human existence causes nonhuman animal suffering, not much to debate here. that is the baseline and i don’t see a way around that. my existence, however, is not to blame for the damage that capitalism does to other human beings. we had no say in the matter of being brought into our respective existences.
it takes a certain attitude to willingly make it worse for others, to kill, eat or otherwise exploit someone, to deny someones status as a autonomous subject. you have to have this attitude in order to be able to commit and defend these acts. degrading billions of sentient beings to mindless, numb objects, commodities with the sole purpose of fullfilling your temporary desire.
desire, not need.
greed, not necessity.
you have the capacity to lessen this suffering, you do not have to kill them to survive, you have options. you know vegans exist, although your understanding of veganism is utterly distorted. you know it must be possible to subsist without causing harm that can be avoided. yet you refuse.
ah, the “inuit defense”, classic. so, just because the inuit (replaceable by any other indigenous group) “have to” hunt to survive and therefore cannot be vegan, you can not be expected to go vegan either. in other words if everyone can’t be vegan, no one should go vegan.
makes sense right?
it strikes me as childish logic whenever this is brought up, because so many things are wantonly overlooked in order to make a point that can never hold up to any form of critical scrutiny.
in general, an act performed out of desperation and necessity, does not make violence against another being excuseable, but understandable and maybe even pardonable. if someone went out and shot their rapist, would you run around arguing that everyone is now free to shoot and kill anyone?
i would not.
i am thankful for being fortunate enough not to have to resort to killing or otherwise hurting someone when i can avoid it.
it takes a certain attitude to willingly make it worse for others, to kill, eat or otherwise exploit someone, to deny someones status as a autonomous subject. you have to have this attitude in order to be able to commit and defend these acts. degrading billions of sentient beings to mindless, numb objects, commodities with the sole purpose of fullfilling your temporary desire.
desire, not need.
greed, not necessity.
you have the capacity to lessen this suffering, you do not have to kill them to survive, you have options. you know vegans exist, although your understanding of veganism is utterly distorted. you know it must be possible to subsist without causing harm that can be avoided. yet you refuse.
ah, the “inuit defense”, classic. so, just because the inuit (replaceable by any other indigenous group) “have to” hunt to survive and therefore cannot be vegan, you can not be expected to go vegan either. in other words if everyone can’t be vegan, no one should go vegan.
makes sense right?
it strikes me as childish logic whenever this is brought up, because so many things are wantonly overlooked in order to make a point that can never hold up to any form of critical scrutiny.
in general, an act performed out of desperation and necessity, does not make violence against another being excuseable, but understandable and maybe even pardonable. if someone went out and shot their rapist, would you run around arguing that everyone is now free to shoot and kill anyone?
i would not.
i am thankful for being fortunate enough not to have to resort to killing or otherwise hurting someone when i can avoid it.
Comment