*please note i deeply value and respect the vegan movement. i am just critical of how humorously it precipitates in online spaces, particularly this one. :)

  • alx@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    4 months ago

    “carnist” has a different meaning than omnivore. It’s used for people who actively defend what they think is their right to consume flesh.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 months ago

      Just like how evangelical vegans actively assert what they think is their right to control the diets and other lifestyle choices of adult humans who haven’t asked them to? 🙄

      • alx@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        4 months ago

        basically the same way we assert the right to tell people to stop using ai, to stop being racist, sexist, transphobic, using planes or heavy cars, giving money to fascists…

        chosing to view animals as resources is not about diet, it’s about power over sentient beings and hierarchy of lives based on species.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          4 months ago

          Holy false equivalences, Batman! Are you going for the record or are you really THAT bad at discerning wildly disparate concepts and levels of severity from each other? 🤦

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Nope. They’re objectively spewing a large array of false equivalence and my personal comment was directly and logically derived from that and that only.

              It was thus logically sound AKA not a fallacy.

              Your comment, on the other hand, is a textbook example of a reverse causation fallacy strawman combo:

              you portray my criticism of their argument as a personal criticism when in fact my subsequent personal criticism is based on the illogic of their argument and nothing else.

              • ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                4 months ago

                You literally asked if they were that bad at logic while offering no actual refute to what they had to say. But whatever, have a nice day

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  “Those are not at all equivalent” IS a refutation.

                  It’s not my job to spoonfeed bigots about exactly how my dietary (lack of) choices is different from hating trans and black people while sponsoring fascism 🙄

                  • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    If your diet includes meat, you are most likely causing the death of an animal. If you believe that killing animals is wrong, then it follows that eating meat is also wrong. As to what is more wrong versus what is less wrong, that varies from culture to culture and age to age. Perhaps they believe that killing an animal is almost as bad as killing a human. Their argument is sound; it is just based on different axioms than yours.

      • Bob@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s quite telling that you’re ready to say “control” to describe people arguing that you shouldn’t use animals as resources, but not to describe what happens to animals. Or if you would use it to describe what happens to animals, that you think nothing untoward of it. You know what I mean? Either controlling is, as you imply, inadmissable and you therefore become vegan because you mustn’t control animals, or controlling is sometimes admissable and you purport carnism.

        • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          4 months ago

          Also since when is open exchange of ideas and concerns equated with control?

          Am I trying to control you if I suggest that you not leave your tap running in California because fresh water is a precious resource in drought-plagued land?

          Am I trying to control you if I suggest that you reduce your plastic consumption because we have a major microplastic crisis so severe that human babies are being born with plastic already in their body?

          Am I trying to control you if I point out that the modern meat industry is ecologically unsustainable, so you’re going to have to switch to being vegetarian sooner or later since the meat production will literally collapse itself, so you may as well start now before it’s a global crisis?

          If I suggest that you not hit yourself in the head with a hammer, is that me trying to control you, or is that just an act of very basic concern for your well being? And if hitting yourself in the head with a hammer becomes trendy, am I trying to control everyone if I suggest that we shouldn’t be doing that because brain injuries will make us dumber as a society?

          • qarbone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            You have to agree that there are at least two types of active, “militant” vegan: the ecological vegan, who focuses on the many global issues arising from the international meat industry, and the meat moralists, who are focused more on the immorality of meat consumption at all.

            One of those is leaning toward control.