This stupid shit has really reached levels of dumb that I can't handle. Wtf is anything? Why does Forbes care?
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
It is a contradiction for people to claim to be upset about animal abuse but only care when it's pets. They're not upset about animal abuse, they're upset about pet abuse. That's just a logical conclusion from a set of facts, you don't even need to be vegan to see it.
It's like @Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net said in this thread.
It is in fact "a contradiction" for these same people to claim that it's animal abuse that bothers them.
i wouldn't engage with the person you responded to. they had their feelings hurt by a vegan once and now they refresh search terms adjacent to veganism to find people to play pedantics with. all you'll get are terse answers which latch onto the smallest, poorest phrasing in your argument. it's a personal vendetta.
What a strange type of person.
you have a tendency to appear days late to a conversation, in deep comment chains, on posts unrelated to veganism, with terse, pedantic remarks about semantics. what i said is exactly what it looks like you are doing, and 'for fun' by your own admission. the term for this is 'trolling'.
Nailed them lol
https://hexbear.net/modlog?userId=64202
I'm not sure they are, a quick look at the modlog seems to support what they said.
i think a lot of people probably say "animal abuse" when they meant the more specific case and it takes a place like this for the difference to matter. might even be "animal abuse" statutorily but only ever applied to pets and guide dogs.
Are we really trying to get off on the technicality that it doesn't count as abuse if the animal has already been murdered? Eating animal products is participation in systemic animal abuse on a vast and infinitely cruel scale. It's a contradiction in the same way it would be a contradiction to say "I don't like pedophiles but I'm fine with child trafficking."
There is no such thing as ethical consumption of animal products, by the way.
debatably heirlooms. My grandpa's coat could last a long time if we take care of it and there's no justice for the animals in destroying it.
also theft, although that's deliberately unsustainable and the idea would be a campaign to make them unprofitable to sell and inconvenient to buy.
There is the aspect that, by wearing a leather or fur coat or whatever, you are normalizing the perception of animals as products to be turned into useful items. That said, I understand people who don't see that as a big enough reason to throw something out and buy a new thing (any production of anything is going to have a negative impact on the world, so using the animal products you have is arguably more vegan than buying vegan products to replace them) but yeah in general this is one of those edge cases where I don't see much urgency in deciding which approach is "correct"
I mean yeah, it's not harming an animal actively, it can be argued that it would be a waste to just discard the item? If someone owns some hand-me-down leather boots that have lasted them a decade the amount of damage they've offset by not buying a dozen pairs of petroleum based boots is worth something.
Does dignity factor in for animals? Would people feel different if the boots were made of dog leather? What if you can't wear petrol based footwear cause you work at the smeltery and normal shoes will combust? What if carnists see your cool skin boots and decide cool skin boots are in this fall and go out and buy them in droves?
I'm starting to get a little silly with it, but I think there are valid questions here.
Working with that premise, it's an obvious contradiction to eat factory farmed meat (which is almost all meat).
Collective abstaining does. the trick is convincing you that organizing can't happen and even if it did, it would be pointless. Meanwhile the people who run the factory farms are highly organized and have daily meetings on how to get you to eat more.
So the meat industry is a force of nature, some fundamental part of the universe that exists and grows without input from consumers?
American realism strikes again.
Did you look at the graphs though or just assume that discussions end if you post graphs? You can easily see where and deduce why meat production has grown over the past half a century. It has nothing do with my argument that enough people choosing not to eat meat at the same time = less money for meat producers. So you have to be saying there is a disconnect between input (people eating meat) and output (production of meat). Not a strawman just a logical conclusion of your point.
You also misunderstand what a contradiction is and how it differs from a logical contradiction. Don't mind me if I go out on a limb about the implications of your words if you don't even know basic commie jargon while calling yourself commie on a commie site.
We don't even need to reach into theory to define this as a contradiction. Here is their comment further up the thread.
This is true (many people do both of these things, as many people do many contradictory things), but it's obviously contradictory to not want animals to be abused while buying products of animal abuse. That's it, that's the entire argument here. The position that they're defending is that there is no contradiction of any kind there, which is ridiculous. I think this person is just trying to cause arguments so they can pick them apart to try to cause more, as @onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com said.
What's a strawman?
That's an "interesting" ethical argument which doesn't undo the contradiction of criticizing animal abuse while contributing directly and personally in an avoidable way to its continuation. I'm sure if we apply this same logic to everything else it won't be problematic at all.
"You can be opposed to the occupation of the West Bank while intentionally buying products made in illegal settlements. Abstaining from doing so doesn't change whether settlement occurs."
"You can be opposed to slavery but still vacation at an Alabama plantation. Abstaining from doing so doesn't change whether slavery occurs."
Before you go for the obvious argument, I'm drawing no equivalency of any kind here other than using the same logic. It's obvious that these arguments are morally bankrupt and only serve to allow the speaker to absolve himself of contributing to harmful systems when he could trivially avoid doing so.
This seems like a ridiculous point for me to have to make to an Anarchist, to be honest.
It's obvious that I was making an argument situated during the period of chattel slavery on plantations. I said "whether slavery occurs" lmao.
You're absolutely correct. For instance, I thought it was obvious that someone capable of posting online would have to be literate enough to understand that the idea of slavery occurring in relation to a southern plantation implies a context prior to abolition.
you're barking up the wrong tree with hexbear. if you buy meat from them you're materially supporting everything that got it to your grocery store, misgivings or not.
I wouldn't even be that harsh. For example, it's going to be close to impossible to eat without causing some harm somewhere in the supply chain. The issue here is that the harm is avoidable, or at least can be reduced, without too much trouble and this user is doing gymnastics when they could just acknowledge that there is a contradiction there.