Is It Time For Meat Eaters To Pay A Kill Tax?

[ClashAndBurn]

24 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

What comparison do you want us to make? How can we center the feelings of meat eaters in this discussion about animal rights and environmental degradation?

How about not comparing human beings to pigs, cows, goats and chickens??? None of the arguments you guys are making are even remotely making an attempt to persuade people and, if anything, turn people off.

 

Like I said earlier, if you propose a tax on meat, people will vote for the parties that run on repealing the tax/preventing it from ever going into effect. That’s the same reason there will never be a carbon tax to address climate change, and gas price increases result in both of America’s parties increasing drilling and oil output.

[Into The Void]

4 hours ago, FOCK said:

 

 

I’ve mentioned this before, but vegans don’t think they’re “better than everyone else”,

This is the impression this entire thread gives off 

 

[Into The Void]

41 minutes ago, Yum said:

I'm not trying to promote a cool diet I found, my stance in this thread has just been about getting rights for animals, which veganism plays a part in.

 

But as I sad in the other parts of the paragraph: "it's not preference, but rather familiarity" & "but after a short while I was more than happy with the vegan alternatives and wouldn't want to switch back"

 

Once I understood it doesn't taste exactly the same, an was open to that I realised that it wasn't I preferred non-vegan food, rather I was just familiar with non-vegan food so that's what I was expecting to taste. Kinda like when you go to drink a glass of water then you realise it's lemonade and its icky for a second, lemonade is still lovely, it just catches you off guard for it to be something other than you were initially expecting to be tasting.

I haven't gone through the 8 pages of God know what has happened in this thread. But I'm sorry in America at least this is not going to happen. It just isn't possible.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Insanity said:

I haven't gone through the 8 pages of God know what has happened in this thread. But I'm sorry in America at least this is not going to happen. It just isn't possible.

 

Yeah it's mostly me writing books tbh. I'm not primarily focused on America, America hasn't even sorted out gun control so! But things are always changing and I'm hoping one day in the future animals will get the rights they deserve, the UK will probably be the first if not one of the first to hop on board with it. I know it's radically different from society today and I don't expect it to be overnight, but I think the gradual change is inevitable. Regardless of it happens or not tho I just wanna voice what's morally correct in discussions like this and advocate for things that are a step in the right direction, such as taxing meat. But I'm aware my ATRL essays won't be changing anything any time soon. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Insanity said:

This is the impression this entire thread gives off 

Highlighting something is immoral doesn't mean the individual making the point is morally superior and we're all aware of that. No one is perfect and each of us do some good things and some bad things but we each learn and grow as individuals. I've even said myself in this thread I am far from morally perfect, I've made mistakes in the past and I accept I'm probably actually worse than a lot of people here. The goal here isn't to be seen as some figure of moral authority, it's to be a voice for the voiceless animals that are suffering. Some find it off putting but so be it, I'm happy to be perceived as unlikable in the pursuit of justice for animals and their basic rights to live.

[ninasayers]

3 hours ago, Yum said:

Stop! You're making them hungry!

 

The amount of strawman arguments carnists have created in their heads on this very thread is astounding.  I don't think there's much more to add at this point, other than to say thank you to @Yum, @FOCK and @Armani?. I thought this thread would be a cesspool of meat-eaters circle-jerking (given Atrl's track record on the topic) but I'm glad to see that wasn't the case.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ninasayers said:

Stop! You're making them hungry!

2 minutes ago, ninasayers said:

The amount of strawman arguments carnists have created in their heads on this very thread is astounding.  I don't think there's much more to add at this point, other than to say thank you to @Yum, @FOCK and @Armani?. I thought this thread would be a cesspool of meat-eaters circle-jerking (given Atrl's track record on the topic) but I'm glad to see that wasn't the case.

Thank you for the kind words  

[ToxicKiss92]

Humans are omnivores since the beginning of time meaning that we should eat both meat and vegetables. Most of vegans look malnourished and ill most of the time.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ToxicKiss92 said:

Humans are omnivores since the beginning of time meaning that we should eat both meat and vegetables. Most of vegans look malnourished and ill most of the time.

