Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[JohnDonne]

An animal or a human is not culpable merely for being omnivorous or carnivorous, no, as I said, their circumstances matter. The element of necessity matters.

Generally, the reason cruelty in factory farming is considered morally suspect is because it is understood to be unnecessarily cruel, were it absolutely necessary we could rightfully shrug it off as something we dislike but have to do anyway. For who would argue against a thing that has no alternative?

Now, it is just the same with meat itself. The reason it is widely argued against as cruel now, instead of a thousand years ago is because we don't need it anymore, we lose more resources than we gain in creating it, it is a luxury more to do with taste buds than sustenance. Thus is cannot be justified on grounds of necessity, anymore than factory farming cruelty can.

This seems to hinge on if humans need animal protein to be healthy. Anecdotally, I had a diet free from animal proteins for a long time, but eventually found that was incompatible with my health and fitness. I would argue that it is more of a luxury to have the free time and resources required to maintain a healthy vegan diet than it is to consume animal protein.
This is a more empirical debate though, and I am not a doctor or a nutritionist. Unfortunately, it would seem that reliable experts disagree on the point, so I have a hard time drawing a conclusion on this front.

Nutritional information in favor of veganism is in the majority I believe. But like you I feel no inclination to engage in a cherry-picking competition as most nutritional arguments seem to devolve into. I will say I view the plethora of healthy vegan examples out there as living proof that veganism supports healthy human life. I assume myself and other vegans are not physical as well as ideological anomalies, we are of the same biology and genes as our meat eating brethren with varying levels of success. We do not expect from others what we do not expect from ourselves. We ask for scientific proof that meat is a requirement for humanity from those that make the claim. I'd also wonder if the occasional anemic or vaguely sick person is not too great a price to pay for society to wash its hands of innocent blood. And perhaps there are work arounds, the meat from dead deer found on the road could be ethically procured for these carnivorous health anomalies. Though I guess the point will be moot in a few years when in vitro meat hits the shelves.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

This seems to hinge on if humans need animal protein to be healthy. Anecdotally, I had a diet free from animal proteins for a long time, but eventually found that was incompatible with my health and fitness. I would argue that it is more of a luxury to have the free time and resources required to maintain a healthy vegan diet than it is to consume animal protein.
This is a more empirical debate though, and I am not a doctor or a nutritionist. Unfortunately, it would seem that reliable experts disagree on the point, so I have a hard time drawing a conclusion on this front.

Nutritional information in favor of veganism is in the majority I believe. But like you I feel no inclination to engage in a cherry-picking competition as most nutritional arguments seem to devolve into. I will say I view the plethora of healthy vegan examples out there as living proof that veganism supports healthy human life. I assume myself and other vegans are not physical as well as ideological anomalies, we are of the same biology and genes as our meat eating brethren with varying levels of success. We do not expect from others what we do not expect from ourselves. We ask for scientific proof that meat is a requirement for humanity from those that make the claim. I'd also wonder if the occasional anemic or vaguely sick person is not too great a price to pay for society to wash its hands of innocent blood. And perhaps there are work arounds, the meat from dead deer found on the road could be ethically procured for these carnivorous health anomalies. Though I guess the point will be moot in a few years when in vitro meat hits the shelves.

This brings us pretty cleanly around to the initial moral conflict of the discussion.

While, theoretically, veganism promises to expand moral consideration to all conscious creatures, practically, it often only seems to reduce moral consideration for humans.

It is very difficult to prove there is a moral distinction between humans and other animals, so the calculation is simple. Why not threaten a rancher on behalf of thousands upon millions of cattle?

Or, if you believe you require animal protein for health reasons, we aren't heartless, we value life. Get a doctor's note and we can ration you some possum meet we scraped off the interstate.

Veganism only seems like it is even possibly ethical where there are no conflicts between human and animal wellness. Perhaps there will be technological advancements or medical discoveries that make that world a reality (I really don't think we are quite there yet), but until then, absolute moral equivalence of all consciousness is always a bit of an own goal, ethics-wise.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's absolutely not superior to the natural human diet (omnivores). To be a vegan you have to very closely monitor your nutrition to avoid starving yourself of essential vitamins and micronutrients. You have to take a lot of supplements because you don't get things like carnitine and vitamin B12 in sufficient amounts that your body can actually assimilate, as two big examples.

We already have a lot of problems with obesity and malnutrition in this country. I don't think it's a good idea to amplify that by encouraging people into unhealthy fad diets.

Yes, it's certainly possible to be a healthy vegan, but the caveats to that are legion. It's a lot easier for the average person to avoid processed foods, sugar, alcohol, etc., and just eat whole foods, including meat. Just doing that is going to make people quite a lot healthier, and they won't have to think much about it. Just try to eat 10 servings of fruits and vegetables each day, trying to maximize the amount of colors of the items you choose. Eat however much lean protein you need to build or maintain your chosen muscle mass. Eat a moderate amount of good fats. This isn't rocket science.

