558
But I love death (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
663 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Your are now arguing for malthusianism the human population isn't a problem. I want to be vegan because animals are people with lives of their own, who have families, who want to live and who have no real difference to humans. The fact that you are justifying the mass slaughter of people with nonsense arguments of word salad makes you a monster who nobody should ever love. Advocating the way you suggest wouldn't be fighting against the commodity status of animals all it would do is make some people consume minuscule less meat not stop the ongoing genocide. You are a monster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    W... what? Am I debating with an AI or something? Malthusianism was never invoke nor implied. The food supply is a finite resource. This isn't a debate. We live in an entropic reality. Period. You do not get to rewrite universal constants.

    The argument was not nonsense, you've just moved the goalposts instead of acknowledging it. There was no justifying mass slaughter of people because animals are not people by any but the loosest of definitions (eg. the one you seem to operate on). You moving the goalposts of what constitutes the word "people" for political reasons does not magically make it so. I am wholly opposed to the political adjustment of words no matter who does it and for what reason it's done. It's intellectually dishonest and allows the mover to re-frame any argument however they see fit.

    What if I did what you did? Well, now plants are people and you're psychotic. I've now re-recategorized animals to never be people. Okay, so now you're calling for genocide. Congrats! You've proved why word adjustments for political reasons is a shit idea. Now let's be grown-up about things, shall we?

    As someone who has lived on a small farm for a good number of years and raised animals, you (and I) hold their lives in higher regard than they do. That is because you (maybe?) are a sentient being. Many animals have fewer sentience-indicating behaviours than trees do.

    And tell my hamster how important family is. She ate six of her children on two separate occasions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    We make way more than enough food to feed everyone hell even everyone at the highest projected world population we will reach around 2050 its malthusian to advocate killing the poor to "control population of humans." Animals are people they have subjective experience wishes wants. You can't define people in a way to include humans and not other animals. Animals are sentient all science supports this that you deny it doesn't change it neither does your anecdote. Your hamster probably ate its young because its stressed you are enslaving it. I hope your murdering ass chokes and dies in agony,

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Killing is only one way of reducing a population, and is not one I advocated for. You are becoming increasingly unhinged. The primary definition of "people" is "human beings in general or considered collectively." A second definition? "human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest."

    No. Animals are not people. You are factually incorrect, bad at making points, and potentially psychotic. Take your meds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent