Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

Maybe don't burn coal with third world animals.

[TheReal_ND]

Toll status :

[ ] not paid
[x] paid

Sucks but that's the reality

[JohnDonne]

Possibly ethical. Even if that were the case, my concerns about the practical effects of dedicating yourself to a moral equivalence between humans and other animals would remain. But, theoretically, if there is no conflict, veganism stops being unethical, and is simply an amoral dietary choice, like any other dietary choice.
Even then, I would also be deeply concerned about giving over the production of protein to a patented technology, creating a private monopoly on a healthy, balanced diet.
It looks like creating a lot of problems in order to fix something that isn't exactly broken about the fundamentally amoral reality of hominid omnivorousness.

To be amoral is a necessity of survival, but without the need for survival the amoral become unethical.

That is just the naturalist fallacy in the other direction. If you are going to attach an ethical dimension to survival, be consistent. If it is unethical to predate if it isn't strictly needed for survival, then it is ethical if it is needed.
I think it is better to remove the ethical consideration from predation entirely.

Not a contradiction, ethical amorality verse unethical amorality.

[JohnDonne]

Ok, if we must debate entirely on feelz, then what’s the next step in this ideology? Putting a stop to predation in the wild?

Things kill things to survive. That is the nature of life. Competition and consumption.

The fact that we’re incredibly good at killing for food is not a bad thing. And the potential damage from our industrial monocropping is at least as bad as that from meat.

I never argued predation in the wild was unethical, I never even argued that human society eating meat is by itself unethical, but human society eating meat when it has advanced sufficiently that eating meat is unnecessary is unethical.

Again, you are not addressing the ethics, you are repeating the argument from nature fallacy, over and over again whenever you generalize that "things kill things."

I could offer all sorts of reasons that the “unethical” behavior of eating meat is not unethical, but you seem to want me to prove that it’s actually more ethical.

Well, given that the survival of your family and species are the top priority (ethically), restricting their food options to a single source is in fact unethical.

The world will not always be as it is now. Life will not always be so secure and easy. And when the next civilizational swing occurs, you want those around you to be best adapted for survival. The best chance for that is as widely varied a diet as possible, along with the personal skills to procure nutrition in any way possible.

Lol, It's important to keep eating steaks in case we forget how.

[JohnDonne]

We don't feed the gorillas what we feed lions, or the lions what we feed giraffes. Homo sapiens are animals too. We have a particular diet with particular nutritional requirements. Veganism is *not* a natural diet. It's not that you can't make it work (with a lot of effort, planning, and resources), but that most people can't do this effectively, and it's not economically viable at scale.

If you want to do do this in your own life, more power to you. I suggest you get routine bloodwork on the regular, because you are likely to fuck your body up somehow if you don't understand the problems with it.

The effort required to be vegan is literally reading labels and having a basic understanding of nutrition. The planning phase involves learning the nutritional content of various foods and buying accordingly. This is not too much to ask, this is actually something positive for consumers. As for resources, what, multivitamins and tofu are expensive? Nah, I've been a vegan on food stamps, doesn't cost very much to eat healthy and well, cook some rice, fry some veggies and tofu, one example of a cheap meal. I think you're vastly overstating the difficulty, especially coming from someone that as far as I know hasn't even tried being vegan.

In terms of screwing up your body, I mean, we see what the omnivore diet has resulted in for Americans, could hardly get any worse, yet where's all the fat ass vegans representing? Ya'll are the ones dying. The worst you can say in terms of studies is that vegans only live as long as omnivores, the most optimistic readings indicate vegan men live as much as a decade longer.

[Hastur]

What are you going to do when they finally show clearly that plants are sentient as well? Just curl up in a ball and die I assume.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... e-sentient
Denying that humans are part of nature and that behaving in the manner we are constructed to behave might have a value is hubris. We cannot change what we are without expecting a blowback. Veganism has a lot in common with communism in that it's based on denying human nature.

I agree that large-scale agriculture and animal farming factories are also a kind of hubris. A different kind but also dangerous. It's on the other end of the spectrum. Vulture capitalism.

I prefer to reside somewhere in the middle.

Can we feed the entire world without mono-culture mega farms run on chemicals and animal meat factories? I don't know but I have a sneaking suspicion we might if we just placed enough value on it. We would feel a lot better as well in more ways than one.

[Hastur]

Some smart plants. Nature is fascinating.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

To be amoral is a necessity of survival, but without the need for survival the amoral become unethical.

That is just the naturalist fallacy in the other direction. If you are going to attach an ethical dimension to survival, be consistent. If it is unethical to predate if it isn't strictly needed for survival, then it is ethical if it is needed.
I think it is better to remove the ethical consideration from predation entirely.

Not a contradiction, ethical amorality verse unethical amorality.

I am afraid I 100% don't understand this statement.

[Montegriffo]

That is just the naturalist fallacy in the other direction. If you are going to attach an ethical dimension to survival, be consistent. If it is unethical to predate if it isn't strictly needed for survival, then it is ethical if it is needed.
I think it is better to remove the ethical consideration from predation entirely.

Not a contradiction, ethical amorality verse unethical amorality.

I am afraid I 100% don't understand this statement.

All those growth hormones must be rotting your brain.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Not a contradiction, ethical amorality verse unethical amorality.

I am afraid I 100% don't understand this statement.

All those growth hormones must be rotting your brain.

It ain't called retard-strength for nothing.

I can't even tell you how many times I have snapped a kitten's neck just from tryin' to pet it, an' love on it. Sad.