Just because something has been normalised until now doesn't make it a moral act.

 

Your anecdotal evidence that all vegans are malnourished and ill does not combat the scientific fact that all nutrients that are in animal products can be consumed by eating plant based foods instead. If the vegans you've met are malnourished or ill maybe they should work on balancing their diet better.

 

42% of Americans are obese. A large amount of people don't care to be healthy in general, and the same is true with vegans. Speaking personally as I vegan I couldn't give a **** about myself, I care about the animals. I eat unhealthily, I drink alcohol and I smoke.

 

It's possible to be unhealthy and vegan, but it's also possible to be healthy as a vegan. Consumption of animal products is irrelevant to ones health, the myth that vegans are all lacking protein and iron and look like zombies is just that, a myth.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said:

How about not comparing human beings to pigs, cows, goats and chickens???

Just wanna point out that no one did this. I compared an excuse used by one group of people doing something immoral to an almost identical excuse used by another group of people doing something immoral.

 

The victims were not compared, you're exaggerating the argument made to make it sound problematic.

[ClashAndBurn]

33 minutes ago, Yum said:

Just wanna point out that no one did this. I compared an excuse used by one group of people doing something immoral to an almost identical excuse used by another group of people doing something immoral.

 

The victims were not compared, you're exaggerating the argument made to make it sound problematic.

So don't engage with the part where I'm telling you your tax solution is counterproductive and doomed for electoral failure when voters get motivated to turn out at the ballot box to repeal it immediately. Predictable.  

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

So don't engage with the part where I'm telling you your tax solution is counterproductive and doomed for electoral failure when voters get motivated to turn out at the ballot box to repeal it immediately. Predictable.  

I didn't, because I am not particularly knowledgable about politics so I don't have the best understanding how of how to implement such policies or how to sway voters or the wider impact in politics. I'm not trying to speak about something I know nothing about.

 

I've been in this thread talking about animal rights and why it sways my opinion, as that is something I know a lot about.

 

Edit: and I never claimed tax was a solution here, infact I've multiple times stated the opposite, I've simply deemed it a step in the right direction

Edited February 16, 2023 by Yum

[ClashAndBurn]

7 minutes ago, Yum said:

I didn't, because I am not particularly knowledgable about politics so I don't have the best understanding how of how to implement such policies or how to sway voters or the wider impact in politics. I'm not trying to speak about something I know nothing about.

 

I've been in this thread talking about animal rights and why it sways my opinion, as that is something I know a lot about.

 

Edit: and I never claimed tax was a solution here, infact I've multiple times stated the opposite, I've simply deemed it a step in the right direction

So the thing is, taxing people to disincentivize behavior never works. Abolition doesn't either (see Alcohol during Prohibition). If you try to coerce people to take your stance, you will lose every time. And these threads that @GraceRandolph always makes to shame people who eat meat are always exceptionally counterproductive circle-jerks on both sides.

 

For that matter, it may not have been intentional, but making comparisons of formerly enslaved people to animals IS a long-standing and deeply offensive trope, as they were literally considered chattel and not human beings at all. You may have thought you were making a point with that, but... frankly it was a major turnoff and anyone who wasn't already on your side was going to just tune out from that point onward.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ClashAndBurn said:

So the thing is, taxing people to disincentivize behavior never works. Abolition doesn't either (see Alcohol during Prohibition). If you try to coerce people to take your stance, you will lose every time. And these threads that @GraceRandolph always makes to shame people who eat meat are always exceptionally counterproductive circle-jerks on both sides.

