197
Fake vegans (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by rbn@sopuli.xyz to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Vegans being banned and comments being deleted from !vegan@lemmy.world for being fake vegans.

From my perspective, the comments were in no way insulting and just part of completely normal interaction. If this decision reflects the general opinion of the mod team, then from my perspective, the biggest vegan community on Lemmy wants to be an elitist cycle of hardcore vegans only, not allowing any slightly different opinion. Which would be very unfortunate.

PS: In contrast to the name of this community, I don't want to insult anyone here being a 'bastard'. I just want to post this somewhere on neutral ground. I would really appreciate an open discussion without bashing anyone.

PPS: Some instances or clients seem to compress the screenshots in a way they're unreadable. Find the full resolution here: https://imgur.com/a/8XdexTm

Linking the affected users and mods: @Cypher@lemmy.world @gaael@lemmy.world @gredo@lemmy.world @iiGxC@slrpnk.net @veganpizza69@lemmy.world @veganpizza69@lemmy.vg @jerkface@lemmy.ca @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world @Sunshine@lemmy.ca @Aqua@lemmy.vg

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 months ago

Isn't it pretty apparent?

If it can feel pain and suffer it shouldn't.

Bacteria do not have the capability to feel suffering. They cannot even feel.

Plants and fungi, despite their increased complexity, do not have the capability to suffer either.

The entire point of the field of ethics and half the field of philosophy is to reduce suffering. Torture is bad because it causes suffering. Killing is bad because it causes suffering. Slavery is bad because it causes suffering. Rape is bad because it causes suffering. Abuse is bad because is causes suffering.

Veganism extends this to animals who are capable of suffering in ways identical to us humans. It also raises important questions: Would it be ethical to treat aliens the same way humanity treats non-humans? What if the aliens are sufficiently stupid, yet still capable of civilization? What if they're smarter but live in solitude? Why exactly is it unethical to kill severely mentally disabled people? Is it just because humans view themselves as superior to every other living being in the universe?

I believe veganism is the objectively moral choice. Still, I'm not vegan for various reasons. But I don't have any qualms with admitting my behavior is objectively wrong.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 months ago

The entire point of the field of ethics and half the field of philosophy is to reduce suffering

this is just a lie. one type of ethical study, utilitarianism, is focused on that. many ethical theories don't regard suffering at all, or only as a facet of some other concern.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

I'd argue minimizing suffering is basis for all ethics, just that they are achieving it in different ways.

Deontological ethics in a vacuum cause more suffering than utilitarianism. Yet (most) deontological philosophies seek to achieve as much good as possible - and therefore minimizing harm. Kant's categorical imperative is - as a layman - just a formalization of: "Do what is good for you AND others. Don't do what is good for you but bad for others."

And I believe if you ask an ethics board at a why something was not permitted, you will always get the result: "Causes too much harm". This happens despite them being allowed to evaluate based on many different philosophies.

I know very little ethics systems that don't inevitable lead to a society with less suffering if strictly followed by most. Although that might just be because society as is is objectively unethical.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago

all divine command theories only incidentally reduce harm, and only sometimes. and kant (like all deontologists) is not concerned with outcomes, only the correctness of the action.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 4 points 2 months ago

So if I understand correctly, a cow can be killed with a gun to the back of the head painlessly and its death prevents hunger for an entire family for the winter so killing it is ethical. Got it.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 months ago

Again, I'm not vegan nor particularly experienced in vegan arguments but there is clear suffering here:

  1. Imprisonment is often considered suffering and cows are not wild animals. They are rarely treated well.
  2. Fear is suffering. Based on the manners of the one killing the cow, it can "sense" intentions/that something is off. A designated slaughtering area for instance would cause a strong fear response.
  3. Restricting someone from achieving happiness and going against their wishes is suffering. We know that cows do not want to die. Killing them would violate their desires and cause suffering. This is the same (simplified) argument philosophers use to claim killing humans is bad.
  4. In organisms with social bonds, killing causes grieve (= suffering) for their social circle. Here's some more information on that, I recommend a read: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/animal-grief/
[-] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
  1. Didn't say anything about imprisoning them. They can free range all they want in this example.
  2. The method employed specifically prevents fear. Assume a method that doesn't induce fear. They exist.
  3. This is a stretch of the definition. Discontinuation of happiness without knowledge before or after is not suffering.
  4. Prevent socializing completely after birth. Got it. Or, more reasonably, the grief of loss is inevitable and a small price to pay anyways to feed a family for the winter.

Edit: Also, I'm not really trying to justify eating animals. TBH I'm ironically more sympathetic to Vegans due to me being a hunter. Frankly I think meat eaters should have to participate in the harvesting of an animal you eat at least once before age of majority. That would at least confer appreciation for some of what is involved.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 2 months ago
  1. "Free Range" is still limited by fences usually and >99% of cows will not live in the way many people understand free range because it would be prohibitevely expensive.
  2. The methods exist but are never used for the same reason as 1. Pigs in Germany for instance are suffocated to death with CO2 causing extreme - if temporary - suffering. Nitrogen is a bit more expensive which is why it isn't used.
  3. It depends. Discontinuation of happiness is one argument why killing is immoral, even if they are killed without direct suffering.
  4. Is killing a cow the only way for families to live through winter (without hunger/malnutrition etc.)? Then I'd say killing one is the lesser evil. If a family has other choices that do not involve killing, then I'd say the moral action would be taking them.

There are various more - and far better articulated - reasons why killing is bad by the way. Here are some: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/67606/why-is-murder-wrong

Still, I believe it is hardly possible to reliably kill without involving suffering anywhere.

