OK figured it out: it’s simply the entire package of human economic and moral values smeared across a varyingly-described imprecise problem
-
-
Show this thread
-
New conversation -
-
-
I believe it elevates animals to a level of personhood where it's immoral to exploit their bodies for your own gainb without their consent, but also not enough personhood where they could ever give their consent
-
that’s interesting! haha my first response was “that’s meaty and interesting” then I thought it might be offensive sorry
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't know, but people love consumption taboos, and maybe those taboos have greater moral force if they're conceptually simple, like how "no animal products" is simpler than "cow meat but not horse meat, cage-free chicken eggs but not wild plover's eggs".
-
this would explain why you can’t eat animals who are assholes to other animals
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
ohhh very interesting question almost every vegan who tried to turn me vegan back when i was vegetarian cared about both suffering and nature, but didn't rally for ecological reform nearly as much as stopping livestock farming etc.
-
see the thing is however, the 'i care about suffering' thing is highly related to the kind of suffering i.e. natural suffering is GOOD, human-caused suffering is EVIL most vegans fall for the same optimistic trap that VHEMT fall for: natural suffering is different & prestige
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Suffering prevention. Specifically suffering caused by industrial factory farming. My buddy Erik really went deep on this in his book.https://www.vegan.com/meat-market/
-
Doesn't make sense to be a vegan though, you could still eat fish, bivalves, game etc etc
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.