HOME | DD
Pupaveg — #217: Vegans think they're better (3)
by-nc-nd
#artbook #comics #diet #ethics #lifestyle #vegan #vegans #vegetarian #plantbased #pupavegan
Published: 2017-08-08 10:15:15 +0000 UTC; Views: 2024; Favourites: 16; Downloads: 3
Redirect to original
Description
Thinking you have the right to systematically enslave and kill a group of victims and their babies when you don't have to is the epitome of thinking that you're better than others. Vegans don't do this because they don't feel superior to other beings. And vegans telling you to stop funding animal abuse is not "acting as if they're better". It's simply what it is: speaking up for your victims. Unless you're talking about what choice is better. How is NOT enslaving, sexually exploiting, torturing and killing animals and the earth not better than doing so?Art
I just like the taste
Meat is often seen as just being a type of food. But it is a dead body, of a once living creature. To say "I just like the taste" is to say "Killing is justified if I like the flavour of the dead body". If we follow through with this, then somebody would be justified in killing your pets if they liked the taste, which surely nobody would agree with. Or even extend it to humans and say that if someone likes the taste of human flesh, then it's fine to murder people.
It's my personal choice
It cannot be called a personal choice when it involves harming a third party for a trivial reason, which is your desire to enjoy eating them / their secretions.
It's been happening for hundreds of years
The amount of time that something has been happening is not at all linked with how harmful it is to the victims. Indeed, the fact that it has been going on so long just underlines how harmful it has been, because the death toll is so high it will never be calculated, and has been entirely unnecessary since we were able to harvest crops successfully. With this attitude nothing would ever change in society, and things that used to happen for hundreds of years like slavery and so on would continue today just because that's what has been happening.
We have to eat animal products to survive
This is false as proven by all the hundreds of millions of vegans in the world.
Animals aren't as intelligent as us so it's fine to slit their throats
Intelligence is not a valid justification for taking life. To put this as simply as possible, cats, dogs and hamsters are not as intelligent as us. But most people would be appalled to think of that as a reason to kill or harm them.
You're humanizing animals, they're not the same as us
Choosing not to harm animals is not the same as saying they are human or treating them as human. All animals are different, and require different treatment by us. It doesn't make sense on a practical level to treat any animal as human, or to treat any animal as any other type of animal. But, that's no reason to be harming them, simply because they are not human. Cats and dogs are not human, but it doesn't mean that you have "humanized" them just because you didn't slit their throat.
Related content
Comments: 47
Can you also respond substantively?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry... I thought that that trolling you would be fun for some reason. So I’m gonna apologize. The truth is is that I want to be vegan. I’m sorry for being a bitchy asshole...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's okay, really. If you ever need any help with recipes or stuff, you can always ask.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I feel like this goes either way. There are a lot of vegans who shove being vegan down our throats. Likewise, what you've done with that sentence is also true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Even if somebody did start talking to you about veganism, is it really "forcing" their opinion on you? To simply say "please consider not stabbing animals" is a very reasonable suggestion, is it not? Nobody is in a position to "force" you to do anything, if you want to keep stabbing animals, I am not in a position to prevent you.
Indeed, from a non-vegans perspective, your opinion is that animals should be stabbed in the neck. To me, that is a far more forceful application of an opinion than simply asking someone to re-evaluate their position on something politely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But you aren't doing that. You openly state you don't respect people who eat meat, and continue to post about you being vegan. See, it wouldn't be shoving it down out throats if you only mentioned it once or twice, but you say it so many times. It's not you saying "please consider" it's saying you're a terrible person if you don't agree with me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did I force you to come to a page against animal abuse in order to defend animal abuse? Or did you do that yourself? That's right, you came here. And do you also think that people who speak out against other forms of injustice (homophobia, child abuse etc.) are "forcing their choice" on people who kill gays and beat their children? Or is it only "forcing" if it's about your victims?
Think about what you're saying. Why do you think people speak out when other people oppress and kill others? Really, just think logically and try to find the answer to that question. And what is more forceful? Enslaving and killing others? Or telling people to stop enslaving and killing others?
"Just because we don't agree that our victims want to live-" and "Let me kill what I want!"
