Vegans being banned and comments being deleted from !vegan@lemmy.world for being fake vegans.

From my perspective, the comments were in no way insulting and just part of completely normal interaction. If this decision reflects the general opinion of the mod team, then from my perspective, the biggest vegan community on Lemmy wants to be an elitist cycle of hardcore vegans only, not allowing any slightly different opinion. Which would be very unfortunate.

PS: In contrast to the name of this community, I don’t want to insult anyone here being a ‘bastard’. I just want to post this somewhere on neutral ground. I would really appreciate an open discussion without bashing anyone.

PPS: Some instances or clients seem to compress the screenshots in a way they’re unreadable. Find the full resolution here: https://imgur.com/a/8XdexTm

Linking the affected users and mods: @Cypher@lemmy.world @gaael@lemmy.world @gredo@lemmy.world @iiGxC@slrpnk.net @veganpizza69@lemmy.world @veganpizza69@lemmy.vg @jerkface@lemmy.ca @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world @Sunshine@lemmy.ca @Aqua@lemmy.vg

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    EDIT: It’s pretty telling that everyone is reading this as an excuse to keep murdering instead of accepting that murder is part of being alive. “Life feeds on life.” It is not pretty, it is ugly and dark. What should be taken away is a greater respect for all life and an understanding of what we’re taking when we feed on life. It should be used as a pretext to respect all life and do your best to reduce harm to all life. Whatever life you’re taking should be considered valuable and a sacrifice made. (Mass deforestation to make way for agricultural farming doesn’t just hurt trees, it hurts the animals that live in them and among them, for instance. A soybean farm doesn’t have the same ecological importance as an old growth forest, sorry.) The fact that this view is seen as a reason to kill more instead of kill less and have respect for the life you take is pathetic.

    But keep ranting to me in your total misread of what I’m saying.


    Just popping in to say the main reason that attitude is dumb because there is no such thing as moral absolutism.

    animal exploitation as mass slavery, mass torture and mass murder

    Do we consider antibiotics exploitative to penicillin? Do we cry over every breath we take in which our immune system automatically murders billions of bacteria?

    Just because plants don’t have faces like ours and don’t look like us and don’t scream when we kill them killing plants is fine somehow. They’re all alive, you’re still killing life, and in our great inhuman lack-of-wisdom we’ve decided that if it doesn’t have a brain and consciousness like ours, then it most not have consciousness and thus it’s okay to murder and exploit them.

    Just call me the fucking Lorax. Who speaks for the trees, dude?

    Anyway, no such thing as moral absolutism and these people will continue to climb higher and higher on their holier-than-thou-mountain only to become caricatures of a real person.

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Isn’t it pretty apparent?

      If it can feel pain and suffer it shouldn’t.

      Bacteria do not have the capability to feel suffering. They cannot even feel.

      Plants and fungi, despite their increased complexity, do not have the capability to suffer either.

      The entire point of the field of ethics and half the field of philosophy is to reduce suffering. Torture is bad because it causes suffering. Killing is bad because it causes suffering. Slavery is bad because it causes suffering. Rape is bad because it causes suffering. Abuse is bad because is causes suffering.

      Veganism extends this to animals who are capable of suffering in ways identical to us humans. It also raises important questions: Would it be ethical to treat aliens the same way humanity treats non-humans? What if the aliens are sufficiently stupid, yet still capable of civilization? What if they’re smarter but live in solitude? Why exactly is it unethical to kill severely mentally disabled people? Is it just because humans view themselves as superior to every other living being in the universe?

      I believe veganism is the objectively moral choice. Still, I’m not vegan for various reasons. But I don’t have any qualms with admitting my behavior is objectively wrong.

      • NSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        The entire point of the field of ethics and half the field of philosophy is to reduce suffering

        this is just a lie. one type of ethical study, utilitarianism, is focused on that. many ethical theories don’t regard suffering at all, or only as a facet of some other concern.

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’d argue minimizing suffering is basis for all ethics, just that they are achieving it in different ways.

