Uh. I am saying that literally Adolf fucking Hitler shouldn’t be defended regardless of how you feel about kittens. Not sure what you are saying but I do not in fact think that a million mosquitos - neither in my bedroom nor anywhere else - are more important than any random person, unless that person is a Hitler level prick. Maybe I have misunderstood your comment but I really am not sure what’s up here.
Sorry, genuinely asking- how does the framing inevitably lead to white supremacist views?
I personally enjoy these sorts of thought experiments / hypotheticals to explore my values. Of course, I don’t use them in debates or as some sort of “gotcha”
It’s also strange, to me, seeing idealism shat on here
I feel like I must be missing something and fundamentally misunderstanding your point
“One being is inherently worth more than another and that therefore means that it’s okay to kill the inferior” seems like it can’t lead to any end point except some kind of racial supremacy as far as I’m concerned. There are two obvious flaws that lead there
The idea that lives can/should be compared as more or less deserving based on traits of birth rather than choices made
The idea that the more deserving have some authority to murder the less deserving for some unexplained reason
??? It doesn’t inherently mean it’s okay to kill the other. And what does race have to do with it?
If someone asked me whether I’d rather save a person of color or a white person- I have no rational preference, so I’d pass. Boring question.
This is about different species though. E.g., the parent comment posed a bunch of cows vs a kitten. If I could save a bunch of cows by killing a kitten, I’d do it. Now you and I have just learned something about my values, and I think that’s neat.
Then we really get into moral dilemmas with human vs non-human. I know the trolley problem is controversial, but it’s a genuinely great way to explore values. If I had to choose between killing 1 cow or 1 person, I’d choose the cow. But what about several cows? If a genie popped up and told me I could magically make the whole world vegan, but one random human would die a sudden tragic death, I’d make that deal. Where’s my line though? There must be a specific number at which I switch from sparing the human to sacrificing the human. These questions are about discovering those boundaries for yourself, and I don’t think that’s bad
It doesn’t inherently mean it’s okay to kill the other.
But that’s literally the view that it is being used to support.
And what does race have to do with it?
You don’t see how “I’ve decided based on traits inherent to their birth that this being doesn’t deserve to live” could trigger alarms relating to racism?
But that’s literally the view that it is being used to support.
No it’s not
You don’t see how “I’ve decided based on traits inherent to their birth that this being doesn’t deserve to live” could trigger alarms relating to racism?
I realize that speciesism is similar to racism. I made a whole zine about that in college. But you can’t just entirely conflate them- that feels even more racist
Sorry, I think you’re deep enough in Debate Land that you’ve lost sight of what we’re actually talking about. Take a step back and just look at the original post, and then at the top level comment which this conversation is replying to, and try again.
I’ve been doing that each time I reply and I’m still baffled. I wasn’t being rhetorical when I said I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding, but I’m beginning to question whether that misunderstanding is actually not on my part as I had original suspected
I guess we just exist in completely separate realities then. In the universe I’m from, the original post is about vegan discussion being banned from a subreddit and the mods of that subreddit justifying killing non-human animals by saying that their lives are worth less than human lives. The top level comment we’re replying to in my universe is a direct criticism of this logic.
Perhaps in your universe the original post is about how the moon is made of cheese and the top level comment is a detailed review of Morbius.
None of the people you responded to even so much as scratched you, yet somehow it took you little to no prompting to start emitting hitlerite particles as early as your second sentence. Incredible
I feel like I’m going crazy here. Please share what I said that comes across as hitlerite and, if you wouldn’t mind, explain why?
I realize this will probably come across like sealioning but I’m genuinely so confused. I’m a vegan, an anarchist, and a social worker therapist. I’m being sincere here
Oh are we valuing life? Are we doing thought experiments of who gets to who lives and who doesn’t? What a normal thing to do, lets go:
.
.
your family pet or your child?
your family pet or your family home?
your family pet or your childs college?
your family pet or your family vacation?
your family pet or one days worth of food?
your family pet or your gaming pc?