I can agree, sugar tax, people still eat sugar. I think cigarettes are taxed? people still smoke. But I'd still support it being taxed even tho it doesn't solve the issue at hand because it at the very least brings attention to the discussion and could prevent some purchases. I'm in no way saying tomorrow the government says "MEAT IS ILLEGAL, COPE", I know this would never happen and there would be uproar if such a thing happened. The way I see things going is more and more people see the ethical issues and change their actions to align with that. This is more likely to happen with young people, and the older people will typically die earlier, as time passes slowly I see a majority of the population having the ethical stance that animals deserve the right to life. Then I see it being another thing like how homophobia was previously more common and no one cared, but now most people agree homophobia is bad, and the people who still do homophobic **** are called out for it. I think in generations to come those who still consume animal products are called out for doing something so immoral, and eventually the laws prohibit taking an animals life without ethical reason (ex: it's suffering). You can agree or disagree with how I see things going in the eventual future but yeah.

 

In the meantime I'm not going to be a pick me vegan saying "oh it's totally fine ethically if you want to keep paying for animals to be murdered!!!" when it's not. And it's a paradox. People say "well since you said it's not okay for me to kill animals ethically, I hate vegans and now I'll never be vegan, you played yourself" but realistically these people were not going to be vegan anyways, it's just a way of trying to bait me into giving their unethical actions validation. I'm going to continue to state the truth. The murder if innocent animals is unethical and shouldn't be allowed. If that makes you roll your eyes so be it, but the goal here isn't to convert you all into vegans by posting messages on ATRL, that wouldn't even be possible. My goal here is to dismiss the common misinformation, explain my position and maybe someone more open to change will read it and agree. Reading a similar discussion is exactly what made me realise my actions were wrong and go vegan in the first place.

 

12 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

For that matter, it may not have been intentional, but making comparisons of formerly enslaved people to animals IS a long-standing and deeply offensive trope, as they were literally considered chattel and not human beings at all. You may have thought you were making a point with that, but... frankly it was a major turnoff and anyone who wasn't already on your side was going to just tune out from that point onward.  

Once again, no comparisons were made between enslaved people and animals by me or as far as I've seen any user in this thread. The comparison was between an excuse used by both slave owners and people trying to justify the unethical consumption of meat. The comparison was made because it's easier to see the lack of logic in the excuse when the context is shifted. I fear you're trying to twist the point into something offensive when it wasn't in an attempt to invalidate my argument. Like it or not, the parallel between those excuses is present. You falsely claiming I compared the animal agriculture industry to human beings having their human rights stripped from them and treated horrifically is a bad faith argument doesn't change the clear parallel.

 

You can be as turned off from it as you want, I'm going to keep being a voice for the voiceless and defenceless animals that are abused their entire lives before their eventual murder all for the sake of someones taste preference.

[ClashAndBurn]

1 minute ago, Yum said:

You can be as turned off from it as you want, I'm going to keep being a voice for the voiceless and defenceless animals that are abused their entire lives before their eventual murder all for the sake of someones taste preference.

And see, this tone is why people reject you.

 

Have a good day.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ClashAndBurn said:

And see, this tone is why people reject you.

 

Have a good day.

And the aforementioned paradox continues.

 

Have a great day yourself 

[FOCK]

7 hours ago, Insanity said:

This is the impression this entire thread gives off 

 

- Vegans make points.

- Carnists hear points & feel called out. 
- Carnists claim you’re making them feel bad and say things like “I’m not listening because you’re not being nice”.

 

Is the impression I’m getting. 

I don’t see why a message against cruelty needs to be delivered kindly, watered down or spoon-fed. No, there is no acceptable middle ground. The situation is severe & the consequences are permanent, so the message must match. “Please respect my life” has never been an effective change strategy. We’re in 2023, where the harm is widely understood, just ignored. We’re not starting from square 1. 

 

I’d argue if anyone feels as though someone is posing as morally superior for advocating against abuse, destruction & needless murder, that the issue is their logic recognises they have a point & feels complicit, but their ego feels attacked & resists. In any case, you are centering yourself - and it isn’t about you at all, it’s about those that are defenceless & voiceless. They are the victims in this scenario. That you feel upset in a thread or that some vegans come off as pricks, doesn’t change the reality one iota.

