vegan81vzla wrote:miniboes wrote:
You compare speciecism to racism because in both cases, sentient beings are treated differently (discriminated) based on an irrelevant trait.
You keep saying sentience matter (...)
Do you disagree?
vegan81vzla wrote:miniboes wrote:
You compare speciecism to racism because in both cases, sentient beings are treated differently (discriminated) based on an irrelevant trait.
Did you really say that? And then most vegans complain on why veganism is viewed as racist?
I've literally never heard/read anybody saying veganism is racist.
YOU would call it stupid to say that blacks and white are the same(...)
... Do you think it's sexist to point out females and males are not the same since females have two X chromosomes, bear children and produce none-mobile ova? If so, what do you think sexism is?
, but dare to feel, as a vegan, shocked on why people can't see similarities between a cow and a human?
Well, I wouldn't say I feel shocked about that. I think there's many psychological and social explanations for this phenomenom.
Anti-racist will always say that black people and white people are the same.
Are you an anti-racist? Because then I'd like to ask you: does Obama have the same skin color as George Bush? If no, then how can you call yourself an anti-racist by your own defition? If no, do facts matter to you at all?
Maybe you as an Anti-speciesist would say that a cow and a human is the same
I would not.
Cows have four legs, humans do not.
Cows have udders, humans do not.
Cows have multiple stomachs, humans have only one.
Cows can survive on grass, humans cannot.
I can go on for a while. Humans and cows are different creatures, although they share common traits such as a high degree of sentience, interests, emotional connection to offspring, a need for oxygen, etc.
As an animalistic vegan, most would say lightly that they would be happy living among animals with few humans around, if you are of the such, great, but own the misanthope label, don't deny it.
I have no problem with the antrophoscene. I think humans are far more important than animals, and we should not waste as many resources as we do on breeding animals. I want to have far
fewer animals around, which is what veganism seeks to accomplish. Less demand for animal products results in breeding fewer animals; it's really that simple.
Slave owners might have told themselves that blacks were less intelligent. They might have told themselves black people were less sentient, thus more pain bearers, or able to endure painful tasks.
In both cases, they would've been entirely wrong. Facts matter.
But that's not the reason why slavery was "abolished".
I don't care why slavery was abolished. Is it not possible that it was abolished for the wrong reasons? I think we should not have slavery because slaves suffered more than they delivered their masters pleasure, and this would be the case in any feasible form slavery might take. What Lincoln or any other abolitionist thinks doesn't matter for whether or not I am right in thinking that.
Like I have said before, the roots of carnism logic do not lie on people being unknowable of animal sentience.
I, nor anybody else here, claim that if people were aware of animal sentience they would automatically go vegan. That'd be bull. There's more to it; not only the acknowledgement of sentience;
- the conviction that we should avoid suffering as much as possible
- the conviction that consuming animal products results in suffering
- the conviction that said suffering is unnecessary; that we don't need animal products
- the incentives to actually act on those convinctions
They keep eating animals out of sheer gluttony.
Do you think gluttony is wrong? why?
I must say I'm very concerned about the way you are arguing on this forum. You use extremely weird definitions, attack people and this forum rather than their arguments, and ignore questions posed to you. This leads me to believe you are extremely close-minded. Please work on this, because this is a place for discussion, not bashing people with your opinion.
Please answer these questions I asked, or this discussion is going nowhere.
- Is it possible to acknowledge that there are differences in traits between two groups, but reject that these differences justifies any difference in treatment?
- Do you understand that speciecism and racism are the almost the same, except for which arbitrary traits are being used to justify differences in treatment between which groups?
The same goes for the questions I posed in this post. Try to treat it somewhat like an exam; make sure you provide a satisfactory answer for every question mark you come across.