Just to put into perspective how ludicrous is that people use such language to refer to sentient beings: if people started using these words to refer to human victims of their own unethical behaviour.
“Let me assault what I want” and "Just because you don't agree that child abuse is ok-"
Do you now see how ridiculous this sounds? Carnism (non-veganism) teaches us to completely detach ourselves from the reality. Those who succumb to carnism (non-veganism) exist in a fantasy world where animals literally are objects with barcodes on them - a world where animals are even compared to plants.
Non-vegans have become so far conditioned by carnism that many of them actually think that the choice of whether or not you oppress and enslave others is as trivial an issue of whether you like the colour red or the colour blue.
You see, I could empathise with people saying, “let me eat what I want” if there was no victim in this scenario, and vegans were just some sort of health police whose only real motive to stop people from eating animal products was just to help people be healthy. But the reality is that there ARE victims in this - two billion of them every single week. We can’t carry on pretending that supporting the gassing, stabbing, and enslavement of two billion sentient victims every single week is the moral equivalent of simply not doing it at all.
Animals are sentient, intelligent beings with thoughts, feelings and emotions - just like us. They have the capacity to think, feel and suffer. That’s why I must be clear that veganism is NOT a diet - it’s a moral obligation. So the next time you’re about to tell a vegan “let people do what they want”, ask yourself: is this really something as mundane as what colour you like or what football team you support? Or does this involve thinking, feeling, sentient victims?
There is not an ideology on this earth more forceful than non-veganism. Not one. Those who eat meat, cheese, and eggs, who wear leather and wool, and so on, force their beliefs on others to such an unimaginable extent that others actually die for their beliefs (by the hundreds of billion per year)—how forceful is that! Animals are the victims. Not you. So I will defend their choice to live and be free, not your choice to kill/torture them out of selfishness/greed. Do you understand?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That statement can also be said with many other people. Anyone can change a few words of that statement and give it different meaning.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I am just gonna do the copypastes this time
"I just like the taste"
Do you like the taste of dead carrots? Yes? You monster.
"It´s been happening for hundreds of years"
This one I can agree with
"We have to eat animal products to survive"
Have you considered that people could be allergic to either nuts or palm oil? Either of which would practically lock them out of "veganism"
"Animals aren´t as intellingent as us so it´s fine to slit their throats"
I would say that I agree with the implications of this; let´s start eating dumb people; they aren´t contributing anyways probably
"You´re humanizing animals, they are not the same as us"
I can agree with this one
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you like the taste of dead carrots? Yes? You monster.
Not sure what you're saying? Is this the plants tho argument?
Have you considered that people could be allergic to either nuts or palm oil? Either of which would practically lock them out of "veganism"
You don't need to consume nuts or palm oil to be vegan.
let´s start eating dumb people; they aren´t contributing anyways probably
That sounds pretty mean...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, this is the "plants tho" argument; albeit I´d agree that it is valid here by context.
Well good luck doing that then
Hey, just because I am not petty doesn´t mean I´m not mean. #MeanRightsMatter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Plants have feelings
First of all, if you're really serious about this and no amount of scientific evidence will sway you - then it purely comes down to numbers. If a blade of grass is of the same importance to you as a dog, then it makes no sense to feed up livestock on millions and millions of plants, and then kill the animal to eat. This would result in far more plant casualties, which you'd surely want to avoid as a dedicated plants-rights activist. Better to minimize those plant casualties by just feeding yourself on them, rather than feeding many times more to animals, right?
But let's be sensible - plants lack brains and lack anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no study suggests sentience or an ability to "feel emotions". You can plainly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a dog. Comparisons between the two are completely absurd. - VS
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I would probably be a plants rights advocate, however trying to safe every single plant is a ridiculous and impossible task, even moreso than trying to save every animal would be. Things die. That´s fine. That´s my position on the matter and I am not having any double standards on anything I eat just because "it had a brain" or "it looks cute".
