Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0daystock | Hacker News Reader

Those animals are literally raped (euphemistically: "artificially inseminated") so you can eat the food meant for their children, which you know as "cheese" and "milk". I challenge you to be there to hear a mother cow's cry when her child is taken from her to "make veal". How anyone can consciously frame this behavior as moral or ethical on any level remains a mystery to me. Animal products aren't necessary for human health and commodifying them for our selfish purposes has karmic effects which are so obvious.

View on HN

Them: "I am trying to be more ethical and reduce animal suffering by taking steps X, Y, and Z. Would anyone like to help?"

You: "You're raping animals! Stop being so selfish!"

Do you understand how your response here is not helpful? Nobody is going to read your post and think "oh yeah, they're totally right, I have to go fully vegan immediately." They're going to think "I am trying to do better and meet you halfway and you ignored that and called me a rapist."

Absolutism is fine when it's you holding yourself to your own standards, but it is often a bad tactic for producing better outcomes in reality.

I realize you may feel that animals are equal to humans, and that therefore any harm perpetrated upon them is equivalent to the same harm being perpetrated upon humans. But you have to understand that the vast majority of people - myself included - simply don't agree with that stance. The question is: do you want us to still help you achieve some of your goals, or no?

How are you helping achieve the goal of ending suffering and exploitation by participating in the same behavior, especially on a daily routine basis? It's as illogical as giving your children cigarettes but claiming it's okay, because they're the filtered kind and it'll help them reduce harm, when in fact the entire act is asinine.

That's a completely flawed analogy. This is like seeing a smoker who smokes a pack a day and saying "could you try half a pack and be that much safer?"

In this analogy, you come along and say "don't bother, you're gonna get lung cancer and die anyway."

I think that's fair, but to a heavy smoker living on a pack a day, I indeed would recommend total abstinence for ideal health - not merely reducing to half-harm. Though it may seem like the softer reduction approach would be more supported, I believe it only serves as a mechanism for the smoker to lose control and relapse again and again. It is a subjective philosophy, so I don't expect we'll totally agree, but I thank you for the discussion.

Counterexample: I'm lacto-ovo vegetarian but not vegan partly because the anxiety and stress involved in checking ingredients for ethical purity, or worrying about honey or bone-bleached sugar or rennet in cheese, is not good for me.

I see what you're saying -- that's true in the case of addiction. I don't know that addiction is the right model for consumption of animal products, given that you can reduce your consumption of them (I have!) without triggering as much of a biological feedback loop geared to get you to increase consumption. It's not a totally inappropriate metaphor, though. I agree, we probably just have a difference of approach here.

I'd still suggest that delivering the message in a way that is more empathetic towards the person trying to make the change would be likely to get better results in terms of changing minds.

Except we have smoking AND meat substitutes but don't let reality stop you from having fun

Humans are omnivores and have been for all of history. I agree that cruelty is not OK but to say animal products are flat out unnecessary is wrong. It is not palatable or globally viable for every human to eat 2 cups a day of peas for proper protein intake.

> Humans are omnivores and have been for all of history.

What history? Maybe human history, but evolutionary history says we're frugivorous apes, and that's the history that most materially affects our bio-chemical systems.

> I agree that cruelty is not OK but to say animal products are flat out unnecessary is wrong.

You're welcome to make an argument for "ethical" production of animal products, but most do not take in account the perspective of the victim - an individual like you and I.

> It is not palatable or globally viable for every human to eat 2 cups a day of peas for proper protein intake.

Nor is it necessary, and assuming so shows a great ignorance of the role and appropriate amount of protein required for a healthy human diet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com