this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
2 points (75.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43846 readers
666 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
2
This might sound weird, but why is vegetarianism invalid while "piracy" isn't? (lemm.ee)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've had a certain debate a few times where you might say we argue over the "semantics" of the meat industry.

I am what you would call a vegetarian. While vegetarians won't eat things that caused harm to produce, a vegan won't eat anything having to do with an animal. A lot of those who would fall under the latter category hate us because they say anything that remotely resembles someone enjoying an animal product is supporting the meat industry which then kills animals, which means merely eating an animal product makes someone a murderer.

Meanwhile, there's this concept many call piracy. It's the idea that, as the meme proverbially puts it, "you can download a car". The idea here, which I say in the way I do because there's still an ongoing debate about it, is that it affects nobody. But then there's the whole industry thing I mentioned. People on the other side of the debate often say "well what about the industry". I'm not sure where on the scale in this topic you might put me, but I feel like there's a glaring contradiction here. When it comes to animals, people think of the industry, but otherwise that's not a factor.

My question is... why?

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I think you asked a decent question in a convoluted way. You see vegetarianism and veganism as potentially anticapitalist. And you see Lemmy and other places being very anti capitalist, anti consumption. So why isn't your avenue of anti capitalism favored in these places?

Well I mean one obvious way is that piracy is a way to have your cake and eat it to. If I could be vegan, deny corporate interests of their money, and also eat "meat too", wouldn't that be more appealing than the traditional method of veganism where one must sacrifice some food options in order to have an affect?

Meat eating is deeply ingrained in our culture. It's highly subsidized and therefore relatively affordable. Toxic masculinity and other default mindsets make it omnipresent....

Short answer? Idk.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't really understand why you're comparing these two things? One is a group of people refraining from consumption of certain goods for personal reasons - health, ethics, climate impact, whatever. The other is a group of people consuming arguably more goods than they (we tbh) deserve since we're not willing or able to pay for it for one reason or another.

A better analogy would be comparing piracy to... I don't know, a veg-eater of whatever type who still enjoys the taste of bacon and resorts to stealing it because it's better to hurt the meat industry than to pay? It's a product that person really doesn't really need and absolutely would have never paid for, yet the person still wants it and obtains it in a way that hurts the industry.

(The analogy doesn't hold up since stealing physical goods has a different impact than distributing digital copies, but it's the best I've got off the cuff)

E: okay, after reading your other comments, I'm both confident this didn't address the point you wanted and confident I don't really understand your deal well enough to do so. Both of these groups have some members who have a problem with industry practices and others who are into their chosen lifestyle for other reasons. It seems like you've made some odd decisions about which groups are most prevalent among each and are framing your premise around that, and I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on it when the premise is Like This.

Or are you trying to say veganism should be more widely accepted because "DRM is wrong" is roughly equivalent to "animal suffering is wrong" re: "industry bad"?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

(The analogy doesn’t hold up since stealing physical goods has a different impact than distributing digital copies, but it’s the best I’ve got off the cuff)

Then it's relevant to point out this isn't about either industry being a victim of your run-of-the-mill theft. Both of the things I mentioned combined ask about direct impact on an industry versus indirect or arguably non-necessitated impact on an industry. Both things are strongly relevant in Lemmy culture in particular.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Your comparison is still really, really unclear. Are you comparing the consumption of "extra products" for vegans vs vegetarians to the consumption of "extra products" for piracy?

If so: Do you really not understand that limited physical demand differs from unlimited digital demand? If a vegetarian eats, idk, an egg a day.... that's an extra 365 eggs that had to be produced and were paid for, thus supporting the industry, when you could have hypothetically decreased demand and possibly caused a drop in production. Whereas the media consumed by pirates incur neither profit nor cost (in that if we assume they would never have paid for those goods in the first place, it isn't a lost sale). There is no production cost for there to be 1 sold copy and 1 pirated copy vs 1 sold copy only.

Though tbh, I'm just devil's advocating the vegan position here. I really think you had a handful of bad encounters with militant vegans and assume the majority of the threadiverse thinks like that. And, well... we don't? What even is this "lemmy culture"? The amount of confusion and responses that aren't addressing the point you meant to make should show you that most of us are not engaging with this on the line of thought you assumed we would.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The other is a group of people consuming arguably more goods than they (we tbh) deserve since we're not willing or able to pay for it for one reason or another.

This is a loaded way to phrase this.

The other is a group of people consuming goods that they don't pay for, for one reason or another.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey man, I'm willing to be honest about what I do. I'm not entitled to consume that media just because it exists, and I'm not going to beat around the bush about that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You did leave out the lack of legal access being a motivator for piracy.

Deserving is also an odd differentiation because people need to eat, and they have needs about participating in society. Maybe a movie pirate doesn't need to access that particular movie but when their access is hampered in general, their ability to engage in discourse with their peers is hampered.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay but seriously, what is this pedantry even? I wasn't trying to put forth some all-encompassing thesis of every reason people might pirate, nor do I accept that "needs to be in on all the current memes" is some reason one is entitled to media. And neither point has anything to do with the discussion we're having with OP.

Bizarre as heck tangent.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

The way you phrased your sentence about piracy was biased against pirates. You were saying these moral choices aren't similar, I'm trying to refute that, and I'm saying they are similar.