So you say it´s more moral to kill plants because they are dumb?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You aren't listening. If you are so worried about plants, all the more reason to stop eating meat, since it takes up to 25 pounds of crops to prodoce 1 pound of meat. So veganism minimizes this. Eating meat is like preparing 25 plates of pasta, throwing 24 into the trash can and eating just 1. It is the epitome of plant waste. Not to mention the leading cause of global deforestation (70%), even more plants destroyed. Better to minimize those plant casualties by just feeding yourself on them, rather than feeding many times more to animals, right?
Do you think murdering humans is justified by saying that grass is alive? Do you think that excuse would hold up as a moral argument in court? If not, then why does your moral framework do a massive backflip when it comes to killing other animals who are, like us, sentient beings with a brain? Do you think that people abusing their pets are on par with people mowing the lawn?
If you ask yourself these questions, you realize how absurd the plants argument actually is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not talking about the pragmatic connotations here, I am talking about the moral ones. I am aware lesser evilism is a thing, but frankly, it is but a cop out in my opinion. And sure, cop outs sometimes work. But it becomes a problem if they are assumed beforehand.
Also, you forgot to add any number except 1
Do you think that murdering grass is justified by saying that humans are alive?
Also, moral and legal arguments are entirely separate entities. I might think that grass being alive is good enough if I kill humans. I might think someone deserves getting violently tortured to death for raping my child. Neither of which would hold up in court, even if the judge agreed with me on a moral level.
The plants argument isn´t absurd; upon encountering arbitrarily set boarders, challenging those boarders is a possible natural reaction. In this case, the boarders are "plant" and "animal". It is not intended to actually consider the moral ramifications of the other side of the boarder, it is about the logical and moral discussions that necessarily arrive given the arbitrariness of the aforementioned boarder. It is not a criticism of the policy surrounding the boarder, it is a criticism of the existence of the boarder.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think you know what morality means. You can use that poor argument for every form of senseless violence in the world.
But fact remains that the production of animal products is destroying the planet and billions of lives. "Plants tho" can't morally justify all this destruction in the name of greed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We aren´t talking about the practical applications, but the moral implications. I am aware that the idea is implemented poorly thus far, but does that mean the idea is worthy of dismissal?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you think murdering humans or dogs can be morally justified by saying that the victims mow the lawn?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know dogs don´t mow lawns right
Also, I wouldn´t say so; because mowing the lawn doesn´t kill the lawn. The human and the dog who mow the lawn are only mildly inconveniencing the lawn (yes, all the individual grass is now one entity), killing them for that would be wrong and morally unjustified.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
(Dogs eat grass when their stomach is upset.)
What would you say if a serial killer defended his actions saying "but my victims ate tomatoes, same thing". Would you find that a reason? Or an excuse?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
(I wouldn´t quite count that as mowing but well; in that case, 1. As we already established by yourself, the dog had a reason to eat the grass; namely to cure an illness. 2. As already established by myself, the grass survives this. 3. Thus, the obvious conclusion: The only one in the wrong is the murderer, still)
See, tomatoes are fruits. Some fruit seeds have to be digested in order to pass. I am not sure if tomatoes are among them, but the victim couldn´t know; so he was maybe trying to assist the tomato for all the killer knew.
Killing someone for trying to help and making a mistake is wrong and morally unjustified.
But what if the killer knew that the victim knew that eating the fruit would remove the chance of the plant becoming young from this tomato (note, as above, not sure)? Then killing the victim would still be wrong. It would be akin to killing somebody for orally pleasuring a male, which would, of course, be morally unjustifiable.
Killing someone because they slightly impacted the number of possible kids someone could get is wrong.
Otherwise, unless I am mistaken, tomato plants also survive the plucking of their fruits. They might be inconvenienced, sure. But killing someone for removing a non-vital part of an organism is akin to killing a fan who cuts off a strain of hair from his idol (which is creepy, sure, but not murder worthy).
Killing someone for taking a useless part of the body is wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What if the serial killer said "but my victim ate a potato, same thing"?
Would you find this a valid reason for his actions? Or just an excuse?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How about we just skip the fluff and you ask me about a plant that humans eat in its entirety?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You answered a question with a question. That's an evasion. Again: what if the serial killer said "but my victim ate a potato, same thing"?
Would you find this a valid reason for his actions? Or just an excuse? If you reply to that, you'll have your answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I find it very hilarious that you call me out on evasion, but sure.
