lvxferre

I don't have grounds to reach any reasonable conclusion about my own capabilities, since I have access to different info about myself vs. about other people.

I never tasted it but people claim that it's strong-smelling. So perhaps it's like goat or sheep?

But what about you?

"You're supposed to pretend that you're something speshul and above those filthy, disgusting and immoral animals!" - vegans.

EDIT, replying to a comment (from another poster? the same poster?) elsewhere. I think that it was answering this comment, but the thread got deleted so...

Yeah, not eating animals means we think we’re “above” them because that makes sense.

Yes, it does. Unless you also expect other omnivorous species and the carnivorous ones to refrain to eat meat… do you? (You don't.)

And yes, this makes sense even if it hurts your "precious, oooh so preeecious!" feelings of superiority over other animals.

Also some other animal killer here in the comments flat out said “humans are above animals, this is fact” but evil vegans think they’re above animals!

• Whataboutism: “but what about what the other guy said?”, disingenuously shifting the focus from vegans to non-vegans. Also I’m not responsible for someone else’s statements.
• False dichotomy: implying that a non-vegan putting himself over other animals automatically excludes vegans from doing the same.

The false dichotomy is so fucking dumb that it makes me think that you're implictly admitting to not have any actual argument at hand.

If you want a serious reply then bring up some something not so infested by fallacies as the above, otherwise I'll just keep laughing at you, "sorry".

(Arguably also loaded language but I’ll cut you some slack on that, given that it has some entertainment value.)

“please shut up!” // -the response of a child when faced with a situation that makes them uncomfortable

Two can play this game:

"Shut up" is also the sensible answer of adults when Christian zealots, nationalists and racists soapbox their shit.

Humans are animals as well.

No shit Sherlock.

Just keep them like lifestock (e.g. on a cotton field or labour camp as we have done in the past), and killing them should be completely fine according to your logic.

Following the reasoning that I've posted in another comment, another species keeping us as livestock wouldn't be doing something immoral in my book; they're defending their own interests, in detriment to ours. I don't expect for example a jaguar to put my self-preservation above its cub's desire for food.

And similarly it wouldn't be immoral if we fought against it.

Contrariwise to vegans I'm not putting humans on some holier-than-thou ground with intrinsically better moral grounds than the other species; it boils down to defence of one's own interests. Take a clue from the fact that my avatar is a smoking chimp dammit.

Who cares about the victims if we just declare them lifestock. Great ethics!

Appeal to emotion and other forms of stupidity/fallacy/irrationality don't work well against me. Try something else.

Although I'm suspecting that you guys' approach is something else: ad nauseam / sealeoning, is it?

That's part of the deal: you don't need to. Once stupidity and malice are taken as morally equivalent, it becomes morally irrelevant to decide if someone's actions are motivated by one or another.

My point is that people give a free pass to actions harming the others, as long as they're seen as "unintentional"; for example, the "powerful psychopaths" OP talks about often rely on it. And yet nobody knows someone else's intentions, we know at most what others do and what they say.

So for example. Your business relies on blood diamonds? You're financing terrorism and should be treated as such, regardless of your intentions. Your corporation employs slave work? You shall be treated as a slaver, committing crimes against humankind.

You do need to take into account if someone is able to be held responsible for one's own actions. But we already do this anyway, so no change.

Stop caring about intentions. Stop giving the stupid a free pass. Treat stupidity as a type of malice, and act accordingly.

I believe that this alone should be enough to address the sykos on power. Easier said than done.

OP, you're aiming at the wrong target.

The issue is with the medium, not the discourses being conveyed through the medium.

The issue isn't people defending LGBTQ+ issues, or criticising capitalism, or criticising cars, or proposing environmental issues. The issue is the megaphone itself, the fact that everyone in social media thinks that one's own views are so important, so holy OH SO PRECIOUS that we need to broadcast them.

And by "we" I'm including myself and likely you.

stockings

Aiming for a fake cheese flavour, I see.

(It's actually great for vegan stock too, you can squeeze a bit more flavour out of the veg bits and shroom stems. Just make sure to not add cruciferous vegs to the pressure cooker - because they will overcook and they will make your stock taste like sulphur.)

Whoa now don’t go comparing the natural order to factory farms. There’s a huge difference.

This is the fallacy of appeal to nature. "Natural order" isn't necessarily "good".

Regarding the rest of your comment, refer to the fifth bullet point.

TL;DR

Fourth bullet point.

but jaguars dont have moral agency. People do

First bullet point.

Sorry for the huge wall of text. It's a bit of a complex theme.

At its core I think that my ethic stance is best described as anti-realism. There's no intrinsic value; value is assigned by the subject. In turn, each individual (incl. me) assigns values due to a bunch of different factors: defending one's own interests, instinct (kin selection), culture/ideology, Realpolitik, or even on a whim.

Thus moral premises (or their absence - moral nihilism) are individual and arbitrary. I personally picked "weighted selfishness" and kin selection as two of mine. This leads to some sort of "rank", like: myself > my close relatives > other humans > other primates > other vertebrates > other animals > other living beings. Some individuals are sub-ranked higher due to their effect on individuals on higher ranks (e.g. someone's pet dog is above a stray dog, my lemon tree is above other non-animal living beings, etc.)

Beyond that it works like a "weighted utilitarianism" where life, general well-being and happiness of a higher category are more important than the ones of lower categories. It works symmetrically though - for example a jaguar hunting a human being is still moral, even if the jaguar was somehow intelligent. (And so is the self-defence of the potential human. Or of a pig against a human.)

Based on that: battery farm is for me less moral than free range, but still within acceptable morality - because it benefits beings high in my priority (humans) by a lot.

Animal lives matter a bit. Animals closer to us matter more. I'm not sure however if their simple existence has a positive "happiness" value, it's just referring to the life itself.