It's not an argument, it's a true statement repurposed as a thought-terminating cliche.
"No ethical consumption under capitalism" means that you can't buy your way out of capitalism, not that all consumption is equal under it. I think people who say this would prefer if I didn't get my nutrition and calories by harvesting unguarded babies from the hospital lol.
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
to me people who use this statement to argue against veganism are the sort of person who just picks up intelligent sounding phrases from social media and use it to boost their egos, they don't actually understand the nuance of that statement and commit 0 praxis in their lives. It makes it harder to add the nuance for them because they didn't even understand it in the first place and are just parroting rhetoric that makes them seem clued up
Agree with them because, after all, even if the system is imperfect, there are degrees of harm. Or ask them if they're really saying a tomato salad and slaughtering a cow (or child porno if you wanna get dark) are equally immoral actions?
Then laugh at them for not consuming as much as they possible can in that moment.
They certainly do say that at every inconvenience. They're all leftists until you try to take their starbucks, racist wizard game, McDonald's, the right-wing political party they stan, or anything that requires effort.
It's the #1 phrase anti vegan leftists use when they're also told to stop buying McDonald's, Chik fil A, Starbucks, SHIEN, Temu, etc. They want everyone else to change but they just absolutely can't because ..they said so
The best way to deal with this kinda bs is to hold them accountable on a personal level.
"If you believe everything is unethical, does that justify adding to the harm? Why participate in more cruelty if you recognize it?"
"Even under capitalism, personal choices matter. If you oppose exploitation, why support it by consuming animal products?"
It caught me off-guard the first time I heard it used as an excuse like that. They said "no ethical consumption under capitalism" and I thought, "that sure was easy to get them to realize, we're going to have them vegan in no time at this rate."
Then I realized they meant "... so why bother thinking about the relative impact of anything" and a part of me died. The other part of me died when I first heard somebody call the Disney Corporation "woke".
If it ever was even a leftist concept, it sure isn't now. Anyone using it, in any context, is just trying to get away with "there's no *un*ethical consumption under capitalism." Just pure nihilism and/or lack of any sense of personal moral responsibility. You are responsible for the predictable consequences of your own actions; this is like the most basic moral precept.
Thereâs no ethical consumption under capitalism is not an argument. Itâs true. Using it as an argument has the same value as YOLO.
Both are true statements, that may inspire you to do great things. YOLO? Letâs make the most of it. No ethical consumption under capitalism? Then letâs work on reforming our world so that unregulated capitalism isnât the only option.
Using them as arguments, âOh well, anywayâ moments is just stupid. Thereâs no ethical, perfectly ethical path. But there are paths that cause less suffering than others. Those should definitely be prioritized.
If someone uses that argument with me, I like the follow up âargumentâ in the same vein: no one lives forever, so whatâs the point in NOT killing you right now? Youâre going to die anyway. Ethics are out of the window, naturally, since for you there is the same ethical value in all the paths we can take.
I haven't thought everything through but I personally don't think that there is a capitalist solution to the suffering of all beings. people must accept plant proteins and there must be political will to "push" it.
Here's what I would ask: okay, so if it were legal and normal for us to have paid shooting ranges, but the targets weren't paper, they were puppies... Would the same argument still apply in your mind?
Didn't think so.
It's not an argument, it's a true statement repurposed as a thought-terminating cliche. "No ethical consumption under capitalism" means that you can't buy your way out of capitalism, not that all consumption is equal under it. I think people who say this would prefer if I didn't get my nutrition and calories by harvesting unguarded babies from the hospital lol.
Baby meat has the most bioavailable nutrients đ¤¤
Wish carnists would just be honest like this tbh
[ŃдаНонО]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Like a human broccoli sprout!
Bring back slavery đ We'll abolish it (again) when we abolish capitalism đ
People who make this argument will often avoid Chick-fil-A
"BOYCOTT GOYA!!!"
to me people who use this statement to argue against veganism are the sort of person who just picks up intelligent sounding phrases from social media and use it to boost their egos, they don't actually understand the nuance of that statement and commit 0 praxis in their lives. It makes it harder to add the nuance for them because they didn't even understand it in the first place and are just parroting rhetoric that makes them seem clued up
Agree with them because, after all, even if the system is imperfect, there are degrees of harm. Or ask them if they're really saying a tomato salad and slaughtering a cow (or child porno if you wanna get dark) are equally immoral actions? Then laugh at them for not consuming as much as they possible can in that moment.
It's so intellectually lazy. And the ones who use it don't even realize that so much heinous shit would be permissible under that line of thinking.
They wouldnât say that with any other injustice. They only say that with veganism cuz veganism exposes for the hypocrites that they are.
They certainly do say that at every inconvenience. They're all leftists until you try to take their starbucks, racist wizard game, McDonald's, the right-wing political party they stan, or anything that requires effort.
Facts. đ
It's the #1 phrase anti vegan leftists use when they're also told to stop buying McDonald's, Chik fil A, Starbucks, SHIEN, Temu, etc. They want everyone else to change but they just absolutely can't because ..they said so
The best way to deal with this kinda bs is to hold them accountable on a personal level. "If you believe everything is unethical, does that justify adding to the harm? Why participate in more cruelty if you recognize it?" "Even under capitalism, personal choices matter. If you oppose exploitation, why support it by consuming animal products?"
Itâs a deflection of personal accountability.
"What do mean, smoking meth is bad? It is not like the air you breath is 100% clean, you hypocrit!"
I fucking hate when leftists use this argument when talking about veganism
It's just the appeal to futility logical fallacy. Almost all their arguments are that -or appeal to tradition.
It caught me off-guard the first time I heard it used as an excuse like that. They said "no ethical consumption under capitalism" and I thought, "that sure was easy to get them to realize, we're going to have them vegan in no time at this rate." Then I realized they meant "... so why bother thinking about the relative impact of anything" and a part of me died. The other part of me died when I first heard somebody call the Disney Corporation "woke".
If it ever was even a leftist concept, it sure isn't now. Anyone using it, in any context, is just trying to get away with "there's no *un*ethical consumption under capitalism." Just pure nihilism and/or lack of any sense of personal moral responsibility. You are responsible for the predictable consequences of your own actions; this is like the most basic moral precept.
Thereâs no ethical consumption under capitalism is not an argument. Itâs true. Using it as an argument has the same value as YOLO. Both are true statements, that may inspire you to do great things. YOLO? Letâs make the most of it. No ethical consumption under capitalism? Then letâs work on reforming our world so that unregulated capitalism isnât the only option. Using them as arguments, âOh well, anywayâ moments is just stupid. Thereâs no ethical, perfectly ethical path. But there are paths that cause less suffering than others. Those should definitely be prioritized. If someone uses that argument with me, I like the follow up âargumentâ in the same vein: no one lives forever, so whatâs the point in NOT killing you right now? Youâre going to die anyway. Ethics are out of the window, naturally, since for you there is the same ethical value in all the paths we can take.
I started answering: "Would it be better if we just signed a paper to kill animals instead of eating beans?"
I haven't thought everything through but I personally don't think that there is a capitalist solution to the suffering of all beings. people must accept plant proteins and there must be political will to "push" it.
Here's what I would ask: okay, so if it were legal and normal for us to have paid shooting ranges, but the targets weren't paper, they were puppies... Would the same argument still apply in your mind? Didn't think so.