Potatoes are a large part of the human diet (in many regions at least), thus it can be presumed the victim ate the potato because the victim was societally trimmed into eating potatoes. That is totally unjust and they all deserve to die.
Jokes aside, I´ll tackle it seriously.
The victim ate the potato in order to not starve to death. Unless the killer was also starving to death and ate the victim after, the action is still unjustified.
Alright, my answer, please? And try to not answer with a question, that would be hypocritical. I know I asked for a question, but just don´t evade me here please.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly. Humans need vegetables for their health. If we stop eating vegetables, we will get sick and die quickly. So I hope you realize now how absurd it is to compare eating a potato to NEEDLESSLY killing a human or animal victim for palate pleasure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Except you didn´t have to eat that particular vegetable. You could´ve eaten one that the axecrazy murderer was less attached too. You just choose that potato over that carrot; how could you; you monster.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Narrows down to the same.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you are saying eating one organism is morally comparable to eating another organism?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'd still rather save a human over an animal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What do you mean "why"?
It's not that hard to understand that people would rather help their own species, friends, and family first in any bad situation.
Humans before animals. The only time it would be the animal first, is if that was clearly the only being in need of help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We aren't talking about a case of helping family/friends VS a stranger though. We are talking about why you believe that humans come first. Is there a specific reason? Or just because you've been taught that way?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because we should care for our own species as well. And I see a lack of it. There's no point in caring for another species if we cannot even care for our own. The more we destroy our own kind, well the more disgusting we'll become. If no one bothers to be humane to their own kind, then we should have no point in living on this earth. Animals could be fine on their own without us if we never existed.
If humans were taught to care for one another, then maybe they'd care more about what's around them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree that there's a lack of kindness in the world. But I don't see what that has to do with the reason why you think humans are morally superior to other animals?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lmfao, nevermind. You clearly did not read a single fucking word.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I read it. You were trying to claim human superiority because of the sheer accident they happen to be born human. I just pointed out that I find that absurd, because (just like white > black people or straight > gays) it's based on something one cannot choose or chance. I just find it a poor argument. It amazes me how people proudly state that they are oppressive/discriminatory towards animals on pages against animal abuse for no apparent reason. I don't know if you noticed, but that's like commenting "I'd still choose a heterosexual person over a gay one" on a LGBT-rights page.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, it's obvious you didn't even try reading or understanding a single word in that paragraph. Where did I state that??? Nowhere.
How the hell is that "oppressive" towards animals? Yet someone choosing an animals life over a human life isn't bad? If you equate humans and animals, then there shouldn't be a fucking difference.
Gays or poc aren't a different species, they're human too if you haven't noticed. Don't try to throw me into a ditch with homophobes and racist lmfao.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Where did I state that??? Nowhere.
In your first comment. I never said that we should choose an animal's life over a human's life. Being discriminatory towards a group of victims is always being oppressive towards them. Especially if you (pay to) kill them and justify this with saying "they are different". If you understand that discrimination based on gender, skin colour or sexuality is morally wrong, why can't you do the same for species? "Gays are not straight. Women are not men. Black people aren't white. Animals aren't human." Have you ever thought about the fact that these are all things they cannot choose or change and therefore equally absurd as a justification to claim superiority over them? And that saying that someone is not like you is no moral justification to harm them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Animals aren't human" exactly, but the rest are human and should have their share of help before any other animal.
Do I really need to retype why we should care for our own kind again? Right, you'll just ignore every single word and jump to comparing gays and poc to animals again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's the whole point of this argument. I never said that we should not care for our own species. I merely asked you why you believe that animal life matter less. What exactly makes human life more valuable in your eyes? If all you can come up with is "they are not like me", something they cannot choose or change... then are you really any better than the other oppressors you condemn? Also, if saying "I'd still choose a heterosexual person over a gay one" on a LGBT-rights page is not okay, then how is it okay to say that you'd choose human life over non-human animal life on an animal rights page? Just because they happen to be your victims and exploiting and killing them needlessly is convenient to you, doesn't mean that they matter less morally.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Does your pet cat feel superior to the animal parts that it is eating within it's kibble?