If we are to encourage people to adopt a single diet philosophy, honest to God, we really just need to encourage people to return to eating whole foods. That's it. It's not a magic prescription. It's not a fad. Eat like a fucking human being again.

[C-Mag]

It is very difficult to prove there is a moral distinction between humans and other animals, so the calculation is simple.

I can accept that, we are just animals. Man rarely factors this in to interactions though. Which is weird to me, for example fight or flight can be seen in daily activities, even posting on line.

Why not threaten a rancher on behalf of thousands upon millions of cattle?

I would argue Man is the Apex Predator. The Apex Predator who has control of the prey animals is likely the dominant predator. These lesser predators are just packless rogues nipping at the Dominant Predator attempting to take control over his hunting area.

[Speaker to Animals]

Sasquatch is apex predator.

[C-Mag]

Sasquatch is apex predator.

Taking Hanarchy's point to its logical conclusion, we are the apex Predator, therefore we can do whatever the fuck we want with other animals. Precious butterfly goes extinct because or our actions. Just part of the circle of life.

[Speaker to Animals]

Sasquatch is apex predator.

Taking Hanarchy's point to its logical conclusion, we are the apex Predator, therefore we can do whatever the fuck we want with other animals. Precious butterfly goes extinct because or our actions. Just part of the circle of life.

Problem being: we are not separate from nature. Insomuch as we inflict irreversible harm to nature, we do so unto ourselves. Yes, we possess dominion over the plants and animals of Earth, but we also possess moral duties and obligations to one another, and to our descendants. Abuse of our dominion over nature to the point where we permanently harm nature, wantonly and when we have alternatives, is to inflict moral harm upon our fellow man and, indeed, all of humanity who now live or will live in the future.

It's similar to the moral duties you have to yourself. You have dominion over your own body, but it's grossly immoral to ingest harmful narcotics, fuck random people, etc. You only inflict harm upon yourself. We all, as a collective whole, possess a similar moral duty to not inflict wanton harm upon all of humanity in that way.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It is very difficult to prove there is a moral distinction between humans and other animals, so the calculation is simple.

I can accept that, we are just animals. Man rarely factors this in to interactions though. Which is weird to me, for example fight or flight can be seen in daily activities, even posting on line.

Why not threaten a rancher on behalf of thousands upon millions of cattle?

I would argue Man is the Apex Predator. The Apex Predator who has control of the prey animals is likely the dominant predator. These lesser predators are just packless rogues nipping at the Dominant Predator attempting to take control over his hunting area.

I have been trying to argue that the capacity for morality is uniquely human, and makes us a bit more than just animals.

The relationship of predator to prey, apex or otherwise, strikes me as completely amoral.

[C-Mag]

Sasquatch is apex predator.

Taking Hanarchy's point to its logical conclusion, we are the apex Predator, therefore we can do whatever the fuck we want with other animals. Precious butterfly goes extinct because or our actions. Just part of the circle of life.

Problem being: we are not separate from nature. Insomuch as we inflict irreversible harm to nature, we do so unto ourselves. Yes, we possess dominion over the plants and animals of Earth, but we also possess moral duties and obligations to one another, and to our descendants. Abuse of our dominion over nature to the point where we permanently harm nature, wantonly and when we have alternatives, is to inflict moral harm upon our fellow man and, indeed, all of humanity who now live or will live in the future.

I'm not promoting Communist level environmental degradations. I pushing back against the Gaia Gang that seek to make mankind subservient to the planet. The second point is we American humans are pretty much benevolent Apex Predators; I can't fully speak to other countries so I won't.

[Speaker to Animals]

Taking Hanarchy's point to its logical conclusion, we are the apex Predator, therefore we can do whatever the fuck we want with other animals. Precious butterfly goes extinct because or our actions. Just part of the circle of life.

Problem being: we are not separate from nature. Insomuch as we inflict irreversible harm to nature, we do so unto ourselves. Yes, we possess dominion over the plants and animals of Earth, but we also possess moral duties and obligations to one another, and to our descendants. Abuse of our dominion over nature to the point where we permanently harm nature, wantonly and when we have alternatives, is to inflict moral harm upon our fellow man and, indeed, all of humanity who now live or will live in the future.

I'm not promoting Communist level environmental degradations. I pushing back against the Gaia Gang that seek to make mankind subservient to the planet. The second point is we American humans are pretty much benevolent Apex Predators; I can't fully speak to other countries so I won't.

The Gaia Cult is just as immoral and evil. They reduce the value of humans and completely lose their perspective. If there were no humans, it wouldn't matter one bit what happens to the Earth. There would be nobody and nothing here to enjoy nature. There could be a planet somewhere in the galaxy that is teaming with life, but nothing like humanity. It could then fall into a black hole and, guess what, nobody would care. There would be no tragedy. There would be nothing to mourn. The only way that could become a tragedy is if humanity learns of it and realizes the variety of life, potential experiences, and knowledge we had lost.

The sin that underlies the capitalist environmental destroyer, the communist environmental destroyer, and even these humanity-hating greens is that none of them put human dignity first.