Lol, yeah Eisel is a bit of a mixed bag. Quite a controversial figure in the vegan community who many disagree with on a lot of things. But I think the actions he advocates for are probably positive for the most part (not destroying nature, not exploiting animals etc, even extending that further than a lot of vegans will by saying we shouldn’t own pets etc), even if his views, ideas and expressions can be problematic. I agree that part especially at the end about saying non-human animals are “mindless” didn’t sit well with me, and the implication that their lives aren’t very meaningful. It also continually surprises me that he actually cares about not harming/using animals given how lowly he sometimes speaks of them in comparison to humans and how focused he is on the supposed greatness/potential of humanity and civilisation. For him, veganism/animal rights is a “civilising mission” for humanity to stop doing barbaric things for the good of our own evolution, as much as or perhaps even more than it is for the good of the animals themselves. I think you’re right that it’s a more than slightly egoistic and anthropocentric perspective for sure. But again, at least he seems to place some value on non-human animals sufficiently to the degree that he maintains it’s not acceptable to abuse them, and holds fairly high standards for that comparably to his standards for human rights. I primarily mention him in the topic of this post as one of the only people I’m aware of actively speaking out about the concept of petism / pet ownership and why vegans/animal liberationists shouldn’t support it, rather than for his other musings. He rarely focuses on one point at a time and usually drags in multiple other topics into the discussion, lol, so it’s hard to find him talking exclusively on that issue for reference. Like you said his book quotes are pretty eloquent.

I would generally agree plastic = bad in most cases, though it’s probably an unavoidable necessity for our modern world. It should be reduced where possible. However, plastic = bad doesn’t change the fact that animal farming is usually far worse for the environment.

There are 2 “organic” alternatives to synthetic leather (aside from not buying any of them) : plant-based leather or animal-based leather (which is not exactly completely organic or natural considering the plastic coating and chemicals used to preserve and produce it). 1 is better than synthetic leather and 1 is worse. I’ll let you work out which is which :) Spoiler: plant-based comes out on top

Also, leather uses plastic coating. A fact many people don’t know. It’s also dead flesh that’s been heavily preserved with chemicals in order to not decompose and to remain usable. It’s far from the natural product people would have us believe. Keep in mind the massive size of the industry and propaganda similar to the meat and dairy industries which it’s directly connected to.

Setting aside plant-based leather which is definitely more eco friendly than animal leather (and the fact most of the ways in which leather are used are wholly unnecessary to begin with), I don’t agree that synthetic leather is worse for the environment. In fact it seems like it’s still a lot better than leather products.

A 2017 report entitled “The Pulse of the Fashion Industry” went into some detail on this subject. Real leather is regarded as being much worse for the environment than faux leather, primarily due to the massive water requirements, fossil fuel usage and contribution to the eutrophication of waterways. The report concluded that synthetic leather has less than half the environmental impact of cow leather and rated cow leather as the least environmentally friendly of the commonly used raw materials in the fashion industry.

This video also goes into some of the reasons why animal leather is so damaging to the environment and why not only plant based leather but even synthetic leather is a lot better: https://youtu.be/x-UGgf7i0qM?si=tcnfiT8wVOj4ii4_

All that aside, veganism is about not exploiting animals, and buying leather definitely does that. By supporting leather you’re supporting beef. There are even some cattle farmers that raise animals specifically for leather. It’s a highly profitable industry and can probably be considered a co-product rather than a byproduct. The ethical thing to do both for animals and the environment is to boycott leather and either avoid any kind if you want to or use plant based or even synthetic leather.

Sorry and I hope we can set this issue to rest since it was not the purpose of my post at all. I’m here to talk about fuggs

This is the true animal rights mindset. Reject petism / mascotism. Animals are not living toys or playthings, they are individuals. They are ends in and of themselves and not merely means to our ends. The pet industry is horrific along with pet ownership itself and all the rights violations, sufferings and deprivations it causes, many of which are overlooked or dismissed by “pet owners” or petists.

Have you listened to or read anything by Eisel Mazard by any chance? His newest livestream touched on the topic (don’t be thrown off by the title, he does talk about petism) https://www.youtube.com/live/SSiVZ0UIwbM .

Lucie Munson also has a good podcast on “pet ownership” and veganism. https://youtu.be/GD-6XJfkF2I

One thing I would say though, I think animals should be referred to as “they” or he/she, rather than “it”. This helps to individualise them and see them as someones and not somethings, individuals vs objects. “The dog was restrained and we chained them/he/her (rather than it).” I believe language can have a powerful effect in how we view other animals leading to how they’re treated societally. For the same reason I reject the use of animals as insults, such as calling a human a pig derogatorily.

Happens on lemmy world too.

In my opinion, lots of posts get removed here which would fall under reasonable (and even important) / valid free speech. So I do think the mods are abusing their censorship ability.

I wish this site was more like Reddit’s anarchy tbh lol. I see it as essentially a free speech platform aside from extreme cases.

So how do we determine if a question is nonsense? I didn’t realise the questions had to be necessarily important

Hi, I never received a bot message that I was aware of. I thought that the links I posted in the comments were providing examples of what I meant and helping to describe the question. I don’t really understand why it was removed. I can see that this post was also locked and then unlocked seemingly.

All I said was something like “We may want nature to fit into neat boxes but often vegetables are sweet and fruit are savory”. It wasn’t anything less innocuous than the title so I still don’t understand it. Apparently it got removed because I posted some links in the comments to lists of common “fruits” that are actually vegetables and vice versa. If that’s spam then I think they have a very low tolerance for content. I thought it added to the question to describe what I meant and provide examples.

Context is key, I’m just curious to gain more info and views. I’m not antisemitic but I saw a trend of people being accused of antisemitism when they disagreed with a Jewish person for something completely unrelated to anything to do with Judaism or even Israel. For the pedophilia one I was arguing with someone why pedophilia was immoral but just needed some back up. I can see why the titles look sus. Anyhow I understand those are controversial topics but I also think they should be allowed and Reddit would probably allow them unlike Lemmy seemingly. And I don’t see why my fruit question was removed.

https://timesofindia.com/life-style/food-news/vegetables-that-are-fruits-and-fruits-that-are-actually-vegetables-we-finally-have-the-answer/amp_etphotostory/71348897.cms

https://www.businessinsider.com/fruits-that-are-vegetables-2018-12?amp

https://food.ndtv.com/food-drinks/9-common-foods-you-call-vegetables-are-actually-fruits-4084701

https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/could-going-vegan-help-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=The worldwide phase out of,from Stanford University and the

Need to drop meat & dairy consumption in rich nations if we have any hope of managing climate change while we transition out of fossil fuels, which will take time.

Likes are anonymous on YouTube.

It appears racial anxiety is a well recognised term that pretty much describes the meaning I’m referring to.

Come to think of it, xenophobia doesn’t really work as a fear of other races since that’s associated with hatred as well. Is it like if it’s common to hate something, we just disregard the capability for some people to have a genuine fear of that thing without hatred? Seems almost like black-and-white thinking. Either you’re fully in support of something and not afraid of it, or else if you’re afraid of it you must hate it as well. No middle ground or nuance or understanding of people who have a fear they’re trying to come to terms with without any hatred.