Maybe there’s a cultural idea about mirrors being somehow “the same”. After all, a mirror shows the same thing regardless of which one it is. Or related in cultural mythology to a singular adjoining world that contains your doppelganger (in such media, you don’t usually have a separate mirror-self for every mirror, but one that can be accessed from any mirror). Also could be a turn of phrase that stuck without a good reason.
Language is how we create our stories.
The hard solipsist would disagree with you already from the 4th word. Your assuming an other to try to convince someone of their existence.
Here are a few theoretical realities:
The perceived existence of language is compatible with all of these, is it not?
About #3, do you view this as a hard rule? Not the animal part (vegan btw), the “hurting is always wrong” part. There are situation where I’ve caused harm to someone for the sake of others, their future, or a greater pleasure.
Also interested in the “not killing you own species” section of #4. I would also kill another animal rather than a human, but for other reasons. What do you think about hurting a member of your own species is uniquely bad?
Ownership isn’t a scientific concept though. It’s a social construct which never depended on permanence.
How could you convince a solipsist of that? It seems impossible to disprove the position “I am imagining that anything outside my consciousness is real”. Anything you cite as evidence is premised on the conclusion.
Yeah, I don’t know that it solves much, but it’s rather tidy to take the one think we know exists (consciousness) and fit it into a fundamental question (what makes up the universe).
There are high caloric tasty vegan foods available, and when they are not it’s usually because they aren’t in high demand. How is the onus not on the consumer for picking animal products over those?
I’m all for vilifying the Animal Agriculture industry, they do some terrible stuff that goes way beyond the harm intrinsic to factory farms. But how exactly would they meet demand without factory farming, a brutally efficient way of producing animal products?
Governments should cease subsidizing animal products (maybe help their producers transition to other production), subsidize other foods more, and enact many other policy changes besides. But in most places it can be cheap and delicious to be vegan now. I don’t see how you get around personal choice being the main driver.
There are many problems in the world. Some people like to focus on the ones with the largest impacts, where you can personally do something about it (like veganism). Others like to focus on those where few cause grossly disproportionate harm, as they seem more addressable (like private jets).
Debating the merits of focusing on one problem over another is interesting, but in my mind the time for it is not when media is being shared that bolsters a cause without coming at the expense of any others. It hurts all movements when people always undermine issues, pointing to another more important from their perspective.
I highly doubt that most people think you aren’t doing enough for the environment. And I don’t understand why you’d assume that as the implication of this article.
In situations where the harm is caused by the industry’s approach, I’d agree. But animal products’ harm is pretty inextricable, and its production is caused by consumer demand.
That seems weird, the opposite position makes more sense to me. You can’t think of any possible economy where you could morally have two houses, and in this situation it’s somehow necessary? Could you elaborate further, because it seems reasonably plausible that there could be an economy with significantly more houses than households, to the point of warranting multiple ownership. And of all the things to call second house ownership (convenient, luxurious, smart, excessive, warranted), necessary isn’t the one that comes to mind.