Is speciesism bad?
>>5156154No it is not.
>>5156154It doesn’t actually exist. A (((modern))) (((intellectual))) said so? Great. Who cares?Animals have no moral standing. They are mere implements of virtue signaling, social control, and environment management. To disagree is to admit you hold some form of religious morality, ie: belief in souls and karma. Got any frequency magic for us, guru? Personally I say, send their souls onwards, the source has no need for 20 years of life as a cow, and we must instead fuel the rise of man. Religious horseshit aside, an animal is not a contract making member of the moral dynamic. The closest it comes is its treatment (torture rather than clean slaughter, opting to eat the more willful and superficially humanlike over the cattle and sheep that can be slaughtered mid-herd, etc) revealing your character or being somehow related to the well being of something that does have moral standing (like destroying property and damaging the environment).
It's okay to have an arbitrary set of ethics, there's no need to justify emotions. It's not okay, however to be arbitrary and then criticize others for also being arbitrary.
>>5156164Anything beyond social contracts is religion. Metaphysics. Patently bullshit. For the people who believe in DMT entities.
>>5156154If you want pet cows and to eat dogs I won't stop you. The only real question is how much of it is conditioning.
>>5156154The big 'ism was originally bad because of the concept of assuming an outcome universally despite it not being the case. What makes speciesism bad to begin within that? Pigs taste better than dogs so we factory farm pigs and not dogs, how is that an unfair discriminatory assumption to have between the two species?
>>5156180Because the utilitarian aspect rapidly falls away and the argument always becomes emotional/subjective and not based on objectivity.
>>5156249There are objective reasons we don’t eat carnivores and there are objective reasons a society that values good, safe people avoids eating more apparently intelligent and "present" animals that are well covered in essays categorically denying animals moral standing. They’re not in the social contract, but they affect the fuck out of your moral credit score. Also see: the use of animals with front facing eyes as "practice humans" by good natured families… and more cruelly by aspiring criminals and communist chinese (same thing). However, while these reasons certainly excuse us eating chickens and cattle, they only weakly apply to swine. There’s no objective rational reason we should be torturing slightly dumb-average dogs to death en masse for a less efficient protein source than chicken and a massively magnified zoonoses risk. Additionally, pig farmers have always been stereotypically cruel and immoral people compared to good natured shepherds and cowherds (but enough factory farming horror is too much for anyone). Possibly because its obviously to the subconscious mind the pig is smarter and had a more humanlike experience than herd animals and cannibal psychos like chickens. And these reasons also make no excuses for the state of factory farms. The western food system is broken. Forcibly centralized by assinine regulations that are so bad a farmer often can’t snap his own chickens necks. He has to send them to be tortured to death by USDA approved mexicans.
>>5156254>turn off text replacement>one word is replaced when i type the next anywaysMossad spyware broke my phone :((Tell Yosef I said hi)
I hate mammals.