Though I would consider hunting to be the most ethical variant. It's not even a battle when factory farming exists.

[-] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 2 points 2 months ago

I really don't need reasons why killing is bad :P

TBH all vegan's ethics can be countered with 'check your privilege'.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

Imprisonment is often considered suffering and cows are not wild animals. They are rarely treated well.

they're provided, veterinary care, protection from the elements, protection from predators, drinkable water, space to graze, and opportunities to socialize. it's not imprisonment.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

Those have nothing to do with imprisonment.

If I locked 10 people in a room and regularly gave them food and water they would still be imprisoned because they couldn't leave.

We know humans suffer from imprisonment and we accept since the mid 20th century that this applies to all humans. It's not a big stretch to assume imprisonment causes suffering for animals as well.

Besides, most cows on the planet have literally nothing of what you described. Except maybe drinkable water and protection from predators.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

most cows on the planet have literally nothing of what you described.

that's not true.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Most cows on the planet are currently living in factory farms as cattle a few months away from being slaughtered.

veterinary care

Not in factory farms. Preventative antibiotics are not veterinary care.

protection from the elements

Limited protection. In summer extreme heat from being stuck inside without air conditioning.

space to graze

Not inside factory farms.

opportunities to socialize

Not inside factory farms.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

Limited protection. In summer extreme heat from being stuck inside without air conditioning.

so you see they do get protection from the elements

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

Not inside factory farms.

most dairies, even large scale dairies, have pasture. beef cattle are raised 12 to 14 months grazing before going to a feedlot. so where are all these life-long confined cattle?

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

Not inside factory farms.

it seems like you think cattle spend their entire lives in a cafo. they don't.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

Most cows on the planet are currently living in factory farms

care to cite this?

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 4 points 2 months ago

Good lord you argue in bad faith. One line replies of basically "no", "doubt it", "citation needed".

Like, come on man. How insufferable.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

this isn't evidence, it's a rhetorical complaint about being asked for evidence.

edit: I have been politely asked not to engage in the off topic discussion in this community.

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

How isn't it evidence?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

US 2022:

Haven't found any numbers for other countries.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

a full 1/4 of all cattle never spend more than 45 days in a cafo, but even those that do don't necessarily have the conditions you are describing, nor do they live there their entire lives

edit: I have been politely asked not to engage in the off topic discussion in this community.

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

Where's your citation for this

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Not in factory farms. Preventative antibiotics are not veterinary care.

they are, and that's not all the care they get

edit: I have been politely asked not to engage in the off topic discussion in this community.

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

What other care do they get?

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

it's not imprisonment. it's husbandry

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

We know that cows do not want to die.

no, we don't. we don't even know if they understand personal mortality

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

We know several intelligent animals have some sort of concept of death because they are capable of mourning. This doesn't prove they understand personal mortality but it proves that they understand the mortality of others to some extent which is a necessity for understanding your own.

My argument why cows do not want to die is a basic evolutionary one:

Individuals that do not want to die are more likely to reproduce than one's that want to die. It is therefore likely that cow populations today largely do not want to die.

Also, being neutral to the concept of death - or even not knowing about it - implies the absence of a wish to die. If cows do not even understand personal mortality they do not want to die.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

Plants and fungi, despite their increased complexity, do not have the capability to suffer either.

you can't prove this

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 months ago

When talking about suffering, I am generally speaking of "pain, as processed by a nervous system".

At least for bacteria, their structures are simple enough to be understood to a large extent by humans. We know chemical reactions cannot suffer and we know proteins cannot suffer. Due to the simple nature of bacteria, it is highly doubtful that they are capable of suffering since all "processing" occurs through varying level of chemicals and minerals.

But I cannot even prove that rocks do not suffer, therefore it is worthless to prove the absence of suffering. Rather, the ability to experience suffering must be proven.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 9 points 2 months ago

FWIW I don't think you need to define suffering so narrowly to make an argument for veganism or vegetarianism. You can accept that plants do feel suffering and still do it. Because the amount of plants that get killed per kilojoule of energy in beef (feeding the cows) is way more than the amount of plants killed per kilojoule of directly eating plants.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 months ago

I cannot even prove that rocks do not suffer, therefore it is worthless to prove the absence of suffering

you got there eventually.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I cannot even prove that rocks do not suffer, therefore it is worthless to prove the absence of suffering

This take is a big fucking YIKES from someone who claims to care about living things.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

Just saw your comment, I meant it in terms of that the absence of something is often impossible to prove, therefore it is a worthless metric. The metric that should be looked at is whether something is showing indication of suffering.

I couldn't even prove humans are capable of suffering either. You can prove that pain manifests itself through activation of certain brain regions but that doesn't prove the existence of suffering. It's like trying to prove that the color red is accurately visualized in your brain.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago
[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Oops, I meant the person you were responding to, sorry buddy. I'm on your side here. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

The fact that they compare other living things to rocks... just... wow. I edited it to make it more clear who I was referring to. Once again, my bad and I'm sorry friend.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

it's not clear that they do care about living things. it seems they're only concern is suffering.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago

When talking about suffering, I am generally speaking of "pain, as processed by a nervous system".

if you define it in a way that specifically precludes other creatures, that seems biased. you don't know how a single-celled organism might be able to suffer. that doesn't mean that they can't.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

Bacteria do not have the capability to feel suffering. They cannot even feel.

you can't prove this

this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
197 points (91.2% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

749 readers
36 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS