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 there’s a very high chance 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 actual 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 you.
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. 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.
MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
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 there’s a very high chance 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.
Sunshine@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Your comment is based!
gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
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
MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
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 actual 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 you.
gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
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
snekmuffin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
you might wanna consider touching grass
MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
No thanks, I’m allergic to grass. I’ll get itchy and my nose will run.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
science doesn’t make moral judgement. killing can’t be scientifically “bad”
letsgo@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Can you cite any peer reviewed studies that show scientific thinking necessarily leads away from omnivory?
MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
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. doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106143
smoker@lemm.ee 2 months ago
You don’t understand what science or scientific thinking is.
MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
You’re gonna tell me that “real” science is whatever aligns with your religion, aren’t you?
smoker@lemm.ee 2 months ago
I think you are, bro. soulism.net
grahamja@reddthat.com 2 months ago
You are labeling other people as weird, while being super weird about it.
MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Do you want me to use tame insults or to call carnists murderers?
howrar@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Science does not produce value judgements.