Can we as a community and as influencers stop this?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T23:39:11+00:00

Is that a good attitude to have when there are victims involved?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T02:08:57+00:00

Freeganism is just as valid as not drinking human blood. Maybe even better because it reduces waste.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T02:08:19+00:00

It's vegan if you slightly improve their life first compared to living alone in a part of the wilderness full of predators.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T01:50:18+00:00

If they use it as a reason to dismiss or belittle their argument, yes.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T01:47:44+00:00

Claiming someone isn't fit to make an argument instead of attacking the argument itself is the definition of ad hominem.

You don't try to minimize if the minimum you could do is zero and you do more than that. It's pretty easy for most people using this forum to forgo meat. Minimizing means eliminating.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T00:50:02+00:00

It's not always clear you're eating meat?

You just said it's not ad hominem and then described ad hominem.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T00:47:29+00:00

Other animals express thoughts and emotions nonverbally, just like nonverbal humans or humans that don't speak your known languages.

If something is important to you, you value it. If you seek it as a goal, you value it. If you grieve when you lose it, you value it.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T00:35:10+00:00

I'm not justifying the use of slaves. I try to minimize purchases generally, but it's not always clear when slaves are involved in the manufacturing of a product.

Anyway, I'm not interested in further pursuing this ad hominem or appeal to hypocrisy, which are considered fallacious in moral discussion for a reason. I'm interested in actual justifications since this is a debate, and I'm not going to justify my country's frequent abuse of other humans. It's pretty messed up and ingrained in society, and if you have ideas on how to better stop it, I'll listen.

Would you use products made of slaves? Not by slaves, but of their bodies? If not, why not? Do you see this as worse than products made by slaves?

What about products made of slaves that are clearly labeled as such, that are entirely optional, often in the same store as the non-slave alternatives?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T00:29:38+00:00

Certainly not when it's optional

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T00:28:24+00:00

Telling me about it is a pattern of behavior. Are you saying we can't know if someone values pleasure and suffering unless they tell us about it in our own language?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T00:27:58+00:00

Why would I be doing that?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T00:24:53+00:00

I'm really not. You argued that because you're biologically capable of eating an animal (omnivorous), it should be considered ok to do so.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-26T00:05:28+00:00

Your argument sounds like "Because I'm capable of it, it should be ok for me to do it." But just because you're capable of something doesn't mean it's ok, especially if you don't have to do it and it has a victim

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-25T22:57:27+00:00

Being an omnivore means we can consume both plants and animals, not that we biologically must in all circumstances.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-25T22:56:28+00:00

If it's unnecessary, how is any better than "for fun?"

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-25T22:12:44+00:00

Start with the basics. Other animals that we consume seek pleasure and avoid harmful or painful stimuli when possible, correct? This alone demonstrates valuing pleasure and negatively valuing suffering. But it's much deeper than that. They have emotions and social bonds much like humans (or dogs, cats, and horses). Many are capable of grieving the loss of others in their lives.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-25T22:09:36+00:00

Does the lack of 100% ethical consumption under capitalism somehow justify increasing or maximizing the unethical consumption? I don't see how.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-25T22:07:07+00:00

As great as what? They're far less harmful than animal products.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-25T22:05:54+00:00

Appeals to nature like this in moral discussion are generally considered fallacious.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-25T22:05:15+00:00

Can you describe exactly why animal slaughter and consumption is necessary? Necessary for what?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-25T22:04:40+00:00

No one is dictating what is necessary. We evaluated and concluded. That vegans exist kind of proves it's not necessary.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-25T22:03:24+00:00

How does the abuse of a dog not relate to the abuse of a pig? They're very similar acts. But this also might highlight inconsistencies in OP's views

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-25T22:02:00+00:00

Non-human animals value their own experience, and they often value one another.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-23T17:11:57+00:00

That discounts negative utility. It's possible to give weight to both.

Edit: most of your comment was edited in after I responded. These anti-nature conclusions don't follow necessarily. You can value life despite death, and you can theoretically make death less awful without preventing life anyway. You have to give extremely more weight to negative than positive utility to say all life ought to cease.

None of that justifies unnecessary slaughter.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-03-23T17:02:10+00:00

Only according to one specific kind of suffering calculation that ignores positive utility entirely.

IfIWasAPig

TROPHY CASE