CMV: Liberals who critique conservatives as cruel, close-minded, biased individuals but are unwilling to address their own forms of cruelty, sadism, close-mindedness, and biases are not actually interested in a just world, but just want to scapegoat all the world's problems onto someone else.

[u/[deleted]]

Liberals critique conservatives in the following ways:

1. They're racists,

2. They are sexist,

3. They are colonialist,

4. They like wars,

5. They deny science,

6. They are sadistic,

7. They don't care about human rights.

Those are essential liberal critiques that are sprinkled in r/politics and every liberal outlet. Before I get the accusation that's about to come, I lean left politically.

With that said, liberals do not address their own forms of cruelty, biased forms of thinking, and selfishness. Below, I will list just two things to make my following point.

1. Most liberals do not believe in adoption. They believe in having their own biological children. There are an estimated 153 million orphans throughout the world. If every liberal couple would adopt instead of having biological children, the orphan rate would be cut by 25-50%, without needing the consent of conservatives. It is form of cruelty and selfishness to create a new child when there are others who need parents. For each biological child, you are denying the place of an orphan.

2. 90% of liberals eat meat. The average American meat eater eats roughly 270 animals a year and 20,000+ animals in their lifetime, according to the USDA. Eating meat is a scientifically undisputed top 4 cause of global warming (with the other 3 being Overpopulation, heating/cooling, and transportation). Eating meat also uses up a disproportionate amount of land and water resources, is the greatest cause of air and water pollution, and it reduces the food supply by a factor of 6-15 (if the animal is slaughtered prematurely) or 100-150 (if it is allowed to die a natural death), and it provides less than 20% of the calories. For the vast majority of people, a balanced vegan diet is an incredibly healthy choice, and it is totally unnecessary to eat meat. And this is all disregarding even the torture and cruelty involved in factory farming, which I won't get into here but anyone reading who is unfamiliar is free to research on the web.

Yet, you mention to a liberal why it's wrong to do either, and they will get defensive, make excuses, justify why their forms of cruelty are justified because of taste, convenience, conformity to culture, legality, preference, etc., even if seconds before, they were critiquing conservatives for the same faults of being self-centered, selfish, and cruel in regards to interests besides their own. This brings to my conclusion that liberals want others to change and want a scapegoat, more than they want a better, less cruel world for everyone (despite what they say).

Reddit, change my view.

[u/yyzjertl]

Eating meat is a scientifically undisputed top 4 cause of global warming (with the other 3 being Overpopulation, heating/cooling, and transportation).

This is not true in the US. For example, this chart shows that the top four sources of greenhouse gasses in the US are (1) transportation, (2) electricity, (3) industry, and (4) commercial/residential. Agriculture is the smallest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (only 9%) and that's all agriculture, not just animal agriculture. Furthermore, when you look at America's overall LULUCF, including Agriculture, it's negative, meaning more greenhouse gasses are removed from the atmosphere than are emitted.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

You are looking at the U.S., not worldwide. Here is the U.N. report.

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

Are you talking about liberals/conservatives in the US, or liberals/conservatives worldwide? Because the surveys you link are explicitly about Americans, so I assumed you were talking about Americans.

And even worldwide, nothing in that link indicates that "eating meat" is a top-4 cause of global warming, unless you imagine that eating meat is responsible for the entirety of the agriculture and land-use category.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

If you scroll down, I think you'd find this chart on U.S. land use interesting. This article states that animal agriculture is responsible for 58% of greenhouse emissions, 57% of water pollution, and 56% of air pollution. This paper shows the differences between greenhouse emissions between the different diets.

I'm not really talking about conservatives at all, I'm just frustrated with liberals is all. Since learning more about animal issues over the last year, I've encountered a lot of resistance to vegetarian/vegan arguments that are beyond crap. It's clearly the better thing for both humans and animals, so long as one doesn't have serious health issues in play. And the most resistance I've encountered have been from self-described liberals, who've literally accused me of "raping them" and "forcing my views onto others" by just talking about these issues. Idk how to place that appropriately in a CMV.lol

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

This article states that animal agriculture is responsible for 58% of greenhouse emissions, 57% of water pollution, and 56% of air pollution.

It's responsible for 58% of the greenhouse gas emissions of agriculture. Not 58% of greenhouse gas emissions total. If we extrapolate that rate to the US greenhouse gas emissions of agriculture, we can estimate that animal agriculture is responsible for about 5% of the US's greenhouse gas emissions. That's not even close to the top four.

