See, and again I’m making a point about clearly observable facts, with the implication that trying to sense others’ mental states is a normal part of communication between all people. But you’re trying to make it all about me. I want to have a conversation about facts and universal habits of communication, but in the conversation you’re trying to have, it’s all about me. You’re clearly very laser focused on me, to the point you won’t listen as I try to talk about something other than myself, and you’re lying about it. Why do you like obsessing over me so much?

You’re telling a very blatant and easily disproven lie. You’re currently claiming you didn’t consider me more than surface level. But earlier, you claimed that you knew that I was hiding my motivations for choosing my diet.

I don’t believe in inherent evil either, but I believe a person’s actions create their moral character, and moral character is a useful metric.

Only if you keep your beliefs to yourself and stop telling cows what to do

First off, you’re talking nonsense because I’m disabled. Secondly, what you’re saying is impossible. Why would I consider moral superiority valid if I didn’t care about others? If I didn’t care about others, I’d obviously adopt a might makes right philosophy or something abstract like exclusively valuing beauty or truth or intelligence or something. You believe that I think vegans are superior to carnists, and therefore you believe In invested in the idea of moral superiority. Therefore it’s impossible, according to your beliefs, that I don’t care about others.

You’re saying impossible, self-contradictory garbage because you can subconsciously sense that I have NPD and that makes you feel angry and hateful at me. There is no rational basis for your feelings, you just don’t like people who are different. That’s why what you’re saying is completely irrational.

I agree. Burger King is an international business valued at 7 billion dollars with millions upon millions of dollars. I’m a regular person, and broke to boot. I’m never going to be able to do as much for veganism as Burger King, no matter how hard I try.

But buying a burger is the same as torturing animals for fun. Meat isn’t fun for the slaughterhouse worker, it’s fun for the customer. And the customer is the one making the whole operation happen. All the money comes from the customers.

FiniteBanjo:

Floey is implying

you don’t torture animals if you’re a sane stable individual

Except that there are plenty of neurotypical slaughterhouse workers. That said, the toll working in a slaughterhouse takes on a person’s mental health is beyond what I would wish on my worst enemy. Taking lives all day every day, sometimes not hitting right and watching the animal suffer before you hit it again, being surrounded by all that death, the severed cow heads in the bins staring lifelessly back at you as if in accusation… that fucks a person up. That turns mentally healthy men into the kind troubled enough to attempt suicide. But they are, most of them, when they start working, mentally healthy. Studies have tracked the mental health of towns before and after a slaughterhouse opened and started offering jobs. Violent crime went up. Spousal abuse went up. Drug problems went up. Those workers were okay, and they took a job society says isn’t that bad, is necessary, and it ruined them. Turned them into the kind of men who would beat their wives, because you have to become a violent and dangerous person in order to survive working a job like that.

And the person forking over their ten dollars to McDonald’s for a Big Mac is financing all that suffering. That person is not mentally ill, they are doing what society says is completely acceptable and normal. But it isn’t.

Inherently? No, that’s not needed to construct Floey’s argument. Floey’s argument requires only that the meat producing process be practically torturous. And it is. Most chickens are raised in quarters so cramped that they need to be debeaked so they won’t peck each other to death from the stress.

It would be whataboutism if the purpose were to excuse this man’s action by pointing to other examples. But I don’t believe the person you’re replying to intended that. I think they mean to say this man is awful, and so are carnists, which is not whataboutism.

Half? Nah, 90%. There’s more than 90% who aren’t vegan.

Of course, the first step is to accept that convincing people to be less evil, is more important than vanity and holding to the idea that you’re somehow better than them.

Of course I believe that. I believe the best way to convince people not to kill is to shame killers. It’s nothing to do with my ego. It’s not hypocrisy to want there to be less death in the world, and accusing me of letting children drown or wanting to be superior is not only silly, it’s irrelevant to your own actions. It’s just a mechanism for you to process your shame. You know killing is bad and you want an excuse. You think if you can change the subject to my actions and how I’m not Literally Superman, then you won’t have to think about your actions. But tough nuts because we are not changing the subject. I proposed a truce. We won’t say your actions are wrong if you don’t kill animals. That way you don’t have to deal with mean words, and the animals don’t have to deal with murder. I daresay that approaches fairness. If you want to make the argument that mean words are incomparable to a life and the animals are getting a bloody good deal out of a truce, then yeah, I guess their lives are more important than your feelings, how bout that!

No, I didn’t say he’s not bad. I said he isn’t neurodivergent. If you think neurodivergence is bad, then you’re not just an animal abuse apologist, you’re a human abuse apologist. Personally, I don’t care what his neurotype is, because it doesn’t affect my estimation of his moral character. He’s an animal abuser, and using a controversial mental health term doesn’t inform my judgement of that fact. But I do object to the implicit assertion that neurotypicals do not tend towards animal abuse.

I don’t care what exact part of the process of killing for pleasure causes the pleasure. The action is the same. The harm is the same. I don’t care about motives for murder except in the interest of preventing them.

Yes, that’s why I feel the same way about you that you feel about this man.

The wolf is a dumb animal. It doesn’t understand ethics or morality or the relationships between a cat and a human. It barely has a sense of interspecies empathy. The human knows better. He knows he’s inflicting suffering for absolutely no reason but spite, and he’s choosing to do that anyway.

Yeah, let’s call a truce. How about we stop calling your actions wrong for a month, and all of you stop killing animals for a month?

As you feel about others, I feel about you.

I object to this characterisation because animal torture is also a really common trait in neurotypicals. There are even some cultures in the west that eat babies because they say a baby sheep’s corpse tastes better.