There’s no way a person who bases their decisions on scientific thinking would eat corpses. Not unless they were in a situation of absolute desperation. A person who bases their decisions on scientific thinking would determine killing is bad, and would just eat plants instead. Even if it cost an extra four dollars per grocery trip.
Corpse eating happens because of tradition and dogma. Because “that’s the way we’ve always done things.” We indoctrinate children into this blood cult and normalise violence the same way some religions normalise genital mutilation or ritual sacrifice of humans. Hells, the thanksgiving turkey, which is served in the literal shape of its corpse rather than being butchered or processed, is a ritual sacrifice.
A religion is not defined only by worship of gods, or else Buddhism would not be a religion. A religion can be defined by dogmatic, ritualised, inhumane practices taught to children from birth in the name of tradition. That’s what carnism is. I’ve never seen a defence of carnism that didn’t speak to some idea of “the natural order” or “tradition” or “the gods made them to be our food”, or some other religious nonsense.
I see that you’re only able to argue using words when discussing the Thanksgiving turkey. For which your arguments amount to “but it’s cooked tho” and “but only the consumption of the flesh happens on the day”. Okay, both correct, and both irrelevant. Meanwhile, you’ve responded to all of my core points not with words, logic, or meaning, but with guttural vocalisations of emotion. Thus, I infer that your only argument in favour of the carnist religion is an emotional one, intended not to persuade but to intimidate. So I repeat my claim that no scientifically minded person could agree with your religion.
I never wasn’t insulting them directly, their points are so stupid and ridiculous that I didn’t ever even bother arguing them because that would be a waste of my time
Better to point and laugh at the person who refuses to learn than to waste my time trying to teach them
Gregson, R., Piazza, J., & Boyd, R. L. (2022). ‘Against the cult of veganism’: Unpacking the social psychology and ideology of anti-vegans. Appetite, 178, 106143–106143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106143
Results from our analyses suggest several individual differences that align r/AntiVegan users with the community, including dark entertainment, ex-veganism and science denial.
There’s no way a person who bases their decisions on scientific thinking would eat corpses. Not unless they were in a situation of absolute desperation. A person who bases their decisions on scientific thinking would determine killing is bad, and would just eat plants instead. Even if it cost an extra four dollars per grocery trip.
Corpse eating happens because of tradition and dogma. Because “that’s the way we’ve always done things.” We indoctrinate children into this blood cult and normalise violence the same way some religions normalise genital mutilation or ritual sacrifice of humans. Hells, the thanksgiving turkey, which is served in the literal shape of its corpse rather than being butchered or processed, is a ritual sacrifice.
A religion is not defined only by worship of gods, or else Buddhism would not be a religion. A religion can be defined by dogmatic, ritualised, inhumane practices taught to children from birth in the name of tradition. That’s what carnism is. I’ve never seen a defence of carnism that didn’t speak to some idea of “the natural order” or “tradition” or “the gods made them to be our food”, or some other religious nonsense.
you might wanna consider touching grass
No thanks, I’m allergic to grass. I’ll get itchy and my nose will run.
Lawl
LMAO
Right, because turkeys are naturally headless and featherless with their wings and legs tied up. Totally no processing going on at all with them
You don’t kill a live turkey during thanksgiving, it’s not a fucking sacrifice
I see that you’re only able to argue using words when discussing the Thanksgiving turkey. For which your arguments amount to “but it’s cooked tho” and “but only the consumption of the flesh happens on the day”. Okay, both correct, and both irrelevant. Meanwhile, you’ve responded to all of my core points not with words, logic, or meaning, but with guttural vocalisations of emotion. Thus, I infer that your only argument in favour of the carnist religion is an emotional one, intended not to persuade but to intimidate. So I repeat my claim that no scientifically minded person could agree with your religion.
Yeah, your other points were so beyond stupid they can only be laughed at
You’re the kind of vegan people point to when they say all vegans are lunatics with 0 basic brain functionality
You know you lost when you resort to the ad hominem logical fallacy
I never wasn’t insulting them directly, their points are so stupid and ridiculous that I didn’t ever even bother arguing them because that would be a waste of my time
Better to point and laugh at the person who refuses to learn than to waste my time trying to teach them
Okay have fun using insults to compensate for your lack of having any arguments or evidence.
Your comment is based!
You don’t understand what science or scientific thinking is.
You’re gonna tell me that “real” science is whatever aligns with your religion, aren’t you?
I think you are, bro. http://soulism.net/
Can you cite any peer reviewed studies that show scientific thinking necessarily leads away from omnivory?
Gregson, R., Piazza, J., & Boyd, R. L. (2022). ‘Against the cult of veganism’: Unpacking the social psychology and ideology of anti-vegans. Appetite, 178, 106143–106143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106143
Science does not produce value judgements.
science doesn’t make moral judgement. killing can’t be scientifically “bad”
You are labeling other people as weird, while being super weird about it.
Do you want me to use tame insults or to call carnists murderers?