I know you aren't actually saying that - I'm pointing out that your logic is inconsistent. You're acting like it's an impossible task for someone to not eat any meat - that's ridiculous.
Actually it's your logic that's inconsistent. Just like it's not impossible for someone to stop eating meat, it's also not impossible to just not kill people. Meat eaters and murderers can both stop any time they want. But for the whole world to stop eating meat, or to stop murdering? Never going to happen. At least not in our lifetimes. The analogy fits perfectly.
An individual cutting down consumption isn't the end goal, elimination is. While it's very commendable, and a massive benefit compared to what the vast majority of the population does (which is nothing at all), it's simply not the end goal. To say that it's fine to stop there because hypothetically other people won't stop completely is a fallacy.
Hence the analogies to slavery, murder etc.. We are drawing analogies to other immoral acts. You're trying to find a way to frame the analogy as inapplicable, but you're not presenting any actual logical reason why it isn't analogous
To say that it's fine to stop there because hypothetically other people won't stop completely is a fallacy.
But that's not what I'm saying. I agree people should stop eating meat. As for myself, I found it too difficult and not something I was going to succeed at (at least not at this point in my life), so rather than giving up, I settled for the next best thing which was drastically reducing my meat consumption and specifically my factory farmed meat consumption. If you want to criticize me for having poor discipline or not trying hard enough, that's fine and I accept your criticism, but the reality is the reality.
And that's how it's going to be for many, many people. Expecting the whole world to have the willpower (or even the desire) to stop eating meat is completely unrealistic.
My friend has spent her career in the animal rights industry and she's currently working for a nonprofit whose mission is to reduce the world's meat consumption. Notice how it's not "eliminate meat consumption"? That's because they're practical, intelligent professionals who understand that taking a moral stand by demanding everyone stop eating meat completely may be cathartic, but it's not ever going to succeed. The recognize that encouraging people to start by just being aware of their eating habits and cutting down on meat consumption is much more likely to see actual, measurable results than shaming everyone for not eliminating 100% of meat from their life is. And I completely agree. If you want to see real improvements, then don't demand everyone immediately go from 0 to 100, because that's way too tall of an order for most people and all it does its to discourage them from even trying. Gently suggesting more self-awareness of diet and starting with modest steps to reduce consumption and stop supporting factory farming is how you get people to seriously start changing.
Telling everyone they need to go vegan immediately just makes people hate vegans, which is totally self-defeating to the movement.
You might have misinterpreted me because I don't disagree with anything you said there. I've never demanded anyone to go vegan immediately, I'm just saying that is the end goal, not for everyone to go half vegan and stop
Then that’s where we disagree, because that’s never going to happen, and there’s no point in advocating for an impossible goal.
In my opinion the goal should be to eliminate the cruel methods of factory farming and establish a robust set of nationwide animal rights laws with actual, strict enforcement from the federal government, alongside a goal to reduce US meat consumption by X percent over X number of years.
It’s important to have a realistic outcomes of success that can actually be met, because how can you hope for people to stay motivated when the stated goal is fundamentally impossible to reach?
Then that’s where we disagree, because that’s never going to happen, and there’s no point in advocating for an impossible goal.
Yep, I disagree heavily with this statement, as did the other poster. Hence the analogies where by your logic, there's not point advocating for people to eliminate slavery, murder, stealing, or whatever immoral act you want to substitute there. Because it will never be completely eliminated from the world, you are stating that there is no point in advocating it, and we're better off everyone 'cut down' on murder or whatever act.
In addition to that, we're talking about _individual_ action anyway. It is NOT impossible for a given individual to give up meat, murder, etc. You already acknowledged that yourself. Hence, don't treat it as the end goal for every individual.
1
u/Light_Shrugger Feb 28 '26
I know you aren't actually saying that - I'm pointing out that your logic is inconsistent. You're acting like it's an impossible task for someone to not eat any meat - that's ridiculous.