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.
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.
do you lack the empathy to imagine any other reason they may exclude non-humans from personhood? you don’t think there may be practical reasons?