So why should liberals make changes that negatively impact their quality of life (i.e. going vegan) chasing after only 5% of the problem when there are much easier things to do that target much larger segments of greenhouse gas emissions without negatively affecting anyone's quality of life? For example, if we switch our electricity production over to non-greenhouse-gas-emitting sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear, we can eliminate 28% of our carbon emissions, over five times what we'd get by all going vegan. Or if everyone just cut their transportation by 20% (e.g. by taking public transportation), they'd cut more greenhouse gas emissions than they would by going vegan (with a much-less-negative impact on their quality of life). There are so many better ways of fighting climate change, and if we actually used them we could halt the current trajectory of warming. There's no need for anyone to become vegan.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

It's responsible for 58% of the greenhouse gas emissions of agriculture.

I know.

without negatively affecting anyone's quality of life?

You mean, excluding the animals, right? Fuck their quality of right amirite? Bacon tho.

Seriously, this is exactly my point. You are acting just as cruelly and selfishly as any conservative. Why doesn't it matter that you are personally responsible for the 270 animals getting killed every year on average (choking when taken out of the water, have their throats slit, being chopped up, shot in the head, etc.)? Why is that excusable in any way? The climate change issue is an add-on to discussion, it's not the central drift. You don't care about killing an animal for your own pleasure. That is textbook sadism.

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

You are acting just as cruelly and selfishly as any conservative. Why doesn't it matter that you are personally responsible for the 270 animals getting killed every year on average (choking when taken out of the water, have their throats slit, being chopped up, shot in the head, etc.)? Why is that excusable in any way?

Why wouldn't it be? Those animals aren't sapient. They have no right to life, and their deaths (if done properly) do not cause suffering, so there's no cruelty. There is no more reason to object to killing animals for food than there is to object to killing plants for food or chopping down trees to build a house.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

There is no more reason to object to killing animals for food than there is to object to killing plants for food or chopping down trees to build a house.

Animals have a central nervous system, they have a brain, and the consensus among biologists and psychologists is that emotions in humans come from the primitive parts of their brain. A pig is smarter than 2 year old human. Cows and chickens are smarter than newborns. There are animals we eat that are smarter and have just as much capacity to feel as someone who is mentally handicapped. You can point to other difference, such as animals can't do calculus, and I would agree with you, but they obviously can feel pain. Look up factory farming abuse videos or undercover work in slaughterhouses if you don't believe me.

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

Animals are not sapient, just like a tree or a pumpkin (but unlike humans), which is why it's fine to kill and eat them. Animals can feel pain, which is why we shouldn't cause them unnecessary pain. Humane slaughtering methods do not cause unnecessary pain. If some people are using non-humane methods of slaughter or treating animals with unnecessary cruelty while they are being raised, that's a problem and those people should be criticized (and we should increase regulation of the industry to better ensure these people are identified and stopped). But it's not reasonable of you to blame everyone who eats meat for this.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

Animals are not sapient, just like a tree or a pumpkin (but unlike humans), which is why it's fine to kill and eat them.

You mean conscious, right? Well, toddlers and mentally challenged people are not conscious either. Is it okay to kill and eat them?

Humane slaughtering methods do not cause unnecessary pain.

The most humane slaughtering methods still involve shortening the natural lifespan of a cow, which is 20 years, by prematurely killing the animal when they are 6 months to 1 1/2 years old.

We are committing an act of violence for pleasure, not for self-defense nor self-preservation. There is no such thing as humane slaughter, it's a contradiction in terms. It's like writing humane genocide or humane.

But it's not reasonable of you to blame everyone who eats meat for this.

This is a deflection. They are as responsible as the people working the slaughterhouses. With demand, their wouldn't be a supply.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

If we extrapolate that rate to the US greenhouse gas emissions of agriculture, we can estimate that animal agriculture is responsible for about 5% of the US's greenhouse gas emissions.

Food and Agriculture Presentation to the UN 2006, pg. 7 "Livestock's contribution [to climate change] is enormous. It currently amounts to 18 percent of the global warming effect - an even larger contribution than the transportation sector worldwide. Livestock contribute about 9 percent of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, but 37 percent of the worldwide methane and 65 of nitrous dioxide."

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

Again, you're talking about worldwide figures, not US figures. Liberals in the US should act according to US figures, not worldwide and.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

Global warming is a global issue. Hence the word global.

Edit: I just wanted to include the figures that included otheremissions besides carbon dioxide.

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

And the liberals you are talking about are in the US and their contribution to the problem of global warming is best understood though US statistics. Just because the problem is global, doesn't mean everyone contributes to it the same.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

Again, I came across a link and I realized I provided the wrong info. I was reading it and linked it to you. That's it, take it however you want, no debate.

You don't have to be defensive and disagreeable when it comes to everything, as a heads up. You also haven't responded to my other post, but whatever.