1363
I'm tired of the inequality
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
1363 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45619 readers
646 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Whataboutism
This isn't whataboutism. Whataboutism isn't about using the words "what about", it's about misdirecting the conversation to a seemingly related but actually an unrelated topic in order to counter argue the point. It's a sub-type of ad-hominem attack, a fallacy.
The person you're responding to is directly answering why people need to eat fish (I'm not validating the claim, just explaining) with sarcastic questions starting with what about.
Dude actually said “what about….”
Again, the wording is not the issue
Guy says “whatabout” and goes on to bring up something else to compare, and you’re saying it’s not a whatabout?
ROFL!
He's not bringing something else to compare. You can rephrase the discussion like this:
Claim: We don't need to eat fish. It is not necessary for humans.
Counter claim: we need to eat fish because humans need nutrients such as omega 3 fatty acids.
This is a direct dispute. The claim and counter claims have not been changed. They are both directly on topic.
Here is an example of whataboutism.
Person1: Biden says 1 + 2 = 4! Biden is wrong! Person2: But Trump said 1 + 2 = 1000000! He's even more wrong!
This argument does not address the claim that Biden is right or wrong. Not does he talk about the problem. Person2 is misdirecting by bringing a separate person as form of attack. They're both wrong. Trump being more wrong does not validate Biden's incorrect answer. Like I said, whataboutism is a subtype of ad hominem attack.
It's also possible person2 could've said: What about Trump? He said, 1 + 2 = 1000000!
It's easy to formulate whataboutism by using the words "what about", and it is done so commonly. That's why it is called whataboutism. But again, what is being said is important, not how it is said.
A person3 could say: What about 3?
This is not whataboutism. He's showing what is his side to the argument. Even if the person3 gave the wrong answer like "what about 2?" It is still not whataboutism as they are still talking about the problem rather than misdirecting.
Actual proteins you need supplements for if you go vegan
No you don't. Literally every plant contains EVERY amino acid in varying amounts. You don't need to supplement protein as a vegan.
Guess we can all survive on grass then. Agriculture and societies were a mistake, let's just become cattle and chill all day /s
Or you can just eat plants that you can actually digest but that wouldn't make for a snarky comment huh?
You said "Literally every plant". It's right up there.
They also said, "in varying amounts". That would imply you need to vary your diet. But again, not useful for snark.
Sorry, I can't stomach grass without some mayo or tomato sauce.
That is just a non sequitur.
Would you believe that I don't want to eat just plants and pills for each meal? Would you also believe that I disagree with the industrialization of farming and the animal abuse that is so commonly paired with it.
There are humane ways to eat meat, and while they're difficult to find, it's a lot easier than eating what most people would consider disgusting everyday.
Yes you don't want to just eat plants, hence you are eating animals for taste pleasure.
Why do you think it's okay to kill someone for pleasure? What's humane about that?
Ploughing fields for plants kills animals too
If everyone were vegan, only a quarter of current farmland would be needed
Yeah and having an accident with your car may also kill people. Should that count as murder? You know, since apparently intention is irrelevant.
I think it already does
You don't know what you are talking about.
Ok
You should look up the definition of murder. Murder requires intent, otherwise it's manslaughter.
Not everywhere
Ok sure, but a fair justice system should differentiate between intentionally killing someone and accidentally causing a death, right? Giving the same punishment to someone who kills their spouse because they cheated vs. someone who lost control of their car and crashed into a pedestrian would be extremely weird.
Vehicular manslaughter under a variety of different names is a crime in many many maaaaannnny countries.
Man, you are gonna be real mad when you learn how conservation and wildlife management works
Animals other than humans aren't people, that's why it's okay. You should be the first law enforcement official that prosecutes predatorial non-human animals
It's shocking to me how many people don't understand that saying "they aren't the same species as us, so because of that we can treat them with impunity" is analogous to saying "they aren't the same skin color as us, so because of that we can treat them with impunity"
See, now you're actually just forcing your worldview on people. They literally are not people, they are not sentient, intelligent, nor do they have language. They are not analagous to people, and you comparing this to racism is a really shitty attempt at ad hominem.
Grow up.
Science disagrees with you here. Most of the animals being used for meat are in fact not just sentient, but also conscious:
-- From the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
Got me on that point - my primary point is that due to their lesser function, and extremely different species, I find it just fine to consume them given they're raised properly, and aren't constantly in pain. Y'know, not in cages, and not exploiting the definition of "grass fed", or "organic", or whatever Tyson wants to advertise next that makes rich people feel like they're the good guys.
Ultimately, once lab meat can be of the same quality and easily accessible/affordable, then I'd consider switching. No reason not to. Until then, it's the easiest, most accessible, most fulfilling, and healthiest way to get the nutrients we need, and doesn't weigh on my conscience, nor should it.
Fuck Tyson though, those bastards can go to hell.
Putting aside that this might be difficult to quantify, why do you think it matters? There are some groups of humans who exhibit severely diminished mental capacities compared to the average human (e.g. babies, severely mentally handicapped people, people in a coma, etc.). Would it be okay to eat them? Because I'm fairly confident that for whatever measure to compare cognitive functions you could come up with, we would be able to find at least some humans who perform worse on them than the average pig, for example.
Why does this matter? As a hypothetical thought experiment, do you think it would be morally justified for us to eat aliens who are biologically very different from us but of comparative intelligence (or higher)? Or for them to eat us?
Apart from the "fulfilling", which is arguably subjective, I don't think the rest is true. At least I don't see how not eating meat would be difficult or "inaccessible" in a significant way, and considering the last point studies regularly show that vegetarians and vegans are, on average, slightly healthier than other people if anything (which might be in part just correlation, but it does contradict your claim of meat being the "healthiest" way to get nutrients).
On this we can definitely agree.
Elitism
"Whataboutism" was invented by the british to say whenever the irish talked about oppression. It was invented to oppress. It is not a fallacy, saying "Whataboutism" is.