          Deontological ethics in a vacuum cause more suffering than utilitarianism. Yet (most) deontological philosophies seek to achieve as much good as possible - and therefore minimizing harm. Kant’s categorical imperative is - as a layman - just a formalization of: “Do what is good for you AND others. Don’t do what is good for you but bad for others.”

          And I believe if you ask an ethics board at a why something was not permitted, you will always get the result: “Causes too much harm”. This happens despite them being allowed to evaluate based on many different philosophies.

          I know very little ethics systems that don’t inevitable lead to a society with less suffering if strictly followed by most. Although that might just be because society as is is objectively unethical.

          • NSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 days ago

            all divine command theories only incidentally reduce harm, and only sometimes. and kant (like all deontologists) is not concerned with outcomes, only the correctness of the action.

            • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              From my limited knowledge, Kant was concerned with rationality first and foremost. But suffering just happens to be one of the most irrational things there is. In no world is there ever a benefit to increasing suffering because if you apply this universally you too would experience increased suffering which is irrational.

              I don’t think this is a coincidence. You could create a deontological philosophy that bases everything on irrationality and it would remain consistent if viewed through the lens of itself. Irrational maxims lead to contradictions, meaning this philosophy too is irrational and contradictory - which is consistent if you seek to apply irrationality universally.

              Why didn’t Kant come up with the inversion of his philosophy if it remains consistent? I’d argue because it would have lead to maximizing suffering which (mostly) nobody wants.

          • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            So if I understand correctly, a cow can be killed with a gun to the back of the head painlessly and its death prevents hunger for an entire family for the winter so killing it is ethical. Got it.

            • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Again, I’m not vegan nor particularly experienced in vegan arguments but there is clear suffering here:

              1. Imprisonment is often considered suffering and cows are not wild animals. They are rarely treated well.
              2. Fear is suffering. Based on the manners of the one killing the cow, it can “sense” intentions/that something is off. A designated slaughtering area for instance would cause a strong fear response.
              3. Restricting someone from achieving happiness and going against their wishes is suffering. We know that cows do not want to die. Killing them would violate their desires and cause suffering. This is the same (simplified) argument philosophers use to claim killing humans is bad.
              4. In organisms with social bonds, killing causes grieve (= suffering) for their social circle. Here’s some more information on that, I recommend a read: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/animal-grief/
              • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago
                1. Didn’t say anything about imprisoning them. They can free range all they want in this example.
                2. The method employed specifically prevents fear. Assume a method that doesn’t induce fear. They exist.
                3. This is a stretch of the definition. Discontinuation of happiness without knowledge before or after is not suffering.
                4. Prevent socializing completely after birth. Got it. Or, more reasonably, the grief of loss is inevitable and a small price to pay anyways to feed a family for the winter.

                Edit: Also, I’m not really trying to justify eating animals. TBH I’m ironically more sympathetic to Vegans due to me being a hunter. Frankly I think meat eaters should have to participate in the harvesting of an animal you eat at least once before age of majority. That would at least confer appreciation for some of what is involved.

                • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago
                  1. “Free Range” is still limited by fences usually and >99% of cows will not live in the way many people understand free range because it would be prohibitevely expensive.
                  2. The methods exist but are never used for the same reason as 1. Pigs in Germany for instance are suffocated to death with CO2 causing extreme - if temporary - suffering. Nitrogen is a bit more expensive which is why it isn’t used.
                  3. It depends. Discontinuation of happiness is one argument why killing is immoral, even if they are killed without direct suffering.
                  4. Is killing a cow the only way for families to live through winter (without hunger/malnutrition etc.)? Then I’d say killing one is the lesser evil. If a family has other choices that do not involve killing, then I’d say the moral action would be taking them.

                  There are various more - and far better articulated - reasons why killing is bad by the way. Here are some: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/67606/why-is-murder-wrong

                  Still, I believe it is hardly possible to reliably kill without involving suffering anywhere.

                  Though I would consider hunting to be the most ethical variant. It’s not even a battle when factory farming exists.

