105
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/almost-all-livestock-in-the-united-states-is-factory-farmed
Estimates are still quite high globally too. Around 94% of all globally farmed animals are factory farmed. 74% of all farmed land animals are factory farmed and virtually all farmed fish
yeahhh between the zizians and the fertility clinic bomber, at this point if I run into a vegan that's not a communist/anarchist I'm going to be suspicious
Both vegans who don't support leftism and leftists who don't support veganism where possible are a bit of a head scratcher to me. Youre pro equality and against suffering, but only if the suffering party thinks, communicates and/or looks a certain way? I don't get it.
I'm for equality of people
Genuinely, can you explain what's the morally relevant difference between people and non people animals?
it's been ages since I've seen someone trot out "name the trait" or ntt, so forgive me if I'm a bit rusty.
ntt is a form argument that devolves to the spectrum fallacy or line drawing fallacy. basically, it is clear that humans have a set of traits, and chickens have a set of traits, and we can create a human-chicken spectrum. being unable to point to which part of the spectrum you go from human to chicken or vice versa, being unable to draw a line, does not negate the fact that people are not chickens and chickens are not people.
so I won't be answering your direct question
That isn't what the question is. The question is, which of the many trait differences is morally relevant?
as I said, I won't be answering your question. it's a fallacious line of reasoning.
You argued that a question I didn't even asked is a fallacious line of reasoning. I said that that isn't what the question is. This is a textbook example of the strawman fallacy.
I've seen NTT before. I know exactly what's going on. anybody who reads this is welcome to decide which of us is being more dishonest.
Care to explain what is going on?
nope. I've said what I wanted to say.
I'm more confused than ever, but that's your right of course.
Not the person you are replying to, but that's not what the point of the name the trait question is about. It is not about distinguishing between species
Why are humans morally considered is not asking why humans are human. Asking why one doesn't morally consider chickens is not asking why chickens are chickens
It is about distinguishing between what matters to ethics. It's not a trait that makes them chickens vs humans. It's about a trait or set of traits that makes someone morally considered
Declaring that humans and chickens are distinct is not sufficient to say to they deserve radically different ethical consideration. Otherwise you are just saying that difference itself = justifying different ethical consideration, which is highly flawed. You could for instance, use that to say any group of humans are distinct in some way and thus deserve different moral consideration. Be it by gender, skin tone, etc.
it is. ethics are a social construct developed by humans to help them understand correct action in human society. chickens are only relevant to the extent that it impacts how people relate to one another
This is rather circular reasoning. You are saying humans only matter because some humans say only humans matter
If we can just declare ethics excludes any group inherently because I said so, then that can lead to pretty bad conclusions
not any group. nonhumans.
comparing women to animals is what misogynists do. comparing other races to animals is what racists do. lets be better than them.
That is missing what I am saying entirely. Argue with the logic, please, instead of a false interpenetration. The exact categories are not relevant to what I am saying at all. What matters is that the reasoning could be used to justify difference between categorization of humans that you think shouldn't be morally relvent
Those are examples of the conclusion the flawed logic (difference = inherently justifying different treatment) could be used to justify. So I am saying we should reject the premise because of what the same logic can justify
people should be treated differently than animals. doing so is necessary for right action. how we treat animals should have no bearing on how we treat each other.
This is all circling around and missing the point I am making. The problem I am point out is about the logical reasoning. If logical reasoning is flawed when applied to something else, then it should not be used
This conversation is going in circle, so just going to end this here
it's illogical to try to fly a plane like you are driving a car. different things are different and it is correct to treat them so.
Maybe I should start getting to know my fellow vegan coworkers better.
If they are an anarchist they should really read Lenin. However their intentions are to be honoured.
if you're a leninist you really should read Galleani
sure, yet it is unlikely that one will have his mind changed I'd argue
well after the revolution, we (anarchists) need to understand the counterrevolutionary mindset of statists as much as statists need to understand (what they call) counterrevolutionaries
This is also why hexbear also supports animal liberation movements