Comment by trey-jones | Hacker News Reader

Comment by trey-jones | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Here we go, I'm prepared to sacrifice all of my meager HN karma and die on this hill:

I don't get it. I will never get it. I can't relate at all to the idea that the comfort and well-being of animals is an important thing to be concerned about.

This doesn't mean that I'm an asshole to animals (opinion!). I'm not cruel to animals that I meet (meat?). Generally we get along fine. I don't have a problem with people being concerned about the welfare of animals. You do you, boo. The world (probably) needs somebody to do it. Just kinda leave me out of it OK?

> What really threatens animals today is not cruelty, so much as thoughtlessness.

I'm guilty of thoughtlessness where animals are concerned, and I don't care. It's not my fight.

It's a bit like the blight of "Everyone needs to learn computer programming" of a few years back. Just because you're interested in something and it's important to you, doesn't mean you need to impose it upon other people! It seems obvious to me that not everything is for everybody, but there are an awful lot of people who don't feel that way.

> Just because you're interested in something and it's important to you, doesn't mean you need to impose it upon other people!

We're talking about a moral issue though. If you want to argue against advocates on moral grounds, that's one thing - but how is "it's not important to me" a relevant argument?

If you don't donate to battered women's shelters, can you still refrain from domestic abuse? If you don't advocate for the protection of children, can you still treat them with respect personally?

You don't have to take an interest in animals or veganism or farming or any of that to recognize a moral argument about them. If you think that argument is flawed, engage it at that level. Otherwise, I just don't see how your sentiment matters in this discussion. It wouldn't be mentioned in any other discussion about morals.

I'm not really here to argue about it.

Do I think that perhaps too much energy is devoted to this issue when there are a lot of other things going badly that need attention? Yes. Do I condemn people who disagree and prioritize issues of animal suffering over issues that are important to me? No.

I do think that the author of the article (and Mance, certainly) implies that I should be concerned about this, and that's where I take issue. I won't take issue with your calling this a moral issue either, although I think the argument could be made that it isn't.

You really don't see anything wrong with the mistreatment of animals? Not even the animals people commonly have as pets?

It's not that I don't see anything wrong with it. It's just that it's not a priority for me. I see a lot more wrong with the way people treat people than the way people treat animals, and I don't have headspace for every problem. I guess it doesn't really affect me - out of sight, out of mind?

I know people who treat their dogs like people. Sometimes those same people treat other people worse than dogs. I endeavor to treat people like people, even as I treat my dogs like dogs.

I get only having so much room on your plate for worrying about things... but it seems like you're trying to turn that into an Appeal to Relative Privation. Just because there are other issues you can rank higher in importance, doesn't mean this one ceases to be important.

You treat your people like people, your dogs like dogs, and your cattle like cattle

Reply on news.ycombinator.com