Embed Notice

@CosmicTrigger I only got one moralist vegan response to the comments I made but I have to admit it was a pretty funny one.

The first part of what he said was "why not just save us all the blah blah blah and vague self justifications and admit that you just like eating meat and don't care about the suffering and ecological damage that it causes?"

Which is funny on a number of levels. First of all, not once in the entire threat he was responding to you did I at all get into my justifications for why eating meat is okay. You might be able to infer my beliefs on that front from some of the things I said but that wasn't the topic that I was talking about whatsoever in any way. It was my analysis of why moralist vegans are incompatible with the rest of society and why they will forever be at violent loggerheads with everyone else and why they are disingenuous and illegitimate Crusaders in a cause that they have no business giving a fuck about and why that makes them the most frustrating and annoying and pointless people to have solidarity with. None of that is about why I think I can eat meat or why I think vegans are wrong about their moral stamps against eating meat. So he clearly didn't even read anything I had to say. He just saw a comment that was critical of vegans and assumed that it was about me defending my right to eat meat if I choose and responded with the typical condescending NPC vegan response that doesn't engage with any arguments or think about anything ever but just relies on their condescending assumed moral high ground to dismiss opponents as simply animal bigots. After all, that's why they invented the idea of speciesism. The other funny thing about this quote is that I would be perfectly happy to swear that I do indeed not give a flying fuck about the suffering eating me or at other animal products causes because I genuinely don't. I'm not a utilitarian, so I don't give a flying fuck about pain or pleasure or suffering or happiness in the abstract as some kind of thing that is bad or wrong in itself separate from the subjects that experience it or as some abstract sum or essance. I don't think that suffering alone is a relevant metric or value in my moral calculus because it cannot be abstracted from the subjects that experience it and is inherently therefore individual to those subjects. I'm furthermore that my moral system is based on the possibility or capacity of having two-way meaningful reciprocal mutual relationships of equals with people where real compassion and mutual Aid and understanding and comprehension and communication and all those other things are possible and I don't give a flying fuck about anything with which that sort of relationship is not possible including fascists! But ironically I guarantee that no matter how deep Lee I got into my reasoning for that or my understanding of ethics and metaethics and moral ontology and no matter how consistently I drew out my thoughts and my system and explained all of this they would just dismiss it all as rationalizations and self justifications because they believe they have the automatic moral High ground and anyone that disagrees with them is just evil and brutish and idiotic and so they don't have to listen to us or believe what we are telling him about why we believe what we believe they can feel free to just psychoanalysis in order to dismiss our points, much in the way that Ray Blanchard psychoanalyzes trans women who disagree with him in order to find a reason to ignore them by calling them narcissistic and so on.

The other part of his response was equally interesting and enlightening and of typical vegan idiocy: I concluded the post that he was responding to by a discussion of my understanding of metaethics, and how it is impossible to reconcile people who have different fundamental, foundational moral values / beliefs, because at its base all moral reasoning must come to an end in foundational moral axioms that themselves cannot be justified, because there cannot be further moral values behind them to justify them (unless we end up in an infinite regress or circular argument) and neither can there be justification behind them in terms of just facts and reason themselves, because facts and reason do not have a moral property that can allow you to build moral imperatives out of them. Those moral axioms or foundational moral beliefs instead of being justified by either further moral reasoning or by reason and objective facts are instead formed by someone's personality and life experiences and therefore that it is impossible to convince someone to change their moral foundations. And veganism relies on a fundamental moral intuition the animals are moral subjects at least to some degree equal to humans and that suffering itself in the abstract is a morally relevant entity and both of those are foundational moral assumptions that are not really built on any furthermore reasoning because they determine the basis of all further moral reasoning because they decide what moral actors are in play and what moral ontological entities are relevant in all other moral reasoning. And those are moral intuitions that not everybody or even most people share and since they are fundamental moral intuitions it is basically going to be impossible to convert someone to being a vegan or away from being a vegan unless they already shared or didn't share that intuition. Basically they can only convert the already converted, which means that they will forever be in conflict with the rest of society.

His interpretation of this? That I'd said "eating meat" is the foundation of my moral system! Instead of just that the foundations of my moral system are incompatible with a moral system that would believe eating meat is wrong.

So yeah typical condescending idiotic vegan shit.