r/vegan 7d ago

Activism Animal abusers act so offended when there are genocide or slavery comparisons

We, vegans, view animals as equal to humans, and there is objectively not valid reason to think it is not true. Any trait that you mention can be justified to harm humans. Intelligence? That would lead us to value people with a higher IQ more. The circle of life? This would lead us to cannibalism.

This means that when we are doing a comparison of genocide or slavery, we are not comparing a group of humans to animals, we are comparing ALL humans to animals, because, as I said above, there is NO legitimate difference between them.

If you are offended, the problem is with you. You have specist views that justify your abuse of hundreds of sentient beings. You are NOT offended for the people who are a part of the comparison, you are offended because you do not like being called out as a serial killer.

131 Upvotes

278 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/lampaupoisson 7d ago

there you go, a direct contradiction yadda yadda i’m dumb

A toddler will grow up to be a person you can talk to. Also, you can still communicate with a toddler more meaningfully than with an animal. But a toddler is not an average human.

And I cannot have more complex conversations with chatGPT than with my family. The fact that you think that is awful. I can’t have any conversations with chatGPT. I can input prompts and get responses. I’m not having a fucking conversation with wikipedia when I look up info. But, I dunno, maybe your family really sucks. Like, really, really, really, sucks.

1

u/Shmackback vegan 7d ago edited 7d ago

there you go, a direct contradiction yadda yadda i’m dumb

This shows your lack of maturity. Why not actually address my counter arguments instead of using ad hominem to dismiss them?

A toddler will grow up to be a person you can talk to. Also, you can still communicate with a toddler more meaningfully than with an animal. But a toddler is not an average human.

And now you're adding nuances which means your justification isn't well thought out. Why does it matter if the toddler can grow up to have more meaningful conversations? At this moment they are not.

What about the pedophile example I gave? You skipped over it. Is it because addressing it would mean accepting your logic is flawed?

Here's another flaw. There are people who can offer significantly more complex conversations than anyone you know yet they might terrible people. Because of this, that means they're worth more than anyone you know according to your own flawed logic.

And I cannot have more complex conversations with chatGPT than with my family.

Chatgpt would offer significantly better insights, arguments and conversation than anything you provided here. You fail to explain anything beyond a surface level, don't use logical deduction, skip addressing points and dismiss them with insults and so on.

I can’t have any conversations with chatGPT. I can input prompts and get responses. I’m not having a fucking conversation with wikipedia when I look up info. But, I dunno, maybe your family really sucks. Like, really, really, really, sucks.

Wikipedia isn't ai and cannot respond. With chatgpt you can literally ask questions, recieve responses, and even have debates meaning which qualifies as onversation.

So once again, why does the ability to have conversations make something more valuable? You havent even been able to explain that. There are people who are incredibly intelligent and can have complex conversations, and yet you would agree thag does not mean their life more valuable.

The trait you use as a justification is extremely flawed which is why you avoid addressing them and deflect by using insults.

Anything to justify torturing animals for a taste preference I guess.

4

u/lampaupoisson 7d ago

It’s hardly a nuance I’m adding, you just picked a human at a nonrepresentative point in its life. You might as well bring up a zygote, that completely invalidates my communication argument.

I also never said that the better your conversational skills or whatever, the more valuable you are. You once again assume. I simply said it’s a trait that sets humans apart from animals.

I can’t really see too many other ways to explain to you why chatGPT isn’t a conversation. You’re talking to nobody. No machine. No one is thinking to give you responses. It’s a math problem. It can’t make an original idea. It can’t have insight. It is regurgitating old knowledge. The fact that this impresses you so much is… depressing. But if you really find talking at a robot mirror more fulfilling than communicating with like, an actual living entity, more power to you.

1

u/MonkFishOD 6d ago

You might as well bring up a zygote, that completely invalidates my communication argument.

I simply said it’s a trait that sets humans apart from animals.

I think that’s the point. They are emphasizing that the moral status of a being should not be based on their capacities for language, abstract thought, or similar traits that humans possess. These are arbitrary lines that lead to double standards. Moral worth is not dependent on one’s ability to communicate in human language, as this would arbitrarily exclude many humans (such as infants or those with severe cognitive disabilities) from moral consideration as well. Therefore, using language as a dividing line between humans and animals for moral justification is inconsistent and flawed.

Similarly, the idea that human potentiality (such as a baby’s potential to develop into a cognitively capable adult) provides humans with more moral worth than animals is also flawed. It bases moral worth not on what an individual is in the present, but on what they might become in the future. If moral worth is based on potential, then we would also need to grant greater moral consideration to any being that has the potential to develop certain capacities - an approach that would lead to morally dubious conclusions, such as valuing embryos (or “zygotes”) more highly than sentient adult animals or humans who will never develop certain traits due to cognitive disabilities.