                  • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    I really don’t need reasons why killing is bad :P

                    TBH all vegan’s ethics can be countered with ‘check your privilege’.

                • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  We know several intelligent animals have some sort of concept of death because they are capable of mourning. This doesn’t prove they understand personal mortality but it proves that they understand the mortality of others to some extent which is a necessity for understanding your own.

                  My argument why cows do not want to die is a basic evolutionary one:

                  Individuals that do not want to die are more likely to reproduce than one’s that want to die. It is therefore likely that cow populations today largely do not want to die.

                  Also, being neutral to the concept of death - or even not knowing about it - implies the absence of a wish to die. If cows do not even understand personal mortality they do not want to die.

                  • NSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    . If cows do not even understand personal mortality they do not want to die.

                    Right. but moot. if that’s the case then why bring it up at all? we should only be concerned with things that we can prove and base our conclusions on provable fact.

                  • NSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Individuals that do not want to die are more likely to reproduce than one’s that want to die. It is therefore likely that cow populations today largely do not want to die.

                    I think it’s probably accurate to say they don’t want to die, cuz they don’t know it’s a thing that they could want.

              • NSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Imprisonment is often considered suffering and cows are not wild animals. They are rarely treated well.

                they’re provided, veterinary care, protection from the elements, protection from predators, drinkable water, space to graze, and opportunities to socialize. it’s not imprisonment.

                • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Those have nothing to do with imprisonment.

                  If I locked 10 people in a room and regularly gave them food and water they would still be imprisoned because they couldn’t leave.

                  We know humans suffer from imprisonment and we accept since the mid 20th century that this applies to all humans. It’s not a big stretch to assume imprisonment causes suffering for animals as well.

                  Besides, most cows on the planet have literally nothing of what you described. Except maybe drinkable water and protection from predators.

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          When talking about suffering, I am generally speaking of “pain, as processed by a nervous system”.

          At least for bacteria, their structures are simple enough to be understood to a large extent by humans. We know chemical reactions cannot suffer and we know proteins cannot suffer. Due to the simple nature of bacteria, it is highly doubtful that they are capable of suffering since all “processing” occurs through varying level of chemicals and minerals.

          But I cannot even prove that rocks do not suffer, therefore it is worthless to prove the absence of suffering. Rather, the ability to experience suffering must be proven.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            FWIW I don’t think you need to define suffering so narrowly to make an argument for veganism or vegetarianism. You can accept that plants do feel suffering and still do it. Because the amount of plants that get killed per kilojoule of energy in beef (feeding the cows) is way more than the amount of plants killed per kilojoule of directly eating plants.

            • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              I cannot even prove that rocks do not suffer, therefore it is worthless to prove the absence of suffering

              This take is a big fucking YIKES from someone who claims to care about living things.

              • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Just saw your comment, I meant it in terms of that the absence of something is often impossible to prove, therefore it is a worthless metric. The metric that should be looked at is whether something is showing indication of suffering.

                I couldn’t even prove humans are capable of suffering either. You can prove that pain manifests itself through activation of certain brain regions but that doesn’t prove the existence of suffering. It’s like trying to prove that the color red is accurately visualized in your brain.

                • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Oops, I meant the person you were responding to, sorry buddy. I’m on your side here. I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear.

                  The fact that they compare other living things to rocks… just… wow. I edited it to make it more clear who I was referring to. Once again, my bad and I’m sorry friend.

          • NSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            When talking about suffering, I am generally speaking of “pain, as processed by a nervous system”.

            if you define it in a way that specifically precludes other creatures, that seems biased. you don’t know how a single-celled organism might be able to suffer. that doesn’t mean that they can’t.

    • gaael@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      I will not debate about whether animals, plants and bacteria suffer the same way.
      This is an argument I’ve heard time and time again from the antivegan crowd and imo falls into the “at best very uninformed, more likely troll” category.

    • Makeshift@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Plants feel pain too so it’s okay to stab babies. There’s no difference between pulling a potato out of the ground and punting a chihuahua over a fence! :)

      If you disagree with that, you must be a moral absolutist.