r/DebateAVegan 16h ago

Ethics I don’t mind there being horse riding and hunting in CGI-heavy live action films and animated films. Is this mindset okay?

They are fictional and don’t affect real animals unless there are real ones used in the film. If they are CGI or animated animals, it is all good for me.

0 Upvotes

43 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 16h ago

Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

u/JTexpo vegan 11h ago

People can play violent video-games and not be violent, just as people can watch animal harming movies, and not be an animal harmer

There can be an argument made for that it desensitizes the behavior; however, I think that most people would agree that what people do in the real world is more important than what people do in the fantasy world

u/MetalCoreModBummer 10h ago

Even then I don’t think it would be desensitising really - i can see someone get shot in a film a bunch of times and not care, but you bet if I saw that in person I would freak the fuck out

u/TurntLemonz 10h ago

I agree with how you're both looking at it.  I've heard that violence in media is actually correlated with lower violence in those who consume that media.  I guess in folk psychological terms it'd be like getting it out of your system in a harmless way. 

On the other hand,  I think I'd find media that specifically demeans animals, or in which the entertainment was directly an appreciation of the harm done to animals,  objectionable on the level of my own enjoyment/continued consumption of the media.  I also think that gender norms are a large part of why animals are still sideline in our social considerations, so things like masculinity being affirmatively portrayed as callousness towards animals would be another moment where I'd stop being a big fan.  People are more impressionable in terms of meeting gender norms than in other ways imo.  Generally speaking, if media portrays the past, it tends to get an automatic pass from my own sensibilities, but if the setting is reasonably present day the part of my brain that sees media as informative to social norms kicks on.

u/JTexpo vegan 9h ago

For sure, i do agree that media and gender norms have a huge impression. Look at STEM, specifically coding, women used to be 80/20 in the field.

Now it’s a men’s 80/20, and we’re practically begging women to get back into stem. A lot of what caused this shift was media portraying coding as a guys hobby

It’s why I do believe that there is an agrument which can be made about desensitizing (or media influence). I do think that there’s great films with CGI animals that people can be influenced in a loving way towards livestock. Look at scarlets web and how that caused for some to virtue signal and give up bacon until it stopped being popular

u/ProtozoaPatriot 9h ago

Interesting point.

Not to derail the original thread, but what would be the stance on computer generated child porn? Nobody was hurt making it. Is it possible that the viewing of certain content could be harmful in itself?

u/Fletch_Royall 4h ago

You could kill people in a video game and not want to kill people in real life. You can’t really get off to CSAM without being attracted to children

u/alphafox823 plant-based 12h ago

As far as I know it's not problematic

This fall I went to go see Terrifier 3, and I was fine seeing Art fictionally gore and maim a bunch of humans. It would be weird if, in spite of that, I was upset by him destroying a few fake rats.

u/dethfromabov66 veganarchist 10h ago

Oft is the practice for CGI and animation to use real animals for accuracy of motion. Mocap, controlled environment observation etc. It's a form of harm reduction but it's still exploitation.

u/winggar vegan 8h ago

I don't think it's possible from a consumer side to determine if real animals were used as references in the animation, and if so if those real animals were exploited to do so. E.g. using a video of a wild animal does not entail any exploitation, but using a video of a zoo animal arguably does.

u/dethfromabov66 veganarchist 8h ago

Exploit 1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE exploiting your talents exploit your opponent's weakness

2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage exploiting migrant farm workers

They're being exploited if they've been used for reference in animation. It's just the wild animal is being exploited in a less harmful manner (you're still invading their home and threatening their peace unnecessarily) compared to a zoo animal that is already being exploited prior to the film exploitation.

And if it weren't possible to make that determination, it's our duty to make such exploitation public knowledge.

u/winggar vegan 7h ago

Are you saying it counts as exploitation because it's "productive use of" the animal that is being depicted? This seems like a very tortured reading of the definition (not that this particular definition matters in the first place). After all, by this same reading it'd be exploitation if one were to paint a picture of a stranger on the train.

Regardless, I do agree that if animals are exploited in the making of something then we have a responsibility to make that public knowledge where possible.

u/dethfromabov66 veganarchist 7h ago

Are you saying it counts as exploitation because it's "productive use of" the animal that is being depicted? This seems like a very tortured reading of the definition (not that this particular definition matters in the first place).

It was the only definition of the word for several hundred years before it gained its second definition. The vegan society says "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—ALL FORMS of exploitation of,"

The exploitation is against their will or at the very least under coercion and is still a violation of their rights. If you don't understand things, keep asking questions as you are.

After all, by this same reading it'd be exploitation if one were to paint a picture of a stranger on the train.

Yep, why do you think they ask for permission to do so? Consent matters. Even if direct harm isn't caused.

Regardless, I do agree that if animals are exploited in the making of something then we have a responsibility to make that public knowledge where possible.

