5 ms·

It's not arbitrary. Human > Other Animals, no sane way to discuss anything else really. So start with the more important one then move to the other. Don't try t

It's not arbitrary. Human > Other Animals, no sane way to discuss anything else really. So start with the more important one then move to the other. Don't try to hold two watermelons in on hand.

Timon3 3y ago
Why is one dependent on the other? Why must we start with one, instead of tackling both at the same time? Why not use both my hands to hold the two watermelons at the same time?
- chillbill 3y ago
  It's not, but I find it distasteful when people are feeling sad for the crab being boiled, while children are dying of hunger in Yemen because of politicians and their enablers. If we can't figure out the first it'll be impossible to figure out the second. Similar to how you can't neglect your own kids and take care of the neighbor's at the same time.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    You know what's distateful? Acting like we can only ever do one thing, and we must necessarily do that one thing to the end before we start another. I'm capable feeling sad for both dying children as well as for animal cruelty - both at once! Who will it help if I do not feel sad for crabs being boiled? How many children do I save?
    - chillbill 3y ago
      I think you're missing the point and slightly arguing outside of the main point I initially made, which I think you understand already: It's more about how attention rather than ability of feeling sad or compassion towards animals.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        Well, I was just replying to your point: > It's not, but I find it distasteful when people are feeling sad for the crab being boiled, while children are dying of hunger in Yemen because of politicians and their enablers. The issue why I'm "missing the point" is pretty simple: you say we can only pay attention to one of the two things, but you haven't shown that to be the case. You're just saying that's how it is. I know you believe that attempting these things sequentially will save more human lives. But until you've shown me that we really can only pay attention to one of the two, sequential attempts will only prolong animal suffering, not shorten human suffering!
      - LinXitoW 3y ago
        I'd bet money that most people that vegan or vegetarian are also far more active about human suffering. It makes sense that someone that believes we should (and can) act to reduce/end suffering would apply that concept universally, rather than selectively. But just so you realize, your argument sounds EXACTLY like all the right wingers that suddenly care about all the poor americans once immigrants enter the discussion. Most people that make these arguments care about neither, all they care about is not having to actually do anything and still feel moral.

It's not arbitrary. Human > Other Animals, no sane way to discuss anything else really. So start with the more important one then move to the other. Don't try to hold two watermelons in on hand.

Timon3 3y ago

Why is one dependent on the other? Why must we start with one, instead of tackling both at the same time? Why not use both my hands to hold the two watermelons at the same time?

chillbill 3y ago
It's not, but I find it distasteful when people are feeling sad for the crab being boiled, while children are dying of hunger in Yemen because of politicians and their enablers. If we can't figure out the first it'll be impossible to figure out the second. Similar to how you can't neglect your own kids and take care of the neighbor's at the same time.
- Timon3 3y ago
  You know what's distateful? Acting like we can only ever do one thing, and we must necessarily do that one thing to the end before we start another. I'm capable feeling sad for both dying children as well as for animal cruelty - both at once! Who will it help if I do not feel sad for crabs being boiled? How many children do I save?
  - chillbill 3y ago
    I think you're missing the point and slightly arguing outside of the main point I initially made, which I think you understand already: It's more about how attention rather than ability of feeling sad or compassion towards animals.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      Well, I was just replying to your point: > It's not, but I find it distasteful when people are feeling sad for the crab being boiled, while children are dying of hunger in Yemen because of politicians and their enablers. The issue why I'm "missing the point" is pretty simple: you say we can only pay attention to one of the two things, but you haven't shown that to be the case. You're just saying that's how it is. I know you believe that attempting these things sequentially will save more human lives. But until you've shown me that we really can only pay attention to one of the two, sequential attempts will only prolong animal suffering, not shorten human suffering!
    - LinXitoW 3y ago
      I'd bet money that most people that vegan or vegetarian are also far more active about human suffering. It makes sense that someone that believes we should (and can) act to reduce/end suffering would apply that concept universally, rather than selectively. But just so you realize, your argument sounds EXACTLY like all the right wingers that suddenly care about all the poor americans once immigrants enter the discussion. Most people that make these arguments care about neither, all they care about is not having to actually do anything and still feel moral.