75% of the anti-piracy discussions I see rarely blame companies like Nintendo or Disney and always try to talk about how piracy is immoral, and you should feel “dirty” for doing it. My question is why do people seem to hate those who pirate more than the bad practices of mega-corporations or the fact that they don’t want to preserve their media?
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness. They are just as aware and alive as fungi and plants. Otherwise we would feel great remorse when examining all the slaughtered insects on the front of our motor vehicles.
First of all, current data on the sentience of insects, crustaceans, and mollusks are, at the most, uncertain regarding whether or not these animals have sentience, not definitively conclusive in the direction of them not having sentience. And even if they were to actually not be sentient, this is honestly just a red herring unless these are the ONLY animals that you are responsible for the enslavement, exploitation, and slaughter of, but you are clearly very disingenuous. Other animals that you endorse being exploited and tortured, such as cows and pigs, objectively have been confirmed to have consciousness (read the fucking study), so how is this even relevant? As far as the point about running them over with motor vehicles, some degree of animal suffering like this is inevitable, but to purport that the existence of inevitable unintentional animal suffering justifies deliberately funding farm animals being shoved into gas chambers just for personal pleasure is nothing more than an appeal to futility fallacy. Humans have died in the construction of houses, but I’m not seeing you say that it’s okay to deliberately murder humans to eat them simply because so many people are living in houses and they cannot guarantee that the construction of such houses did not cause any human death.
Fish, are slightly more aware, but I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains.
“I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains.”
By you using such “I” phrasing, you are inadvertently admitting that you are not going off of scientific consensus (which you’ve already proved yourself to be really fucking bad at anyway), but rather “personal vibes about their tiny brains, bro.” Like, even this study provides support for this claim within the very first sentence of its abstract, in addition to all of the intricacies pertaining to the research conducted to gain this information, of course.
But not all death is painful. Many humans seek a dignified and painless death.
This is irrelevant, as we don’t necessarily say that it is morally acceptable to take the life of a human so long as you do it in a painless way. In these scenarios, you are referring to a human going through a “dignified and painless death.” These often involve matters of consensual euthanasia and/or mental illness.
If someone went into your house while you were sleeping at 3 AM and did an instantly lethal, painless blow to your head with a firearm, would you consider that morally acceptable due to the “painless” nature of the death?
Domesticated animals for the most part have the ability to escape, if they wanted to express their consciousness and free will. The process of domestication is an evolutionary choice. Chickens and other livestock are suffering today because their ancestors gave away their freedom for security.
I am baffled by how much you can reach. You are claiming that because humans have been able to seize the wild ancestors of modern-day domesticated farm animals, that means these animals “gave their freedom away.” You’re so rhetorically illiterate that I keep thinking with each read of your words that I will not see mental gymnastics more absurd than what you’ve already put out, but you keep proving me wrong! This is also a baseless claim, as you obviously were not around to witness how humans went about capturing these wild ancestors. It reeks of a victim-blaming mentality as well, saying that “If the animals didn’t want humans to exploit them, they should’ve just escaped!” This is not shocking for someone who “does not equate death or servitude with suffering,” though.
As far as the animals we have today, domesticated animals cannot last in the wild, so escaping could lead them into a dangerous situation as well; that’s exactly why we call them DOMESTICATED. Exploitative humans have selectively bred and genetically modified these animals to be meat, milk, and egg-producing machines. By utilizing manmade restraining devices, such as those that are literally called r— racks. I should add, humans keep these animals unable to escape, but they still try to escape in whatever capacity they can.
Actually I think dogs collectively suffer more than most of our livestock. For them, death is out of reach. Their suffering is prolonged. Their mutations and genetic deficiencies are cruel. Many dogs are born with such horrible genes and behaviors they have no hope of a quality life with humans. Very sad.
Wait a minute. I thought that you did not believe in the sentience of animals, so why do you worry about dogs? You’re contradicting yourself! Also, yes, dogs are also victims of speciesism, human supremacy, and animal exploitation, so don’t support the pet industry, and if you want to be logically consistent, eschew the dairy, egg, and meat industry while you’re at it.
