Some people really think being a good example of the product of their beliefs and being obnoxiously obtuse and argumentative about their beliefs are equally effective at persuading others to think like them.
I can tell you no person ever in humanity was convinced by the latter.
Worse, if someone attempts to convince me of something I already think is wrong and uses an argument that I am convinced is flawed, they will only make me more sure I was right in the first place.
The animals are being bred to live and die. Everything loves and dies. If we didn’t eat cows they would be extinct. A billion animals that get to experience being. I am against indoor livestock agribusiness that is a manamade hell on earth, but good local ranchers raising livestock I like. Personally I’d rather live for a while and be eaten than never get to live at all.
Local ranchers can’t provide any reasonable kind of meat or dairy production for our population no matter how much the ideal farm you are picturing is a myth still using widespread abuse of the animals. Cows would live in drastically lesser numbers on sanctuaries and such. Breeding a population to kill for your sense pleasure isn’t justified unless you would be okay doing the same to humans.
How? Should anti nazi advocates never challenged nazi beliefs and instead say doing a little less genocide is okay. Should anti-colonial revolutionaries not responded with violence or direct action to force the colonizers to change and instead sent letters saying " I know you are people too you are activly harming me but I’m not going to fight against you we have to agree to disagree." Your point makes no sense.
That’s the most straw man argument I’ve seen in a while.
Maybe take a step back and think about how using nazi analogies when discussing meat eaters is counterproductive to your beliefs and frigging offensive to large swaths of the global population who were affected by nazis. Those two things are not comparable and you need to do some self education if you think that’s okay or persuasive.
Maybe take another step back and recognize that many jews who were tortured by the nazis see the similarities to animal agriculture and are actively against it
“Perhaps the earliest use of the analogy comes from Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz, a German concentration camp survivor and journalist, who wrote in 1940 in his “Dachau Diaries” from inside the Dachau Concentration Camp that “I have suffered so much myself that I can feel other creatures’ suffering by virtue of my own”.[4][5] He further wrote, “I believe as long as man tortures and kills animals, he will torture and kill humans as well—and wars will be waged—for killing must be practiced and learned on a small scale”.[4]”
Those did challenge the oppressors for one they both had sticks like Malcolm x and the many assassinations of British leaders and other violent actions by Indian independence actors. You can’t just erase huge parts of those movements. Also MLK JR was very disruptive with sit ins and marches he was nonviolent yes but differently not coddling or non-disruptive.
Some people really think being a good example of the product of their beliefs and being obnoxiously obtuse and argumentative about their beliefs are equally effective at persuading others to think like them.
I can tell you no person ever in humanity was convinced by the latter.
Worse, if someone attempts to convince me of something I already think is wrong and uses an argument that I am convinced is flawed, they will only make me more sure I was right in the first place.
No injustice was ever corrected by coddling the oppressors.
Who is being oppressed? Are you not free to perdue your own dietary choices?
The animals are being oppressed.
The animals are being bred to live and die. Everything loves and dies. If we didn’t eat cows they would be extinct. A billion animals that get to experience being. I am against indoor livestock agribusiness that is a manamade hell on earth, but good local ranchers raising livestock I like. Personally I’d rather live for a while and be eaten than never get to live at all.
Local ranchers can’t provide any reasonable kind of meat or dairy production for our population no matter how much the ideal farm you are picturing is a myth still using widespread abuse of the animals. Cows would live in drastically lesser numbers on sanctuaries and such. Breeding a population to kill for your sense pleasure isn’t justified unless you would be okay doing the same to humans.
You’re doing the thing that creates the opposite world you wanna live in again.
How? Should anti nazi advocates never challenged nazi beliefs and instead say doing a little less genocide is okay. Should anti-colonial revolutionaries not responded with violence or direct action to force the colonizers to change and instead sent letters saying " I know you are people too you are activly harming me but I’m not going to fight against you we have to agree to disagree." Your point makes no sense.
That’s the most straw man argument I’ve seen in a while.
Maybe take a step back and think about how using nazi analogies when discussing meat eaters is counterproductive to your beliefs and frigging offensive to large swaths of the global population who were affected by nazis. Those two things are not comparable and you need to do some self education if you think that’s okay or persuasive.
Maybe take another step back and recognize that many jews who were tortured by the nazis see the similarities to animal agriculture and are actively against it
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_analogy_in_animal_rights
“Perhaps the earliest use of the analogy comes from Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz, a German concentration camp survivor and journalist, who wrote in 1940 in his “Dachau Diaries” from inside the Dachau Concentration Camp that “I have suffered so much myself that I can feel other creatures’ suffering by virtue of my own”.[4][5] He further wrote, “I believe as long as man tortures and kills animals, he will torture and kill humans as well—and wars will be waged—for killing must be practiced and learned on a small scale”.[4]”
Except for the civil rights movement. Or Indian independence under Ghandi.
Those did challenge the oppressors for one they both had sticks like Malcolm x and the many assassinations of British leaders and other violent actions by Indian independence actors. You can’t just erase huge parts of those movements. Also MLK JR was very disruptive with sit ins and marches he was nonviolent yes but differently not coddling or non-disruptive.