Are we so much worse than the average animal that preys on other creatures that want to live and not be eaten by anything else in particular?
It has nothing to do with being superior to an oblivious creature, but simply fulfilling an instinctual need.
And yes, you are humanizing animals that can not tell the difference between eating a blade of grass or their own shit. =/
I would try to go vegan again if it wasn't for the nagging truth in my head telling me, for every pack of chicken breast I do not put in my cart, is just another pack that will expire and be thrown away. And then the animal died in vain. The food industry will never stop. They will continue providing, and the grocery store will continue giving them business. And they over estimate how many they need all the time. They don't take into account the dropping number of meat eaters. It's a gigantic waste.w
When I worked at a grocery store we threw away hundreds of meat items a day. They can only sit out for a maximum of three days before being pitched. Let's just say a store always wants to have over stock rather then no stock and a group of disappointed customers. It made me feel terrible these creatures were born and raised, then slaughtered, just to have picky people walk by them casually to rot.
I really hate waste of all kinds.
Oh and I have completely stopped drinking milk. That shit is just terrible for your health and it's contents is disgusting, it is damn weird it ever caught on to be mass produced and consumed. All humans use to lactose intolerant until it was practically forced on us in the Great Depression era.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lions tho AGAIN? That's three times in a row today. I suppose I can't deny you a reply because you're a different person than the other two lions thos, so... Sigh... here we go again.
Lions do it
Wild animals kill to survive. They must kill to eat, otherwise they would die. Whether they kill on instinct or are aware of their predicament is irrelevant, we are not in their situation. If you live in modern society and have access to crops, vegetables, fruit, grains etc, then you have no obligation or need for animal products. Also, lions exhibit all kinds of behaviour that you would seek to avoid, for instance, violent territorial disputes, and male lions will kill the cubs of a female he wishes to mate with because she won't mate while she has cubs around. Lions are not good ethical role models.
You're humanizing animals, they're not the same as us
Choosing not to harm animals is not the same as saying they are human or treating them as human. All animals are different, and require different treatment by us. It doesn't make sense on a practical level to treat any animal as human, or to treat any animal as any other type of animal. But, that's no reason to be harming them, simply because they are not human. Cats and dogs are not human, but it doesn't mean that you have "humanized" them just because you didn't slit their throat.
One person can't make a difference
Everybody is responsible for what they are personally doing. The way for numbers to rise is for individuals to take accountability one by one. If you want for there to be multiple vegans to make a difference, then become one. There are hundreds of millions of vegans in the world, so we are not just one person. In the UK, 12% of people are vegetarian or vegan. If you look at the age range of 16-24, that ratio rises to 20%. It is completely worthwhile to do this and we are having an effect on the industries. Imagine if everyone who is vegetarian/vegan started buying animal products again - that would be a giant increase in demand. As such, we are keeping demand down by continuing to avoid animal products.
Vegans have no effect on anything
The less people who buy something, the less demand there is. Animals are not being bred and killed regardless of demand. If you have a country of 10 million people, do you think that in a country of 5 million people that the size of the animal farming industy is the same? Of course it isn't. Likewise, if you have a country of 10 million non-vegans, do you think if that country instead had 5 million vegans and 5 million non-vegans, that the animal farming industry would be the same size? Again, of course not. Shops sell animal products, and then restock appropriately. If something isn't selling as well, they will order less. As such, the warehouses they stock from will then have appropriately sized orders from those shops, and will stock less ingredients to make those products, which means ordering less animal products from slaughterhouses and farms, which means less demand for animals to be bred in the first place. It's just simple maths.
The only thing you're right about is milk. In my Indian family, they consume so much milk and it's clogging their arteries. So many of my family members have died because of that shit. It's amazing what brainwashing can do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pretty much, and people will argue that "slave is such a harsh word!", but it's an accurate word, the life of that dairy cow is OWNED by the farmer, and controlled by the farmer.
And what's with the idea so many people have that they think their actions should be immune from criticism when they're very immoral? I understand that if it cannot logically be thought of as wrong thinking it shouldn't be criticized, but it's not that hard to see why killing other things when you don't have to is wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes. If a choice has victims, people have all right to defend those victims.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0