I hope this doesn’t come across as too rude but you can go fuck yourself

It’s so funny that I once saw someone with a ukraine flag complain about the soviet annexation of a part of “poland” and later not making it whole or something like that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curzon_Line

deleted by creator

Excellent write-up I’d like to point to one thing though

China has been socialist since October 1, 1949, because the old landlord-bureaucrat-comprador state was destroyed and replaced by a people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class through the Communist Party.

This doesn’t mean anything to a westerner. What westerners hear is “The communist party officials presume/claim to speak in the interest of the working class with no direct input from them”. Since this is what almost every party in the west has done since parliaments became a thing. The ones that didn’t aren’t included in textbooks. And since you’re speaking positively of such a party you must be “shilling” for them. I know adding the “how” of how workers shape and influence the state would make your comment even longer, but as it is to most it’s just an unbelievable, meaningless phrase.

​ ​ ​ ​ What do the polish care for german local politics ​ ​ ​ ​

Your argument was that the care and nurture of a cow mom is different from that of a human mom. That one is out of love and the other merely an “evolutionary response”. Where you draw this distinction is completely unclear but you immediately announced you will not argue it. How is this not “loftily indicating that the time for argument has passed”?

You made a claim now you can argue it or refuse to, like you usually do.

I said I didn’t want to get into it about what “love” specifically means as that’s a completely different can of worms.

and as usual when you are the one to actually have to present an argument for your claims you “loftily indicate that the time for argument has passed” as sartre would say. Totally not sealioning behaviour. This is at least the third such thread you just decide to leave because you actually can’t get by with two sentence claims that have the reader guessing at the argument you’re trying to make.

as if the humans caring and nurturing behavior is less of an “evolutionary response”? Also what difference does it make? Is the pain response not to be taken seriously if it’s “just an evolutionary response”? At what point did our pain response make the jump from “just evolutionary” to “ensouled” (or whatever term you want to use) and therefore more precious?

Also you’re the one to bring up that there is supposedly a distinction to be made and immediately through up your hands that you don’t wanna argue this claim?

Some animals, in stress situations, but the animals that grow up on farms have very nurturing caring behaviour. The bellows of the cow moms when seperated from their young are haunting.

https://onanimals.co.uk/2021/06/04/stress-responses-to-seperation-broken-cow-calf-bond/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PemBURyBlyk

Particularly, if we reduce learning behaviours in plants to mere reactions, then by the same logic it could be argued that learning behaviours in simple animals (like, say, lobsters, which have 1/10th the number of neurons a cockroach does) are also just complex reactions.

Evidence for learning behaviors in plants is to my knowledge very scarce. And like the article I linked you states about that subject “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Additionally we know that cockroaches and lobsters sense pain and have an aversion to it. That the screams of a lobster is not just “air escaping”. There still is a lot more complexity to the learned behavior and reaction to stimuli that cockroaches or lobsters exhibit than a sunflower who’s stem grows on the shadier side and reset during the night in order to “track the sun”.

I’m not saying this because I really believe plants are conscious or sentient (i.e. capable of sensing in a way analogous to humans or complex animals like, say, dogs or cows). I’m saying it to illustrate how with our present-day knowledge any moral line we draw is going to ultimately be arbitrary.

It is somewhat arbitrary very the exact line is, but I don’t think there is much debate to be had that killing animals is unethical. There are very few people who wouldn’t react with horror at the idea of killing kittens and milking the mom dry but somehow for cows this is acceptable?

Correct, and this argument is the one you want to use with the average Lemmy user. Not because of the moral cost of killing plants or animals, but because of the environmental cost. Most Lemmy users already agree that climate change is a problem, so this argument is an easier sell to them. It is what made me reduce my consumption of meat.

and that last part is exactly why do not want to make this argument. I don’t want people to go vegan for veganisms sake, this is not some conversion cult where we celebrate and congratulate every little step to indoctrinate them further and further into veganism. We want the focus to be on the oppressed. And to murder less is still to murder.

I wrote at length somewhere else about babystepping but this comment is getting long enough as it is. The core of the argument is that if the oppressor is looking at what they are “giving up” and not at what they are taking from someone else then they are much more susceptible to have holdouts in their habits that still require murder or to “treating themselves” once in a while or to not extend these habits beyond their diet etc. I want the focus to be on the oppressed, this conversation is about them.

Mitläufer ist korrekt.

Die heutige Verwendung betont vor allem den Gesichtspunkt, dass ein Mitläufer alles passiv geschehen lässt oder einfach mitmacht, ohne dabei für sein Verhalten Rechenschaft abzulegen oder Verantwortung zu übernehmen.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitläufer

All of those are reactive. Lets say you cut yourself with a knife. That your blood clots and the wound heals is a reactive response. You don’t choose it, it just happens. That you then probably choose a less risky approach the next time you cut is you learning. I don’t have the time to watch the video unfortunately, but I read this article (do not plug that link into sci-hub.ee that would be pirating) which delves into the topic of plant’s having sensory membranes, conditional experiments etc.

Regardless, even if we assume that

a. Plants have consciousness
b. Killing consciousness is immoral/unethical/bad or whatever

then being vegan is still the more moral option since the amount of plants that need to be “murdered” to feed an animal until it’s ready for slaughter is orders of magnitude higher than the nutritional value we get out of the animal when we murder it.

I also think the notion that harvesting peas is the same as ramming a bolt through a pigs head is not really something people actually believe, but rather antivegan cope. But that’s subjective of course.

Yeah that’s the argument my link makes, that not being vegan is the unethical and immoral choice.

You need to realise that the choice is taking the life of an animal that had at least a mom that loved it, that probably had friends and most likely siblings it played with or you having a nice little treat. That’s the choice you’re making.

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/plants-are-alive

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/humans-are-omnivores

you do

everyone does

oh you meant it in a way?

sucks to suck i guess