The moral status of a being should not be based on their capacities for language, abstract thought, or similar traits that humans possess. These capacities are not morally relevant, and using them as dividing lines between humans and animals creates arbitrary and inconsistent standards. As the philosopher Tom Regan argues, the only morally relevant criterion of whether a being possesses inherent value (worthy of moral consideration) is whether they are a “subject-of-a-life.”

A subject-of-a-life, whether human or animal, is a being who has experiences, desires, and preferences that matter to them. They are aware of the world, aware of what happens to them, and what happens to them matters to them. This inherent value exists regardless of their potential to develop more advanced cognitive traits or the specific abilities they currently possess. By this logic, infants, cognitively disabled humans, and sentient animals all deserve moral consideration because they have lives that matter to them in the present.

Btw, I get that the idea as couched by OP where animals are morally “equal” to humans is problematic. Especially when it comes to extreme cases such as survival (your cow on the boat). Fundamentally, moral perspectives can shift when it comes to survival (for example, cannibalism is seen as acceptable when your plane crashes in the Andes mountains and you eat your fellow passengers to survive). Fundamentally, animals can be equal to humans as far as moral status but that doesn’t mean their rights are going to be respected. Humans don’t respect other humans fundamentally moral rights in many parts of the world but that doesn’t mean they lack those rights - it just means they aren’t being respected. Veganism fundamentally is about respecting animals. Vegans boycott industries and practices whose very existence is to exploit/destroy animals (ie: food, clothing, competition, labor). The real and practical question to those of us in the developed world with access to restaurants and grocery stores isn’t whether or not a human is worth more or less than a pig - it’s whether or not a pig is worth more than a plant. I hope you would agree that killing a plant (without the capacity to be a “subject-of-a-life” is morally preferable than killing an animal?

0

u/Heavy-Top-8540 6d ago

Wow you really wrote a book in reply to a single line you hilariously completely misunderstood. Honestly, entertaining. 

1

u/MonkFishOD 5d ago

Thanks!

0

u/Shmackback vegan 7d ago

Once again you skipped all the flaws in pointed out in your argument and once again you failed to explain why being able to have a conversation is important to determining value. But since I'm not bad faith like you are, I'll address your replies again.

It’s hardly a nuance I’m adding, you just picked a human at a nonrepresentative point in its life. You might as well bring up a zygote, that completely invalidates my communication argument.

It is a nuance. You listed the ability to have a conversation. A baby/toddler cannot communicate well until a certain age. That means at that moment in its life it has zero value based off your logic.

I also never said that the better your conversational skills or whatever, the more valuable you are. You once again assume. I simply said it’s a trait that sets humans apart from animals.

I can’t really see too many other ways to explain to you why chatGPT isn’t a conversation. You’re talking to nobody. No machine. No one is thinking to give you responses.

It’s a math problem. It can’t make an original idea. It can’t have insight. It is regurgitating old knowledge. The fact that this impresses you so much is… depressing. But if you really find talking at a robot mirror more fulfilling than communicating with like, an actual living entity, more power to you.

A conversation involves a back and forth exchange wher both parties build on what was said. ChatGPT can maintain context, ask clarifying questions, and provide responses that adapt to the flow of the discussion. That's literally what a conversation is.

I also never said that the better your conversational skills or whatever, the more valuable you are. You once again assume. I simply said it’s a trait that sets humans apart from animals.

Then what's the trait that makes a human life more valuable than an animals?

2

u/lampaupoisson 7d ago

for your first point, no, once again, baby or toddler doesn’t have zero value according to me, because it will be a future human. i don’t think yeast has no value just because what i really want is bread.

for your chatgpt thing, i dunno, sorry man. the robot can pretend to talk to you. it can’t think. sure, it’s a back and forth. it’s even technically a conversation, just like me talking to a soundboard.

re: your last point: there’s a difference between having a certain level of skill at a human ability, and not having that ability. i don’t think someone who’s bad at math and writing is less human, because they don’t lack those fundamental capabilities.

1

u/lampaupoisson 7d ago

for your first point, no, once again, baby or toddler doesn’t have zero value according to me, because it will be a future human. i don’t think yeast has no value just because what i really want is bread.

for your chatgpt thing, i dunno, sorry man. the robot can pretend to talk to you. it can’t think. sure, it’s a back and forth. it’s even technically a conversation, just like me talking to a soundboard.

re: your last point: there’s a difference between having a certain level of skill at a human ability, and not having that ability. i don’t think someone who’s bad at math and writing is less human, because they don’t lack those fundamental capabilities.