Anyway, there is no objective truth on this matter. But I know you care so much about suffering, I just want to reassure you, that I feel no sorrow for livestock.
There are studies that objectively indicate these things, but seeing as how undialectical and unscientific you are, you have deliberately chosen to neglect the actual peer-reviewed studies I have sent you because you know that being faced with information that makes a strong case against your already abhorrent rhetoric would strike too much of a nerve.
Saying “I feel no sorrow for livestock” is just giving your personal opinion on a matter, but lacking sympathy for another sentient being still does not serve as a moral justification for the exploitation and slaughtering of that sentient being. If a Klansman said, “I feel no sorrow for black people,” surely you wouldn’t think that his lynchings are now morally justified, right?
Everything we eat and purchase impacts the animals on this planet. To exist is to impose suffering on the Earth. And I’m okay with that.
Once again, this is an appeal to futility. Yes, we all cause some degree of harm and suffering just by existing, but that doesn’t mean deliberately going out of your way to uphold harm and suffering is morally acceptable, and it certainly does not make the slavery aspect of animal oppression morally acceptable either. This isn’t about whether or not you’re okay with these things. Morality is a two-way street, just like how the Klansman in that hypothetical isn’t morally justified by neglecting the interests of his black victims and only focusing on what he thinks alone.
My opinion, is that vegans are drawing a line in sand so feint that it is erased by the slightest breeze.
My brother in Christ, you are the one who literally rejected fish sentience on the basis of pure vibes rather than evidence. If you’re going back to what you said about insects, crustaceans, and mollusks, then once again, I challenge you to tell me exactly how that justifies what you’re doing to animals that are not within those categories. You also seem to have sympathy for dogs even though you literally stated, “I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering,” so whose lines are arbitrary again?
I nearly spared you this because you are so deeply unserious and one of the worst instances of a rhetorically illiterate carnist who spouts absurd takes in an effort to come off as some degree of logically consistent, but quite frankly, it’d truthfully just be far more honorable for you to own up to your shortcomings here.
You didn’t even have to bring up veganism to begin with, as the original thread has nothing to do with it. You brought it upon yourself because you saw a sliver of some chance to cope. If it’s striking that much of a nerve that you need to grasp at so many straws to attempt to defend carnism this poorly out of nowhere, then go vegan for fuck’s sake.
Thank you for the very detailed response. This is a discussion about piracy. It’s interesting to speak of coping and projection. You know a lot of the most hateful homophobes keep coming out of the closet as gay? I think this kind of hate is very prevalent in our society. Basically you hate that somebody who doesn’t share your moral restrictions, who is out there enjoying life without a care in the world. A kind of moral jealousy. “I have to live with this burden and it’s unfair for somebody else to live without it”. I said it in my original comment and now I will emphasize it in response to your wall of text. Your contempt for me is the same as closet gay homophobes. In this analogy my love for cheese is gay sex, and you think you hate it because your religion (your moral code) is correct, but you actually hate it because you are deprived of it, and it’s unfair that I can enjoy it without guilt. This brings us full circle to the original question about why I think some people view piracy negatively.
It seems you think that all non-vegans must be ignorant. “If only 90% of the population would read the scientific literature or if they were aware of how their animal products came to market, they’d all be vegan”. I am aware of the indirect consequences of my actions and I carry on so I must be some kind of monster. Clearly I am not your brother in Christ, rather a spawn of Satan or perhaps worse. Perhaps I’m just a creature of this earth. A natural consequence of everything up until now.
It is absolutely futile. Being a vegan is like recycling. If it makes you feel better about your life, good. But anybody with the privilege to debate such things, with the worldwide industrial grocery selection to even contemplate veganism, has a huge wake of environmental destruction associated with existing. All the fuel that’s been burned, all of the lumber, loss of habitat for your dwelling. Every time you bathe a freshwater fish or amphibian dries up. Don’t worry about it. I forgive you. It’s not your fault. It’s not your burden. You are a worthy allocation of this planets resources. Thank you for your insight.
Noone said you couldn’t comprehend it, but that you chose not to. You haven’t replied to any of the contradictions they pointed out either, which makes it look like you either aren’t reading the replies or you think for some reason they dont require a rebuttal.
