·
        4 years ago

        Brb killing a living being for literally no reason. The vast majority of people do not need to eat small game, or any meat, in modern day society.

          • Utopia [none/use name]
            1·
            4 years ago

            But the difference is animals can suffer and are actually aware they are alive

              • Utopia [none/use name]
                2·
                4 years ago

                I have a lot of respect for Jainism, ahimsa is badass.

                However if you seriously want to argue that a completely thoughtless chemical response to stimuli in a lifeform with no nerves or nervous system, nevermind a brain, is the same as suffering from animals with actual nervous systems then you must be arguing in bad faith (or you're joking in which case sorry for the rant lol)

                • the_river_cass [she/her]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  ehh keep in mind, the Jains live the way they do because of their relative class/caste position. they literally hire servants to sweep the road in front of them so they don't accidentally step on bugs. without the labor of people who do kill, their philosophy would be much harder to put into practice.

                  a version of the same that also barred exploitation? that would be interesting but possibly also bar you from cultivating food to eat.

                  • Utopia [none/use name]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    That's a good point to be fair, I guess that's something they had no concept of when they were thinking of that stuff, although I guess a rotting body does also support a lot of life in the bacteria that eat it, which I guess some of which would be the bactiera that are already on/in you?

                    With regards to a nervous system, it isn't inherently better however for the argument of veganism it is what allows suffering to occur, according to all the science we know to date. Killing things without nervous systems that are (probably) incapable of suffering will reduce the amount of suffering in the world when compared to killing things that can suffer.

                    Even if plants did suffer, eating them over animals would still reduce total suffering because 90% of energy is wasted as you move up every trophic level. And so by us eating plants directly, rather than us eating animals that eat plants, we actually eat fewer plants anyway.

                    • it_that_follows [none/use name]
                      5·
                      4 years ago

                      Not to get too broad but you're also working from the assumption that all suffering is bad, which seems obvious in normal conversation, but needs to be supported in order to be used as a basis for your ethical model.

                      If, let's say (Ben Shapeeno style), that some suffering is either good or necessary, you would need to give a reason as to why eating animals is ethically wrong other than simple suffering avoidance.

                      • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        Eh, I've read a bit on metaethics and without using something as god as authority it either ends up treating ethical statements as subjective fiction or postulating "self-evident" axioms like "suffering is bad".

                        • Utopia [none/use name]
                          ·
                          4 years ago

                          ends up as ... postulating “self-evident” axioms like “suffering is bad”.

                          Yes.

                          • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
                            1·
                            4 years ago

                            I mean, I agree. I'm just pointing out that "prove to me that suffering is bad" doesn't end up being a productive "facts and logic" conversation even among philosophers.

                • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                  6·
                  4 years ago

                  Just that if you had a choice, you wouldn’t do it.

                  For what reason? They aren't people, the same morality doesn't apply.

                    • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                      7·
                      4 years ago

                      Basically, yeah. Though "sapient" is probably the better term to use than "human".

                        • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                          6·
                          4 years ago

                          None of this makes animals sapient. No shit they have some level of conscious. You have to decide a cutoff somewhere, we disagree as to where that is.

                        • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                          8·
                          4 years ago

                          I don't care. That's the point. If it isn't sapient I don't care.

                            • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                              7·
                              4 years ago

                              It's arbitrary, and idc that it is. We should probably leave dolphins alone, since they are on the line, but cows, pigs, chickens, nope.

                                • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                                  8·
                                  4 years ago

                                  somehow the animals that are already factory farmed don’t aren’t worth caring about. Pretty convenient, right?

                                  Almost like people before us have had a chance to think about the sapience of animals for a long time, and have decided which are ok to farm. And I don't disagree with the choices they've made.

                                  You aren’t convincing anybody but yourself that there’s good reason to not extend compassion for animals.

                                  I'm not trying to, I'm saying the "compassion" argument is bullshit because I think it's bullshit. I care much more about the environmental argument, which is why I made a post with more effort about it as compared to the offhand comment I originally made for this thread.

                                    • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                                      7·
                                      4 years ago

                                      I didn't say culture or tradition. I said the ethics have been decided by people before us, and that I don't disagree with those ethics. I recognize that existing ethics that I disagree with need to be changed. But this is not one I disagree with.

                                      That's why "conveniently" the animals being factory farmed are the ones that are ok to farm.

                                      Still waiting on a response about the EPA source. Like I said, I don't actually care about the ethical argument.

              • UranicTomcat [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                Bacon is way overrated it's legit just sodium, no complex flavors or anything besides flavors that are added to it. Just like lick salt or something lmao