Alright, well at least you and I can agree with Isaac Bashevis Singer that even if animals aren’t slaves, they sure are holocaust victims:
What do they know-all these scholars, all these philosophers, all the leaders of the world - about such as you? They have convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other creatures were created merely to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka.
of course the Holocaust is similar to animal agriculture: it was based on the same techniques. but it was abhorrent precisely because it was dehumanizing, treating people like animals. treating animals like animals is fine
Seems like every material similarity. You’re only arguing they aren’t slaves because you think there’s a subjective difference from the animal’s point of view, right?
Personhood does not exist in nature. It’s a social construct. It’s artificial, we built it. Therefore, we can build it how we like. I’d rather believe all sentients are people.
Alright, well at least you and I can agree with Isaac Bashevis Singer that even if animals aren’t slaves, they sure are holocaust victims:
of course the Holocaust is similar to animal agriculture: it was based on the same techniques. but it was abhorrent precisely because it was dehumanizing, treating people like animals. treating animals like animals is fine
Well then perhaps we can agree that slavery is horrible because it treats beings like animals, and therefore animals are slaves.
no, animals aren’t slaves.
Seems like every material similarity. You’re only arguing they aren’t slaves because you think there’s a subjective difference from the animal’s point of view, right?
they’re not people. slaves are people.
Personhood does not exist in nature. It’s a social construct. It’s artificial, we built it. Therefore, we can build it how we like. I’d rather believe all sentients are people.
believe whatever you like, but if you use your own definition, be aware others will not understand your meaning, and it is not a failing on their part
Yes it is. It’s a limit on their empathy. They chose to define personhood the weird exclusionary way because they’re weird exclusionists.