It's not even current memes. If all my co-workers watched some obscure regional television decades ago, how am I supposed to understand the references they make without pirating the media? At what point do these creative products belong to society instead of a specific individual?

OP is talking about how there's a different perception of the morality of these things, and the lesser harm(pirating) is being viewed on more harshly than (not being a vegetarian). This is the core of that discussion.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also don't understand the comparison to piracy but I think being a vegetarian is definitely more ethical than being an omnivore as long as you don't overcompensate meat with other animal products. If you stop eating chicken and in exchange start to eat an additional 3 eggs a day, that's probably worse for animals and nature.

If you just cut back on meat and replace it with vegan alternatives while eating the same amount of cheese, eggs etc. as before it DOES have a positive impact and we should appeciate one's efforts.

Hell, even flexitarians have a positive impact. Right now, there's around 90% omnivores worldwide. If all these omnivores reduced their consumption of animal products by let's say 20%, it would have a far bigger impact than another 2% going full blown vegan.

Furthermore, it can be tough to go vegan all of a sudden. It takes time to change your diet, learn about healthy protein sources, essential nutrients and stuff. Going flexitarian first, then vegetarian and potentially vegan allows you to take one step at a time.

Also being vegan is not where it ends in terms of caring for the environment. You can keep reducing your personal footprint indefinitely. No more flights, no car, less electricity, less shopping. Everything helps. And everyone should try to contribute in the way that feels the most manageable for your personal circumstances.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your last paragraph makes me want to ask... I am a frequent user of public transport, partially because I couldn't get myself into driving. Would you say public transport is to actual transport and to the climate as eating harmless animal products is to eating harmful animal products and the well-being of animals?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's always about absolutes in the end. If a vegan drives by car 100000 miles and takes several flights a year that's definitely worse than an omnivore staying at home all day. Ideally, you stay at or around home AND be a vegan AND only buy second hand AND avoid electronics etc.

If you are interested in how your personal lifestyle ranks against the average, just google for CO2 footprint calculator. If you want to do a good one, it will take at least 30 minutes as you have to answer quite some questions. This will give you not only an indication of where you are right now but also in which areas you have most room for improvement.

I think if everyone seriously tries their best and actually tried to improve their lifestyle it would have an immense impact. Unfortunately, most people seem to just blame "the industry" or "the politicians". Of couse, they also play a role but we'll never get a better world overall, if people aren't willing to cut back on their lifestyle. And cutting back involves many many aspects. Veganism ist just one of them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I've used one of those CO2 calculators before, twice actually. They were popular in Google Plus debates back when Google Plus was a thing and I got maybe a fraction of an actual number as my score, as the biggest damage I've ever caused to the atmosphere was air-conditioner-related (which I'm sure everyone has here).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Vegans are all about telling you what you can't do.

Pirates are all about telling you what you can do.

People like having stuff for free. People don't like being told what is or isn't wrong and what they should or shouldn't do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Producing eggs and milk DOES cause harm though. Vegans are not crazy paranoid extremist people, that's just what the meat industry wants people to think. Vegans are just more aware of the damage we are doing to animals. Btw being vegetarian is definitely better than nothing

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By that same logic, having pets causes harm. If you want to take that stance then we should really just put up a large border between humanity and nature instead of having so many humans live in nature since we clearly abuse it. Even things like nature reserves and preservation areas would end up harming the evolution of the ecosystems in play. We've caused numerous issues with migration patterns and even going further into the designated nature areas, we have only kept nature as we know it. Rather than having it naturally progress and evolve.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Sure, because it's either you are a saint and you go back to stone age or you might as well burn tires in your back yard. I understand that you want to keep eating meat, but don't sell me this shit. Life is not black and white and I don't claim to be perfect. You CAN do a bit of good and still live your life without being perfect.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People hate the ivory industry. And they also love the space industry. Why??

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Answers like this suggest the downvoters only prove how many people dismiss the question. I think in the very least it's clear this isn't simply about "loving industries".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it was a sarcastic attempt to point out the nonsense of comparing two completely disparate things. I suppose it failed. Enjoy the nonsense!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe 90% disparate things, but the question is about the one thing they have in common, that 10% of things which they successfully have in common, because that's what I was wondering about.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

While vegetarians won't eat things that caused harm to produce

This is nonsense, since there is a lot of animal harm involved in the production of eggs and milk.

And I don't see the contradiction you are seeing. Your piracy argument is pro music/movie industry and the vegan argument is against the meat industry. Doesn't make much sense to equate those arguments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Not sure if I follow. Are we talking about the people that produce cracks to pirate stuff (ex. empress?). I am also vegetarian but one thing that I always keep in mind is: "There's no ethical consumption under capitalism". At the same time I believe people are able to influence the world for the better by doing what they believe is right (hence not eating meat, reducing carbon footprint etc).

If your question is regarding the consumption of piracy in general I'd say there are things I would never pirate (indie games) and others that I almost feel obligated to do so (hello Nintendo). I will never give the same importance if I'm hurting a company bottom line as I do to animal suffering/explotation.

At the same time, I don't care too much about validation from other people. There are many looking for ways to feel better about themselves through putting others down.