They don’t require rebuttal because they weren’t related to the original statement, and actually only serve to reinforce it along with the rest of this brigade.
The question is why do people hate media pirates and I made a comparison to vegans hating omnivores. That it’s a moral high road and those on the high road spew shit down to those who aren’t on it. The only logical rebuttal to that point would be a bunch of vegans saying “whoa hey that’s not fair, I don’t hate anybody else for their choices”. And I’m sure those people are out there and to them I apologize for the generalization.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
First of all, current data on the sentience of insects, crustaceans, and mollusks are, at the most, uncertain regarding whether or not these animals have sentience, not definitively conclusive in the direction of them not having sentience. And even if they were to actually not be sentient, this is honestly just a red herring unless these are the ONLY animals that you are responsible for the enslavement, exploitation, and slaughter of, but you are clearly very disingenuous. Other animals that you endorse being exploited and tortured, such as cows and pigs, objectively have been confirmed to have consciousness (read the fucking study), so how is this even relevant? As far as the point about running them over with motor vehicles, some degree of animal suffering like this is inevitable, but to purport that the existence of inevitable unintentional animal suffering justifies deliberately funding farm animals being shoved into gas chambers just for personal pleasure is nothing more than an appeal to futility fallacy. Humans have died in the construction of houses, but I’m not seeing you say that it’s okay to deliberately murder humans to eat them simply because so many people are living in houses and they cannot guarantee that the construction of such houses did not cause any human death.
“I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains.”
By you using such “I” phrasing, you are inadvertently admitting that you are not going off of scientific consensus (which you’ve already proved yourself to be really fucking bad at anyway), but rather “personal vibes about their tiny brains, bro.” Like, even this study provides support for this claim within the very first sentence of its abstract, in addition to all of the intricacies pertaining to the research conducted to gain this information, of course.
This is irrelevant, as we don’t necessarily say that it is morally acceptable to take the life of a human so long as you do it in a painless way. In these scenarios, you are referring to a human going through a “dignified and painless death.” These often involve matters of consensual euthanasia and/or mental illness.
If someone went into your house while you were sleeping at 3 AM and did an instantly lethal, painless blow to your head with a firearm, would you consider that morally acceptable due to the “painless” nature of the death?
I am baffled by how much you can reach. You are claiming that because humans have been able to seize the wild ancestors of modern-day domesticated farm animals, that means these animals “gave their freedom away.” You’re so rhetorically illiterate that I keep thinking with each read of your words that I will not see mental gymnastics more absurd than what you’ve already put out, but you keep proving me wrong! This is also a baseless claim, as you obviously were not around to witness how humans went about capturing these wild ancestors. It reeks of a victim-blaming mentality as well, saying that “If the animals didn’t want humans to exploit them, they should’ve just escaped!” This is not shocking for someone who “does not equate death or servitude with suffering,” though.
As far as the animals we have today, domesticated animals cannot last in the wild, so escaping could lead them into a dangerous situation as well; that’s exactly why we call them DOMESTICATED. Exploitative humans have selectively bred and genetically modified these animals to be meat, milk, and egg-producing machines. By utilizing manmade restraining devices, such as those that are literally called r— racks. I should add, humans keep these animals unable to escape, but they still try to escape in whatever capacity they can.
Wait a minute. I thought that you did not believe in the sentience of animals, so why do you worry about dogs? You’re contradicting yourself! Also, yes, dogs are also victims of speciesism, human supremacy, and animal exploitation, so don’t support the pet industry, and if you want to be logically consistent, eschew the dairy, egg, and meat industry while you’re at it.
There are studies that objectively indicate these things, but seeing as how undialectical and unscientific you are, you have deliberately chosen to neglect the actual peer-reviewed studies I have sent you because you know that being faced with information that makes a strong case against your already abhorrent rhetoric would strike too much of a nerve.
Saying “I feel no sorrow for livestock” is just giving your personal opinion on a matter, but lacking sympathy for another sentient being still does not serve as a moral justification for the exploitation and slaughtering of that sentient being. If a Klansman said, “I feel no sorrow for black people,” surely you wouldn’t think that his lynchings are now morally justified, right?
