3 ms·

I don't want to take sides in this argument but just would like to point out that our animal cruelty standards are comically inconsistent. The animals that we u

by mertd 4y ago

I don't want to take sides in this argument but just would like to point out that our animal cruelty standards are comically inconsistent. The animals that we use for food supply are generally treated horribly and they outnumber the scientific use cases by several orders of magnitude.

kube-system 4y ago
Our standards for humans are pretty inconsistent too. There are scenarios in which it is still legal to subject some humans to slavery and death even in the US.
maxbond 4y ago
This is true and if your argument was that we should be spending more effort there then addressing scientific use than that'd make sense to me. But if what you're suggesting is that we should expend our effort exclusively on the larger of the two until it is fully addressed, then I can see how that has a certain logical appeal, but it isn't really how social movements work. Social movements are necessarily massively parallel, everyone pursues the causes they care about most, and adjacent causes support and are supported by one another. Not only would it not be feasible to convince all the activists to pick one particular cause, it also would be less effective. It's sort of like the "packing" tactic in gerrymandering.
- mertd 4y ago
  People are free to take up whatever cause they deem is worthy. I just hope some will take a pause and appreciate the absurdity of drinking milk and consuming meat AND opposing use of animals in medical research. I have flown with Air France recently. They certainly do serve a lot of meat and cheese.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Okay. Why? What are you hoping they'll realize? What is it you are trying to say? Pardon me, but it feels like you're engaging in a certain rhetorical tactic where you all-but make a conclusion - you say, I'm not taking any sides, I just want you to consider X, Y, and Z that would naturally lead you to a certain conclusion which I definitely haven't made myself. This serves to launder your conclusion through your audience, as if it were their idea all along. It shields your ideas from criticism and the hazard of taking a position that may be argued against. And whether or not that is intentional, I'd ask you to stop. I have made specific claims which can be argued against - it's pretty unfair for you to respond in a way that, should I try to argue against it, just shifts around without really responding to what I am saying. Speaking for myself, while I do eat some cheese, I haven't eaten meat in almost a decade, and I've found I genuinely prefer almond milk. I'm fully aware of the hazards and contradictions in my life. I don't really need you to point these things out to me for me to consider them. We live in a society where each of us is unable to fully live out their values. I'm positive that, if you applied the same scrutiny to your own life, you'd find similar problems. But of course that doesn't mean you don't believe in your values, only that you are a human being who is not omnipotent. It's pretty odd to try and turn that around on another person, right? Almost like criticizing them for breathing.

by mertd 4y ago

kube-system 4y ago

Our standards for humans are pretty inconsistent too. There are scenarios in which it is still legal to subject some humans to slavery and death even in the US.

maxbond 4y ago

This is true and if your argument was that we should be spending more effort there then addressing scientific use than that'd make sense to me. But if what you're suggesting is that we should expend our effort exclusively on the larger of the two until it is fully addressed, then I can see how that has a certain logical appeal, but it isn't really how social movements work. Social movements are necessarily massively parallel, everyone pursues the causes they care about most, and adjacent causes support and are supported by one another. Not only would it not be feasible to convince all the activists to pick one particular cause, it also would be less effective. It's sort of like the "packing" tactic in gerrymandering.

mertd 4y ago
People are free to take up whatever cause they deem is worthy. I just hope some will take a pause and appreciate the absurdity of drinking milk and consuming meat AND opposing use of animals in medical research. I have flown with Air France recently. They certainly do serve a lot of meat and cheese.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Okay. Why? What are you hoping they'll realize? What is it you are trying to say? Pardon me, but it feels like you're engaging in a certain rhetorical tactic where you all-but make a conclusion - you say, I'm not taking any sides, I just want you to consider X, Y, and Z that would naturally lead you to a certain conclusion which I definitely haven't made myself. This serves to launder your conclusion through your audience, as if it were their idea all along. It shields your ideas from criticism and the hazard of taking a position that may be argued against. And whether or not that is intentional, I'd ask you to stop. I have made specific claims which can be argued against - it's pretty unfair for you to respond in a way that, should I try to argue against it, just shifts around without really responding to what I am saying. Speaking for myself, while I do eat some cheese, I haven't eaten meat in almost a decade, and I've found I genuinely prefer almond milk. I'm fully aware of the hazards and contradictions in my life. I don't really need you to point these things out to me for me to consider them. We live in a society where each of us is unable to fully live out their values. I'm positive that, if you applied the same scrutiny to your own life, you'd find similar problems. But of course that doesn't mean you don't believe in your values, only that you are a human being who is not omnipotent. It's pretty odd to try and turn that around on another person, right? Almost like criticizing them for breathing.