- I called a corpse a corpse (post contains multiple pictures of chests of multiple animals)
- Get called loud, obnoxious and ridiculous
- User types 380+ words on why my view is ridiculous (see linked post for more of their comments, my only two comments are in the image)
- I replied in an annoyed tone but did not use insults
- I am banned for “rule 1, be kind”
Post (TW: animal corpses): https://lemmy.world/post/45494863/23173926
Note: “the rules of this site” in my comment refer to rule 6 of lemmy.world which states:
No visual content depicting executions, murder, suicide, dismemberment, visible innards, excessive gore, or charred bodies. No content depicting, promoting or enabling animal abuse.
Yup. Biologically we evolved for that shit. However, we have proceeded to a place where we can substitute and manufacture alternatives
Veganism is an ethical and moral choice. And you need to realise that none of those are absolutes.
Failure to do so is what makes you obnoxious
Yeah that’s the argument my link makes, that not being vegan is the unethical and immoral choice.
You need to realise that the choice is taking the life of an animal that had at least a mom that loved it, that probably had friends and most likely siblings it played with or you having a nice little treat. That’s the choice you’re making.
This is major anthropomorphization. Shit, some animals literally eat their young.
Some animals, in stress situations, but the animals that grow up on farms have very nurturing caring behaviour. The bellows of the cow moms when seperated from their young are haunting.
https://onanimals.co.uk/2021/06/04/stress-responses-to-seperation-broken-cow-calf-bond/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PemBURyBlyk
But it’s more likely an evolutionary response, not the human concept of “love”. But I guess one could get into a long argument as to what “love” actually is, and I’ve got no interest in participating in that argument
as if the humans caring and nurturing behavior is less of an “evolutionary response”? Also what difference does it make? Is the pain response not to be taken seriously if it’s “just an evolutionary response”? At what point did our pain response make the jump from “just evolutionary” to “ensouled” (or whatever term you want to use) and therefore more precious?
Also you’re the one to bring up that there is supposedly a distinction to be made and immediately through up your hands that you don’t wanna argue this claim?
I said I didn’t want to get into it about what “love” specifically means as that’s a completely different can of worms.
It matters because it’s an appeal to emotion. It’s an attempt to evoke an emotional response by attributing the human concept of parental love to animals that are not sapient. It’s a bad argument.
and as usual when you are the one to actually have to present an argument for your claims you “loftily indicate that the time for argument has passed” as sartre would say. Totally not sealioning behaviour. This is at least the third such thread you just decide to leave because you actually can’t get by with two sentence claims that have the reader guessing at the argument you’re trying to make.
That’s not what I did though, did you even read the rest of my comment?
It’s fine, keep embarrassing yourself by telling people not to eat meat because “the animal’s mom loved them”