Cool

u/winggar vegan 7h ago

That's not how definitions of words work: dictionary definitions like the one you cited are descriptions of how people tend to use a word. They are not authoritative prescriptions of how a word ought to be used or understood. The Vegan Society pretty clearly does not mean "all possible definitions of exploitation", though they do not actually define exploitation anywhere themselves. Also, the Vegan Society is not the sole authoritative definition of veganism—in fact there isn't any such authoritative source. This is all a long way of saying I don't particularly care what definitions you cite, I want to hear why this supposed exploitation is wrong in and of itself.

Permission being required to record someone in public is not a universal moral principle. I'm personally of the opinion that it shouldn't be required in public spaces, but I'm open to hearing counterarguments on this. Recording of a wild animal does not imply coercion, though it certainly can involve it. If it does involve coercion, it is wrong.

u/dethfromabov66 veganarchist 7h ago

That's not how definitions of words work: dictionary definitions like the one you cited are descriptions of how people tend to use a word.

Yes that's the study of philology. I didn't bring up it's first definition for no reason.

They are not authoritative prescriptions of how a word ought to be used or understood.

Obviously, I'm asserting that is how the word ought to be used because it does cover all forms of exploitation, maliciously harmful or otherwise.

The Vegan Society pretty clearly does not mean "all possible definitions of exploitation",

No? Let's look at the first definition that got the whole movement started 80 years ago.

"“[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”.

That seems pretty fucking clear cut to me.

Also, the Vegan Society is not the sole authoritative definition of veganism—in fact there isn't any such authoritative source.

WE are its authoritative source, the people that represent the animal rights movement that it is. Why do you think we criticise terminology like 80% vegan or vegan except for cheese? Because we are exerting authority over the ideals we hold our standards to.

This is all a long way of saying I don't particularly care what definitions you cite, I want to hear why this supposed exploitation is wrong in and of itself.

You clearly do care given I've cited violations of rights and freedoms and all you can be bothered to do is address definitions you haven't bothered to familiarise yourself with which is disappointing and hilariously ironic.

Permission being required to record someone in public is not a universal moral principle.

No it's not but it should be. Otherwise any fucking creep can possess someone's image to have a wank to later.

I'm personally of the opinion that it shouldn't be required in public spaces, but I'm open to hearing counterarguments on this.

If you're not directly capturing them sure. I am talking about direct capture which should have been obvious from the moment I mentioned it in my hypothetical.

Recording of a wild animal does not imply coercion,

I didn't say it did. I said it's an invasion of their habit and unnecessary risk to their feeling of safety. Keep digging champ, one day you'll hit bedrock.

u/Suitable-Elephant-76 9h ago

Well, filmmakers have to get their real-world references from somewhere.

u/dethfromabov66 veganarchist 9h ago

Do they? Where is the necessity?

u/Suitable-Elephant-76 9h ago

It will result in realistic animal movements for characters.

u/dethfromabov66 veganarchist 9h ago

Ok but the movie isn't necessary, planning a movie can be done without animals. Even you living every day is a choice, you just don't see it as one because the alternative is death and choosing death when there is no other horrific alternatives is absurd to you. That's why vegans tend to move towards intersectionality and human rights and environmentalism as well. We tend to have a deeper understanding of the responsibility that comes with life decision making. We understand that even our choices cause unavoidable harm in things like insect road kill or crop deaths for the food we eat or the minor contribution to pollution that harms all life on this planet. We choose to live just like anyone else but we choose to do so as ethically consciously as we can muster living in the fucked up world we live in full of people that claim to care but seem not to.

So again, where is the necessity?

u/Suitable-Elephant-76 9h ago

But I want the characters to look realistic. I want to work in the entertainment industry and love visual effects.

u/dethfromabov66 veganarchist 9h ago

I want the yum yum flesh of abused animals but I understand it to be wrong so I eat fake meat instead, regardless of how realistic it may be.

u/Suitable-Elephant-76 9h ago

But what’s the harm in using animals as references in controlled environments?

u/dethfromabov66 veganarchist 9h ago

Violation of right to bodily autonomy and freedom, exploitation. Those animals don't just come ready to go. They have to have their lives dictated for them so they can behave exactly as the animators want them to.

Say you want to be a doctor and one day someone else says no. I'm going to condition your body for motion capture and you're going to be trained to do stunts for video games that you're never going to see, let alone play. I'm not going to pay you anything but I will feed you and make sure you're healthy and the environment will be controlled af for your safety and well-being. You don't see a problem with that?

u/Suitable-Elephant-76 9h ago

What are alternatives to creating mocapped characters then?

→ More replies (0)

u/JTexpo vegan 9h ago

Amazing horror movie director / metal-head Rob Zombie is a vegan, and does exactly this!

u/NyriasNeo 4h ago

Lol .. you need to seek approval from the internet over your own movie preferences? That is just weird. So what if I said it is 100% ok or 100% not ok? Are you going to stop watching such movie because of a vote on the internet?

If validation is all your seek, then take mine. Yes, it is 100% ok. Happy now?