100000000000 cows or one kitten?
and so on…
the answer of course is that it’s all pure idealism and the framing is set up in a way that inevitably leads to white supremacist views
I mean mostly of course this is a nonsense discourse but I would choose the one kitten over the thousand Hitlers and it’s not even close
i would choose a million mosquitoes in my bedroom over a below averagely annoying human
Uh. I am saying that literally Adolf fucking Hitler shouldn’t be defended regardless of how you feel about kittens. Not sure what you are saying but I do not in fact think that a million mosquitos - neither in my bedroom nor anywhere else - are more important than any random person, unless that person is a Hitler level prick. Maybe I have misunderstood your comment but I really am not sure what’s up here.
Sorry, genuinely asking- how does the framing inevitably lead to white supremacist views?
I personally enjoy these sorts of thought experiments / hypotheticals to explore my values. Of course, I don’t use them in debates or as some sort of “gotcha”
It’s also strange, to me, seeing idealism shat on here
I feel like I must be missing something and fundamentally misunderstanding your point
“One being is inherently worth more than another and that therefore means that it’s okay to kill the inferior” seems like it can’t lead to any end point except some kind of racial supremacy as far as I’m concerned. There are two obvious flaws that lead there
The idea that lives can/should be compared as more or less deserving based on traits of birth rather than choices made
The idea that the more deserving have some authority to murder the less deserving for some unexplained reason
??? It doesn’t inherently mean it’s okay to kill the other. And what does race have to do with it?
If someone asked me whether I’d rather save a person of color or a white person- I have no rational preference, so I’d pass. Boring question.
This is about different species though. E.g., the parent comment posed a bunch of cows vs a kitten. If I could save a bunch of cows by killing a kitten, I’d do it. Now you and I have just learned something about my values, and I think that’s neat.
Then we really get into moral dilemmas with human vs non-human. I know the trolley problem is controversial, but it’s a genuinely great way to explore values. If I had to choose between killing 1 cow or 1 person, I’d choose the cow. But what about several cows? If a genie popped up and told me I could magically make the whole world vegan, but one random human would die a sudden tragic death, I’d make that deal. Where’s my line though? There must be a specific number at which I switch from sparing the human to sacrificing the human. These questions are about discovering those boundaries for yourself, and I don’t think that’s bad
But that’s literally the view that it is being used to support.
You don’t see how “I’ve decided based on traits inherent to their birth that this being doesn’t deserve to live” could trigger alarms relating to racism?
No it’s not
I realize that speciesism is similar to racism. I made a whole zine about that in college. But you can’t just entirely conflate them- that feels even more racist
Sorry, I think you’re deep enough in Debate Land that you’ve lost sight of what we’re actually talking about. Take a step back and just look at the original post, and then at the top level comment which this conversation is replying to, and try again.
Or in short, yuh-huh.
I’ve been doing that each time I reply and I’m still baffled. I wasn’t being rhetorical when I said I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding, but I’m beginning to question whether that misunderstanding is actually not on my part as I had original suspected
I guess we just exist in completely separate realities then. In the universe I’m from, the original post is about vegan discussion being banned from a subreddit and the mods of that subreddit justifying killing non-human animals by saying that their lives are worth less than human lives. The top level comment we’re replying to in my universe is a direct criticism of this logic.
Perhaps in your universe the original post is about how the moon is made of cheese and the top level comment is a detailed review of Morbius.
New tagline, also I hope you get banned soon.
Literally what is happening here?
None of the people you responded to even so much as scratched you, yet somehow it took you little to no prompting to start emitting hitlerite particles as early as your second sentence. Incredible
I feel like I’m going crazy here. Please share what I said that comes across as hitlerite and, if you wouldn’t mind, explain why?
I realize this will probably come across like sealioning but I’m genuinely so confused. I’m a vegan, an anarchist, and a social worker therapist. I’m being sincere here