Once again, this is an appeal to futility. Yes, we all cause some degree of harm and suffering just by existing, but that doesn’t mean deliberately going out of your way to uphold harm and suffering is morally acceptable, and it certainly does not make the slavery aspect of animal oppression morally acceptable either. This isn’t about whether or not you’re okay with these things. Morality is a two-way street, just like how the Klansman in that hypothetical isn’t morally justified by neglecting the interests of his black victims and only focusing on what he thinks alone.
My brother in Christ, you are the one who literally rejected fish sentience on the basis of pure vibes rather than evidence. If you’re going back to what you said about insects, crustaceans, and mollusks, then once again, I challenge you to tell me exactly how that justifies what you’re doing to animals that are not within those categories. You also seem to have sympathy for dogs even though you literally stated, “I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering,” so whose lines are arbitrary again?
I nearly spared you this because you are so deeply unserious and one of the worst instances of a rhetorically illiterate carnist who spouts absurd takes in an effort to come off as some degree of logically consistent, but quite frankly, it’d truthfully just be far more honorable for you to own up to your shortcomings here.
You didn’t even have to bring up veganism to begin with, as the original thread has nothing to do with it. You brought it upon yourself because you saw a sliver of some chance to cope. If it’s striking that much of a nerve that you need to grasp at so many straws to attempt to defend carnism this poorly out of nowhere, then go vegan for fuck’s sake.
Thank you for the very detailed response. This is a discussion about piracy. It’s interesting to speak of coping and projection. You know a lot of the most hateful homophobes keep coming out of the closet as gay? I think this kind of hate is very prevalent in our society. Basically you hate that somebody who doesn’t share your moral restrictions, who is out there enjoying life without a care in the world. A kind of moral jealousy. “I have to live with this burden and it’s unfair for somebody else to live without it”. I said it in my original comment and now I will emphasize it in response to your wall of text. Your contempt for me is the same as closet gay homophobes. In this analogy my love for cheese is gay sex, and you think you hate it because your religion (your moral code) is correct, but you actually hate it because you are deprived of it, and it’s unfair that I can enjoy it without guilt. This brings us full circle to the original question about why I think some people view piracy negatively.
It seems you think that all non-vegans must be ignorant. “If only 90% of the population would read the scientific literature or if they were aware of how their animal products came to market, they’d all be vegan”. I am aware of the indirect consequences of my actions and I carry on so I must be some kind of monster. Clearly I am not your brother in Christ, rather a spawn of Satan or perhaps worse. Perhaps I’m just a creature of this earth. A natural consequence of everything up until now.
It is absolutely futile. Being a vegan is like recycling. If it makes you feel better about your life, good. But anybody with the privilege to debate such things, with the worldwide industrial grocery selection to even contemplate veganism, has a huge wake of environmental destruction associated with existing. All the fuel that’s been burned, all of the lumber, loss of habitat for your dwelling. Every time you bathe a freshwater fish or amphibian dries up. Don’t worry about it. I forgive you. It’s not your fault. It’s not your burden. You are a worthy allocation of this planets resources. Thank you for your insight.
You’re the one who brought up veganism you complete fucking clown
And, it seems from the response that it was a spot on analogy.
I can see how you’d think that if you didn’t make any attempt at all to understand what Angel was trying to tell you.
Whoosh. Clearly I lack the reading comprehension to understand. I just need to look at the facts harder and then I’ll become vegan.
Noone said you couldn’t comprehend it, but that you chose not to. You haven’t replied to any of the contradictions they pointed out either, which makes it look like you either aren’t reading the replies or you think for some reason they dont require a rebuttal.
They don’t require rebuttal because they weren’t related to the original statement, and actually only serve to reinforce it along with the rest of this brigade.
The question is why do people hate media pirates and I made a comparison to vegans hating omnivores. That it’s a moral high road and those on the high road spew shit down to those who aren’t on it. The only logical rebuttal to that point would be a bunch of vegans saying “whoa hey that’s not fair, I don’t hate anybody else for their choices”. And I’m sure those people are out there and to them I apologize for the generalization.
Fair point but you seem to be doing the same moral high roading yourself.