OBJECTION!

All the answers are slightly wrong. The Katagana that’s causing confusion is “under-skort,” skorts being a combination shorts/skirt, “under-skort” is the part that’s like shorts, underneath the skirt part.

Jisho.org

Honestly at that point I think it’s lower effort to just go vegan. You’re already avoiding meat in every situation where you can’t investigate the supply chain, so no meat at restaurants, fast food, friends’ houses, etc. I guess if you really crave the taste of meat or something or if you live on a farm already I could see a case for it. For me, the case of going to the grocery and making a meal at home was always the easiest case to have a vegan diet (and avoiding all the extra prep and cleanup from preparing meat were nice perks), the parts that were actual hurdles were the convenience of fast food and not wanting to assert myself in group meals.

Personally, I figure that the tiny sliver of meat that’s produced ethically can go to the tiny sliver of people with weird dietary restrictions, and to cats, I guess. We still need to see a massive reduction in meat consumption if we want to address the abuse that’s rampant in the vast majority of meat production.

Ah, the classic diffusion of responsibility under capitalism.

The consumer is blameless because they have no control over the production process. The people committing abuse are blameless because they’re just doing what they’re paid to do, and if they didn’t do it someone else would. The CEO is of course blameless because they have a feduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders. And so, the real villains are the shareholders, like granma who has a S&P 500 retirement fund with 0.00001% of the company.

If you accept that when it comes to meat, then what’s the difference when it comes to something like slave labor, or sweatshops? A company sets up in a third world country with deplorable, illegal conditions, which are necessary to compete in the market and secure a contract with a multinational corporation, if their practices get exposed, the big corporation pleads ignorance, some low level manager takes the fall, and they set up another company to do the exact same thing. Once again, everyone’s just responding to price signals and doing what they’re told or what they need to to keep their job.

It’s a wonderfully designed system that ensures that the evil necessary to keep the machine running can be performed without the hindrance of those peaky little consciences. But I have to question whether it’s more moral to make sure everyone can pass the buck for doing something wrong, rather than one person directly doing the same thing and being responsible for it.

Is it more “moral” to kill someone if you do it via firing squad where only one gun is loaded than just having one person shoot them? Is it more “moral” to be 1% responsible for abusing 100 animals than 100% responsible for abusing 1? I’m not sure I understand the moral framework you’re using to arrive at your conclusions.

Rating this one moderate effort, with a side of, “Wtf are you talking about?”

It’s kind of impressive how many wrong things you just said.

First, it is valid to disregard someone’s opinions based on their other political views. If you had a swastika in your username, should I ignore that and listen earnestly to everything you say? Of course not.

Second, this is about fascism because the quoted text in OP is fascist propaganda. What they’re describing is the idea of the ubermensch, of certain people being inherently superior and genetically predisposed to rule over others.

Third, you’re not a mind reader. You’re incorrectly assuming that you know my thought process. I did not think, “This person has an Israeli flag, therefore they must be wrong,” I thought, “This person is telling people to look for a point in what is very clearly fascist propaganda, hey, look at that, they also have a fascist flag in their username, I guess it makes sense that they’d do that.”

So no, I didn’t write off your opinion because of your support of a fascist regime, though if I had it would’ve been valid. I simply thought critically about two different behaviors you did and noticed that they both display sympathy towards fascism, which I found interesting.

I thought critically about the issue and came to the conclusion that genocide and apartheid are bad and that fascism is wrong. Not my fault if enough other people reach the same conclusion for it to be trendy.

>Isreali flag

>“Maybe the fascist propaganda has a point!”

Checks out.

That’s your highest effort one yet.

As a vegan tankie, I’m more than happy to welcome anyone who is passionate about justice and equality. If you think for yourself rather than just following and upholding arbitrary social norms, you’re going to get pushback from the people who believe in those norms. Whether the norms in question are the needless industrialized mass slaughter of animals, or the needless industrialized mass slaughter of the victims of US imperialism. And it’s much easier to have meaningful, higher level discussions among people who share certain common values, so you’re not having to constantly refute the same shitty low effort talking points over and over.

Please, keep pushing your vegan users our way.

Lower effort.

Low effort

“Plants rights activists” out in full force in this thread lol

Well, I guess I’m just not sure why you’re trying to give us advice about something you have zero experience with.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say that you don’t actually care what kind of approach is more convincing, and you’re just trying to tell us to shut up, or say things in a way that makes us easy to ignore.

You have no idea what you’re talking about at best, and realistically, you don’t even want us to be successful. So, thank you for your unsolicited advice on which tacts are unhelpful, but, just so you know, I will be promptly tossing it into the trash.

That’s called Reductio Ad Absurdum and is a valid, classic form of argumentation. If you take their premises to their logical conclusion, the result is absurd, so their premises must be false.

You don’t get to arbitrarily limit where a premise gets applied in order to pick and choose which conclusions to stand by. It isn’t a strawman to show that someone’s premises lead to conclusions that they would disagree with, that’s literally the point.

Out of curiosity, how many people have you convinced to go vegan?

This logic doesn’t make sense in any other context. Like, if I say we should try to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere, you could point out that emitting CO2 is a fundamental part of human life, so something something virtue signaling blah blah blah. Just because something is unavoidable to a certain degree doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to minimize it.

Veganism is a philosophy that calls for reducing harm to animals where practical and possible. You can conjure up whatever hypothetical you like, and if you specifically look for situations where harm to animals is unavoidable, then harm to animals will be… unavoidable, in those situations.

However, the vast majority of choices you’ll make that affect the lives of animals don’t happen within the context of these sorts of thoughts experiments. You don’t have to eat rats or bacon in order to survive. So it’s not really relevant, unless you’re actually in that sort of situation.

Personally, I simply wouldn’t keep a snake as a pet, and if I had one, I’d give it away. The delimma you’ve presented pits my feeling of wanting a snake against my ethical beliefs about not harming animals, and I consider that ethical belief to be more important. I could always just watch videos of snakes or go see them at the zoo or whatever. But if you did one of those, “You’re stranded on a deserted island with nothing to eat but a crate full of frozen steaks that washed ashore,” then sure, I’d prioritize my survival because it wouldn’t be practical to avoid them in that situation.

Wrong.

Wrong.