 

Just as much as you’re “turned off” by the messenger, try being turned off by the cruelty & ecological horrors. Mind you, you don’t even need to particularly care or like animals to respect their individuality & sentience. Vegan advocacy also encompasses human welfare, as our current agricultural system destroys and effects disadvantaged communities, as well as addressing several ecological and global emission factors, that again, are impacting the poorest people on Earth.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by FOCK

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, FOCK said:

- Vegans make points.

- Carnists hear points & feel called out. 
- Carnists claim you’re making them feel bad and say things like “I’m not listening because you’re not being nice”.

 

Is the impression I’m getting. 

Literally. Let's say for the sake of argument I'm really f*cking annoying (not denying this btw) and it was my wording that's singlehandedly turning these people away from veganism.

 

That implies that they realise veganism is the ethical way to go, and if I had worded it in a way they like, they'd have gone vegan.

 

So why don't these people simply tell me I'm f*cking annoying but be the bigger person and do moral thing regardless.

Is sticking it to an annoying ATRL user more important than doing the ethical thing?

It's almost as if they were never going to go vegan in the first place regardless of the wording of our points and regardless of the ethical issues with consuming meat.

 

They're just clutching for any reason to explain doing a blatantly immoral action me thinks.

 

TL:DR, You can dislike me as an individual, and that's fine, I don't care if you like me or not. But regardless of your opinions towards me, you should be doing the moral thing.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Yum

[Johnny Jacobs]

is it time for vegans to stop acting like they have escaped Azkaban ?

and by your logic gaga should give half of her fortune for this tax

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Johnny Jacobs

[argos]

Because **** isn’t expensive enough as it is. Some people should think before posting bs like this.

[Armani?]

7 hours ago, Wizard said:

so do you also never go in the sun or drink alcohol since they also cause cancer

 

there are costs and benefits to almost any type of food. everything is moderation girl as they say  

Too bad there's no definition for that, it's whatever you want it to mean

 

So the average American thinks they're eating healthy or living a healthy lifestyle when they're not.

 

Ppl's view of nutrition in terms of what's healthy is skewed. Before I learned anything I would think eating chicken regularly was healthy 

 

Or eating a steak & cheese sub with a whole wheat bun instead of white would somehow make up for it & balance out as a healthy meal

[FOCK]

9 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

How about not comparing human beings to pigs, cows, goats and chickens???

I’d be interested to understand, from your perspective, why you feel pointing out the shared experience of sentience between these beings is offensive? (Outside of the clear problematic history & understood context of the particular example that warranted your initial response). 
 

They’re obviously all different species with different capabilities, but how or why do you think their experience, right to life or will to survive differs?

 

Is it intelligence? Because the logical conclusion would be it’s okay to kill those below a certain IQ or processing ability, including infants & those with intellectual or emotional impairment. Never mind the fact that some bird species have comparable levels of intelligence to 3 month old humans, or that most animals posses abilities, adaptability and traits far greater than ours. 
 

Is it the ability to contribute or add human perceived value? Because that’s a highly toxic way of viewing the world, founded on capitalist greed, which also concludes in the suggestion that any human not presenting some measurable, materialistic or social value, is fine to slaughter.

 

Is it identity? Because each animal is an individual, with preferences, quirks & unique behaviours, despite the fact that humans may not care to take the time to recognise this, or choose to assign their species a sanitised label like “cattle”, to strip them of their individuality & assist the masses in viewing them only as commodities. 
 

Is it self awareness? And if so, how do you quantify that? What is actually underpinning this feeling of self-importance & superiority in people? And, how has that been working out for us, historically, lol? What use is our intelligence and ability to philosophise, recognise error & evolve, if we’re not putting it into practice in this context? Why is it just THIS issue that some people want an excuse to regress & resort to “buh my ancestors” & “animals do it, I should too”?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by FOCK

[khalyan]

Now that this topic has gone left with some vegans comparing the meat industry to human slaves, I think it's appropriate to lock this thread.  I had hopes in the beginning of this thread that both vegans and omnivores would be able to have an adult debate and conversation like I participated in but unfortunately it does not seem some can handle that at the moment.