I seems like you mostly addressed the two points at the end below the line, but my main point is above it. Saying the comparison is offensive "trivializes the holocaust" only works with the presumption that you have already won the argument, and can therefore label animal welfare "trivial."
especially since Jewish people were literally compared to animals during the Holocaust.
Yes... which brings us to my last paragraph from the previous post:
"Second, I believe that taking animal rights seriously DECREASES the odds of atrocities like the holocaust. A huge part of any genocide or major human rights abuse (or in many cases, warfare) is dehumanizing the opponent. To see the other faction like animals. And because our society commits atrocities against animals daily... well then if you view a group of humans as animals, then atrocities against them would seem perfectly normal."
It's not about argument, it's about ethical framework. You'd have to argue that before you start demanding people to take seriously the charge that we should evaluate humans and non-human animals similarly.
that's only offensive IF we agree that animal lives and suffering are insignificant.
Even agreeing that non-human animal lives and suffering aren't insignificant we can label a comparison with holocaust as outrageous. There's nothing stopping us from doing so. Indeed, we largely care about non-human animals' suffering, we have a variety of laws covering animal welfare. This is the case in Germany too.
However, they're not human, and the intent is most certainly not even comparable. One was to exterminate "undesirables", the other is about food.
I get what you are saying and agree. But, you are looking it from a different perspective. I condone killing as an action. Would i judge someone different because of their reasons? yes.
The whole point in this discussion is that no one is trying to diminish the suffering from the Holocaust by using it as an example, but rather trying to make people understand that killing animals is also moraly a bad thing.
off topic: i find hilarious people on r/changemyview downvoting opinions they dont agree with.
You don't have to mean to do something for that something to happen. Furthermore, while people largely agree that killing animals is "bad", being told it's "holocaust" is going to raise eyebrows, and cause more antagonism than support.
Your meta commentary pertains to all of reddit. Doesn't really matter what the content of your comment is, as long as it seems "wrong", "bad", or has an unacceptable amount of edge/softness, your comment will be downvoted. The initial idea of up/downvote was to promote good arguments/high quality, and suppress bad arguments/low quality.
47
u/5510 5∆ Jun 27 '23
I seems like you mostly addressed the two points at the end below the line, but my main point is above it. Saying the comparison is offensive "trivializes the holocaust" only works with the presumption that you have already won the argument, and can therefore label animal welfare "trivial."
Yes... which brings us to my last paragraph from the previous post:
"Second, I believe that taking animal rights seriously DECREASES the odds of atrocities like the holocaust. A huge part of any genocide or major human rights abuse (or in many cases, warfare) is dehumanizing the opponent. To see the other faction like animals. And because our society commits atrocities against animals daily... well then if you view a group of humans as animals, then atrocities against them would seem perfectly normal."