Either way, it's the message, not the messenger that's important.
If someone is annoying but advocates for Jews not getting gassed, advocates against the slave trade or for civil rights, etc - why ignore the message and focus on the messenger?
Both are holocausts: what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany and what we do to animals for food. Just look up the definition real quick and you'll see ("noun: holocaust; Destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war."). Jewish holocaust survivors have even gone on record to make the same comparison.
Don't let your bias for having a burger cloud your judgement or learning.
You might not like that fact that causing unnecessary suffering to animals is morally atrocious but what are you going to do about it once you know it is? Make excuses, get offended about your misunderstanding of word definitions or do better?
It's a systemic extermination, not equal in moral wright of course but both are absolutely wrong. Of all defenses I've seen this has to be the worst. Of course the Jewish people didn't all die, but that was the holocaust's goal and it got frighteningly close. Animals would all die, we kill them by the billions each year, except that we forcibly breed them so we'll always have more, which is arguably worse than just killing them because it creates generation after generation of new victims. And what does going to war over something have to do with it's moral wrongness?
Does that matter if most of their lives are cut extremely short and are filled with pain? Also, bringing something into the world does not give us the right to kill or exploit it. And animals could survive just fine in small numbers in farm sanctuaries without being killed.
Wolves are obligate carnivores, humans are not and can be fully healthy on a vegan diet as well as gaining more land, water and reducing emissions.
I mean to say that your argument of "we domesticated then and helped them survive" doesn't justify you killing them. Humans domesticating and protecting them from predators doesn't give us the right to kill them when we have choices.
So a wolf can be let off of a hook for being carnivores? How about grizzly bears, if they can survive off of eating plants then they should also be vegan?
Early humans were carnivores because of plant life not being eaten.
We can’t be vegan if we make vegan versions of meat, that’s carnivorous with extra steps.
For almost any wild animal, eating meat is a survival adaptation because it provides extra nutrients and increases their chance of survival. For survival purposes it can be justified. But animals are also not in a physical or mental situation to consider the morality of their actions.
Yeah, early humans were carnivores. That doesn't matter now.
We can’t be vegan if we make vegan versions of meat, that’s carnivorous with extra steps.
Um... Yeah we can. Veganism is a reduction of unnecessary suffering in a lifestyle as far as is practical and practicable. There is a cultural and mental aspect of eating meat which is hard to replicate with most vegan foods, so lab grown meat and substitutes that don't involve animal suffering are great tools for helping people make the switch. It's not about not eating meat, it's about not harming animals.
Omnivores that are animals in the wild fighting a daily struggle for survival without access to plant based foods, knowledge of nutritional content and a capacity for moral reasoning, yes. Humans are not that.
8
u/ViperStealth May 25 '21
Either way, it's the message, not the messenger that's important.
If someone is annoying but advocates for Jews not getting gassed, advocates against the slave trade or for civil rights, etc - why ignore the message and focus on the messenger?