Report AntiBeyonder's Profile

I watch at 7.5x play speed.

Humanism is essentially, not violating the well-being of our homosapien species. Veganism is the most consistent normative ethics of not violating any sentient entities against their will to live without suffering. It is not explicitly about animals, that is just a consequence of the moral philosophy. For example, humans, non-human animals, if we found species of plants, fungi, a computer program (AGI), hypothetical E.T.’s or anything with some convergently evolved CNS/ sentience, I would not cause unintentional harm to them. On the contrary, if an animal species did not have a CNS (or that convergently equivalent of), and therefore, not sentient, there could be no transgression, and thus, no harm.

There is major hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in contributing to history's largest holocaust, that unnecessarily: enslaves, rapes, orphans, tortures, exploits, and kills 90 billion land animals and trillions of marine lives every year for the momentary pleasure of the tongue, while being against other injustices. Sensory pleasure does not justify morality, otherwise, any injustice would be justified as long as the perpetrator derives pleasure from it, for example, rapists raping. These are just a few processes in which you would pay for: Pigs and birds being forced into gas chambers, having their tails/ teeth/ testicles ripped off without anaesthesia, male babies being macerated, suffocated, having their throat slit, or being bludgeoned to death.

It is not a personal choice because there is a transgression against an inherent sentient victim whose well-being you are either violating or terminating. Proponents of animal-based products seem to conflate making a choice yourself without external interference as a personal choice, rather than one that affects other sentient entities. There is hypocrisy in paying for others to be in a position, that you, yourself, would not want to be substituted in, and therefore, breaking the golden rule. In fact, you would be begging for mercy, and only a small minority of vegans without power would be attempting to stand up for you. It is easy to not care, because you are not the one suffering and can appeal to the ostrich effect, cognitive dissonance, societal conditioning, while ignoring the immense suffering that occurs on a daily basis. You say vegans are forcing their beliefs on you, but it is only their value of not harming others, whereas you are forcing others to be harmed for your beliefs. For example, if I punch the air, it is a personal choice. No sentient entity is being violated. However, if any sentient being gets in my vicinity while I am swinging, and I intentionally still swing, it is no longer a personal choice.

It stems from arbitrary discrimination based on species, that is no different from weaponizing the same prejudice pejorative against race, sex/ gender, sexuality, class, or religion etc.

This is where you get to the 'name the trait' argument, where one must name the trait, true of animals, if true of humans, that would morally justify the same atrocity. For example, intelligence; then any mentally handicapped human, or undeveloped children with the equivalent cognitive capabilities are candidates for the same action. You will find this fails with any example.
Hypothetically, if an advanced extra-terrestrial species came to earth, that the same cognitive difference with us, that we have with farmed animals, would it be morally acceptable for them to treat us how we treat farmed animals? If you are honest, the answer would be no. Might of any kind, doesn’t make right. Spider-Man said it best, “With great power, comes great responsibility”. Our parents made us, they cannot do whatever they want with us. If we make a sentient ASI, it would not be moral to enslave it, or harm it, but rather let it choose what it desires, as long as its desires are too, personal choices.

It is unnecessary, as all essential nutrients are readily available in plant-based alternatives, whether whole foods, fortified foods, or supplements (remember the meat you eat is supplemented itself, and human meat is even more bioavailable), resulting in reduced all-cause mortality. Would you rather pay to have an animals throat slit, or take a vitamin occasionally, which itself is more bioavailable. Even if it were not, just take an extra pill. On average a plant-based diet is ~30% cheaper.



As for my ratings. All aesthetic (normative propositions; values and policy) desires are just subjective preferences determined by internal and external variables, that do not appeal to logic, rather post hoc rationalization. They are non-cognitive, non-real, non-descriptive. It is odd that people compare 2 competing intuitions against each other, with "favourite" vs. "best". For example, there is no such thing as an objective better/ best anime. A subject (tautologically subjective) can subjectively have any preference, either determined by prior internal/ external cause or random due quantum indeterminacy, in either case we did not choose, it was doxastic involuntary. Whichever is your winning intuition out of various competing intuitions is it. It is determined by both a fallible and contingent mind. Hypothetically, it would not even be objective if every single entity agreed that 'x' was the best 'y,' it still would not be. It could only mean at best, that we have some 'objective' biological or external constraints to have a subjective preference to 'x'. Even if a god(s) themselves came to earth and declared it objective aesthetics, it still wouldn't be, because a) god is a subject b) there is no mind/ stance independent aesthetics c) there is no objective, non-circular prescription for any entity to hold any value, or do any duty, including caring about a god(s) prescriptive commandment for aesthetics. For example, you could say 'x' has objectively the highest definition, or most detail, therefore, objectively better. This does not logically follow. However, why is higher quality objectively better to a subject? Why "ought" a subject have a preference to 'x', they may have preference for ‘y’, or a potato quality animation with 10 fps. Or why have preference to anime with meaning, dynamic character development, being iconic, or having a particular style etc. How do you even compare the “perfect” realism to the “perfect" abstract? Perfect itself is incoherent and self-contradictory. What is the perfect length for an anime? If you asked god(s) to pick its favourite anime, with parameters like you cannot say, “I love all my children’s work equally.” Could it even have a preference (it seems to in other regards, like creation, meats, and sacrifice that it does), and statistically you would disagree out of the thousands of anime throughout history.
The only thing that is objective, is the biological and environment parameters that necessarily lead to your aesthetic preference, in which it is outside of your control. It is just that most humans are similar enough in terms of nurture and nature, that we end up with similar physical patterns of neural processes, and therefore, reach similar conclusions.