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 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.

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

From my limited knowledge, Kant was concerned with rationality first and foremost. But suffering just happens to be one of the most irrational things there is. In no world is there ever a benefit to increasing suffering because if you apply this universally you too would experience increased suffering which is irrational.

I don't think this is a coincidence. You could create a deontological philosophy that bases everything on irrationality and it would remain consistent if viewed through the lens of itself. Irrational maxims lead to contradictions, meaning this philosophy too is irrational and contradictory - which is consistent if you seek to apply irrationality universally.

Why didn't Kant come up with the inversion of his philosophy if it remains consistent? I'd argue because it would have lead to maximizing suffering which (mostly) nobody wants.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

you don't know what you're talking about.

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

Indeed, I have not studied philosophy and have only received an introduction and high-level overview from school. Which is why I'm continuously stating that I am far from an expert in regards to ethics and philosophy and this is more of an amateur reading.

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

if you don't know, you can just not say anything.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 months ago

I don't know maths beyond university linear algebra and calculus. I can still provide my opinion on math problems despite my limited knowledge because knowledge is not binary.

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

If you presented your ideas on mathematics that are above your understanding level, you'd be called out on the same way.

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

you didn't frame it as an opinion. it was stated as fact. and it's wrong

[-] 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

it's not imprisonment. it's husbandry

[-] 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?

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

your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith

[-] 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 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.

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

. If cows do not even understand personal mortality they do not want to die.

Right. but moot. if that's the case then why bring it up at all? we should only be concerned with things that we can prove and base our conclusions on provable fact.

[-] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 2 months ago

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.

I think it's probably accurate to say they don't want to die, cuz they don't know it's a thing that they could want.

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