30
"Being vegan is unnatural"
(discuss.tchncs.de)
cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/55430533
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
30 points (96.9% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
38499 readers
896 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Key word.
If it applies to one animal it should apply to all, but go ahead and be a special snowflake instead
no. different things are different.
The attitude of someone who mistreats animals ☝️
I don't mistreat animals. this is libelous.
paying someone to kill an animal so that you can consume its corpse is how you treat animals nicely, is it?
I've never done that. most people haven't.
You do it literally every time you purchase a meat product. Meat is made from the dead body of animals. When you buy it, you are retroactively paying for the slaughter of that animal.
money is still bound by linear time. the animal is already dead, and the person who did it is already paid.
You buy dead animal, they kill animal to put on shelf because you bought dead animal.
I'm not responsible for others actions
You know that others will resupply if you buy this thing. If you didn't knew until now that people resupply what you buy, now you know. Making you definitely are responsible from now on.
Imagine I throw candy at the floor an this kid always picks it up. Then I throw candy at the train tracks and the kid gets ran over. Am I not responsible for the kids actions?
knowledge, being a justified, true belief, precludes knowing the future. I cannot know what others will do.
I used "know" in the colloquial sense. Do you think it's unjustified to believe that they will resupply your demand?
since the future hasn't happened yet, no claim about it can, in the present moment, be true. so you can't know it.
I did not use the word "know" in the question "Do you think it’s unjustified to believe that they will resupply your demand?". Notably, I asked if it is unjustified to believe so.
if you will admit that it is impossible to know this, we can follow whatever tangent you like
It's not rape if it's your dog
That's correct, yes.
However, my dog is my property, and someone can only artificially inseminate my property with my permission.
What in the fuck
Anti-vegans will go to any depths of depravity in order to deal with their cognitive dissonance. Once, on Reddit, I got a commenter to agree that he would be fine if someone had a dog in a cage they tortured for entertainment, rather than agree that it's kinda fucked up that we slaughter animals because their flesh tastes nice.
Real question, what if there is no cognitive dissonance.
Like someone who knows exactly what's going on and says "fuck it, it's delicious" ?
I'd ask them to sit down and watch a documentary about the animal agriculture industry (such as Earthlings) to be sure they really do know the truth.
I love how vegans are literally always someone who fell for fake propaganda and never someone with real knowledge or experience of the agricultural industry.
My one friend was very publicly outspoken in high school about animal activism and veganism and ran a blog on it, then she started vet school, did some internships and saw first hand how the animal industry operates. The blog promptly transformed into debunking these documentaries and their misinformation and sensationalized lies.
If I own a human slave, me artificially inseminating them without consent isn't rape?
If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren't human, inseminating them without consent wouldn't be rape?
...
Uh... what are they, then?
I don't think these absurd hypotheticals are helping your argument.
They are a nonhuman animal that has sentience, property of mine. Let's call them hooman.
You know hypotheticals are used to test consistency in someone's logic and answering these will end up in you admitting absurdities. If I wasn't interested in the truth, I would avoid answering them as well.
They're absurd because they're a false equivalency, which is a logical fallacy. Animal livestock are not comparable to human slaves.
What's it say when your logic does not work for real life scenarios, so you have to make up nonsense fantasy scenarios to attempt to force an inconsistency?
Pay attention and read what I've said once more, In no moment I equated nor compared animal livestock to human slaves (btw, even if I would have compared, a comparison is not an equivalency and therefore not false equivalency fallacy).
Now you claiming my logic does not work in real life scenarios is a modal fallacy. My hypotheticals are in the logical scope (true in a possible world), not the physical scope (true in our possible world). You clearly can't answer my hypotheticals because they expose your flaw in reasoning.
Will you answer my questions now or keep avoiding them like fire so you don't burn yourself?
If the scenarios you've proposed cannot be compared or equated to the topic at hand, then they aren't relevant.
If your logic worked in real life or with the topic we are actually discussing, then prove it by sticking to reality.
You also don't seem to have a correct understanding of how false equivalency or modality works, so that's not a great start.
You agreed with:
Also agreed with:
And clarified:
With these, we can derive your proposition: "Forcibly impregnating a dog that is your property is not rape".
I then made the first question:
Which is directly related, I just substituted "dog" with "human slave". No mention of "dog" or "livestock" in the above question, so there's no comparison nor equating as you said "Animal livestock are not comparable to human slaves". (If you disagree, please explicitly point out what is being compared and bring quotes).
Then I posed another question:
I am posing you a logical hypothetical, which means "true in a possible world". If your proposition holds up to logic and reason (i.e. is a resonable proposition), you should be able to answer my logical hypotheticals and stop avoiding them like they'd hurt you.
Your question is fundamentally unanswerable because I don't know what your imaginary "hooman" is (neither do you. As a matter of fact, it isn't even one thing because it will change and become anything you need it to be try to "catch" me in a false gotcha).
My original response still stands: "Uh... what are they, then?" It's a fake thing that you make up and change at will. My logic is never inconsistent, but your subject will be, in an attempt to make it appear that my logic doesn't work. We're talking about apples or oranges, and you're trying to make up a non-defined fruit that is an apple when it suits you and an orange when you need it to be one, so that you can disguise a false equivalency of comparing apples to oranges.
Nice try though. Stick to reality if you want to have a productive discussion. Logical arguments don't actually work the way you think they do. A valid hypothetical argument would require real subjects that are well defined. Perhaps you'd benefit from a 101 class on logic or debate.
You asked for clarification on the second question, yet could at least have answered the first one. Seem like you are avoiding answering the first question.
I don’t know what your imaginary “hooman” is. Imagine a random human you don't know. It's that human, they have every human characteristic but it's discovered they aren't from the species Homo sapiens.I didn't answer it because equating slaves to livestock is reprehensble and disgusting. Of course artificially inseminating any person, no matter free or enslaved, is rape.
So they don't then, do they?
Of course they don't, that's why I used the word "but". Now you also realized why I named them "hoomans" instead of "humans". Good one!
Kinda like we can say "odd numbers are the integers but the multiples of 2". "But" meaning "removed", "without".
Are you gonna answer any of my questions? I don't want other people to have the impression that you avoid questions, but I'm afraid this deep in the thread they might feel like you're avoiding answering.
I have already answered all of them. No one can answer the "question" (invalid due to the flaws I've identified that haven't been addressed) that concerns the "hooman". I would answer it if it could be answered.
And yeah I'm really not worried about that being the impression folks take away from this conversation 🤣
I grant you that.
Now please remind me what was your answer to "If I own a human slave, me artificially inseminating them without consent isn’t rape?".
Also please point out the concern with the second question that went unaddressed.
Scroll up
You can't specifically point to your answer to my question because you haven't answered it. So I'll pose if for the third time:
The same way you can't point to a concern that I left unaddressed, because there isn't. So I'll pose it for the third time as well:
If you can't remember my direct and plain answers to your questions, or do your due diligence to scroll up and reread them, then this discussion cannot be productive. You're not a goldfish, so clearly you're engaging in bad faith. Blocked.