Angel

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that your morals are the "correct morals" while everyone else who doesn't align with you is incorrect. That's a textbook definition of this fallacy.

No, "begging the question" refers to circular logic. What you're stating is actually called a belief in moral realism, which is a different subject altogether. How are you going to throw out an accusation of a fallacy so damn smugly and then proceed to say that I engaged in a textbook example of the fallacy when you clearly struggle to even know what said fallacy means?

Furthermore, if you're appealing to moral relativism, you could easily reductio this to some absurd conclusions, like saying "My personal morals justify SA, so stop thinking you're superior for opposing SA!"

That's exactly what it is. Disagree? Explain in detail; don't just say it like it's obvious and a "no shit" kind of take.

That's not what veganism is. Veganism is a deontic stance against animal exploitation, and this is common knowledge for many people, even if not for an overwhelming majority of carnists. Not going to zoos, not wearing leather, boycotting the pet industry, and abstaining from riding horses have nothing to do with diet, but they are still aspects of a vegan lifestyle. Acknowledging these things, however, would come with a more explicitly ethical consideration, so you avoid such an acknowledgement because you're unable to narrow these things down to this trivial dietary choice you're framing veganism as.

Where has that happened here? I challenge you to quote the comment stating as much. Seems like you're strawmanning here.

None of your comments discuss veganism in the context of it being a philosophy and a principle, but every single one of your comments have tried to drive home this ad hominem.

Examples:

And here's that exact superiority complex on display for all to see.
What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they're morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another?
I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can't help but talk about how superior their choices are.

"Veganism isn't about me, but if you criticize me personally, you're criticizing veganism!"

What is nuance? You are criticizing vegans for advocating for the victims of their movement, which is a criticism of veganism in and of itself, even if you do not realize this and do the pseudo-respectful, "I don't mind you being vegan as long as you don't push your lifestyle onto other people!" You clearly don't agree with veganism ethically because you support animal exploitation and slaughter, so my point is that, instead of actually trying to argue a case for why veganism is ethically incorrect, instead, you decided to just adhere to the classic ad hominem tactic that carnists abuse the shit out of all the time. Also, you have a very one-dimensional, myopic way of thinking. Even in cases where a justice movement isn't about the supporters of a movement itself, insulting the supporters of that movement still comes with the negative connotation of undermining the validity of the movement. For instance, if you insulted a male feminist, a cishet ally of the LGBTQ+ community, and a white advocate for racial justice for being "pushy" about their beliefs, you are giving away an indication that you disagree with the advocacy of their respective movements on some level.

This is hilariously illogical. It reads like someone whose brain is short circuiting from all the cognitive dissonance.

This is hilariously ironic. It's starting to read like parody even!

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.

This is a "begging the question" logical fallacy

How is asserting "It doesn't seem morally superior to hold others to the exact same moral standard as me" circular reasoning? Explain in detail; don't just say it like it's obvious and a "no shit" kind of take.

What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they're morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another? You're projecting here.

You are disingenuously undermining what veganism is by phrasing it as a trivial dietary choice. And once again, this isn't about whether vegans are "morally superior" or not. You can engage in ideas without using such an ad hominem as a cushion for your own guilt, but you are still actually refusing to do so. There is no reason why veganism, as a subject, should get an automatic quick dismissal via accusations of a "superiority complex" than any other subject. For instance, I take it and hope that you wouldn't say "anti-racists think they're so superior to racists 🙄," but doing so holds the exact same amount of weight as what you're doing right now with veganism. You're using a thought-terminating cliché to degrade the person asserting an idea rather than discussing the idea itself.

I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can't help but talk about how superior their choices are.

There is a reason why I said "veganism isn't about me." You are committing victim erasure by glossing over the fact that I made very clear that veganism is a justice movement that takes a stand for victims. And once again, you are just repeating the same exact issue of ad hominem and a thought-terminating cliché by calling vegans "self-righteous" and disingenuously strawmanning them as people who just want to circlejerk about the "superiority of their choices" rather than engage in and advocate for a justice movement.

I feel no guilt for eating the diet of every single one of my ancestors.

Appeal to tradition.

I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering

Objectively false belief. Source

Also, saying "I do not equate death or servitude with suffering" is just using an absurd personal opinion to invalidate objective considerations. It'd be like me saying, "I don't associate shouting slurs at racial minorities with racism," to validate such an act. In either case, neither distortion serves as a justification for this wicked behavior.

But it’s like a religion - you have a fundamental belief, not in god, but in the consciousness of animals.

False equivalence. One belief is speculative and far more abstract, but the other belief has legitimate concrete evidence to support it. Once again, read the very comprehensive analysis.

People who pay for media may also see it as an ethical baseline to pay for what you consume.

Again, this is a false equivalence, and it seems that you are abusing the notion of morality being subjective in order to justify an immoral act. You could also easily say something like "People who refrain from assaulting innocent people see it as an ethical baseline, but I don't" as a bad attempt at justifying assaulting innocent people, but it won't hold weight on its own. You have to provide a solid basis for why such an equivalence actually makes sense, but you do not. You just state it like it's plainly obvious and doesn't need further details.

This is so copey that it hardly deserves a full-fledged response. Please know that this comment isn't the "own" you think it is. You're embarrassing yourself.

How so? I literally stated that they have the exact same capacity as me to understand why veganism is a moral obligation. Such an understanding isn't hard to grasp, and I'm no ascended, especially enlightened person for being vegan. If I believed myself to be, I'd have no reason to hold others to the same standard. The incentive lies in the fact that carnism comes with victims; veganism isn't about me.

Regardless, this is an ad hominem and, as I stated, a thought-terminating cliché. It's a loophole to avoid engaging with ideas via focusing on the people expressing such ideas instead. Do you have any actual insight regarding the assertions I'm making or is it just cope?

Same reason vegans hate on omnivores - they’ve taken the high road and the benefits are small while the cost is high.

This "vegans have a superiority complex" take is a thought-terminating cliché ultimately rooted in projection. Since vegans make you feel self-conscious about the unethicality of your carnist tendencies, you divert to accusations of a "superiority complex" when that is just the result of you internally grappling with the cognitive dissonance you have when it comes to funding animal exploitation that you have no proper justification for.

Veganism is a justice movement, and vegans express disdain for non-vegans because they often double down on their oppressive tendencies that keep animals enslaved, exploited, and slaughtered. I don't think I'm superior to you because, just like me, you have the capacity to understand why you shouldn't support the oppression of sentient beings. Not only do you have the capacity to understand it, but you can take that to its logical conclusion and live in a way that is in accordance with said understanding.

Also, the framing is off here. A principled ethical vegan doesn't see veganism as a "benefit;" we see it as a moral obligation and baseline. Saying that veganism comes with "benefits" is like saying that refraining from calling racial minorities ethnic slurs comes with "benefits," when it's actually just basic decency toward BIPOC.