…And how exactly do you think people are going to be able to eat meat otherwise? Or have dairy, eggs, wool, etc.? Do you think that people should e.g., raise chickens in the city?
And that’s ignoring the small obligate carnivores that make up most of the pets in the world.
Hey, I’d rather hunt my own food too, but we no longer live in tribal or feudal societies where you can reasonably expect to engage in animal husbandry yourself.
We shouldn’t be eating meat or any other animal products.
Animals are living and feeling beings who experience the world much like humans do, we shouldn’t be exploiting, abusing or killing them for profit/taste when we can easily avoid it.
First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don’t. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)
Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?
Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren’t causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?
Fourth: “Exploiting” is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?
Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?
I’m not a vegan, not even a vegetarian - but your message is so full of logical fallacies and whataboutisms, it’s enough to drive someone to veganism. Is that really the best you can do?
The first sentence is like when a child has done something wrong, and their mother tells them off, so the child says “Well, did it too”, to which the mother responds, “Well, if jumped off a cliff, would you also jump off a cliff?”
Genuinely curious: How do you feel about the lab-grown meat technology? Would you consider being an omnivore if no animals suffered or died to provide the meat?
I do enjoy how you went straight to insults to deflect your lack of knowledge. Then followed by implying I’m missing the same knowledge.
Just because we have yet to understand how plants experience life, does not mean that they do not. We know that plants respond to pain. We know plants respond to music.
Wife and I have been following the vegan eating habits for about 2 years now. We just don’t feel the need to proselytize about it. Yes, proselytize is the correct word. You’re trying to “save the animals because they feel pain”, we’re just trying to get in better shape in our 40s. We are not the same.
When you make bad faith arguments you can’t expect well worded replies lol.
Even if this argument made any kind of sense(which let’s be clear, it does not) then going vegan would still be the answer.
A plant based diet uses way less plants than a meat filled one because you get to skip the inefficient middleman of animals.
Ah yes, asking people to not needlessly abuse animals is the same as trying to force people to join your religion, totally!
You’re right, we’re not the same, I’m standing up for beings who are getting abused and killed by the trillions because of profit and taste, you’re just not eating animals so you don’t die quicker.
Not sure why you brought that up.
…And how exactly do you think people are going to be able to eat meat otherwise? Or have dairy, eggs, wool, etc.? Do you think that people should e.g., raise chickens in the city?
And that’s ignoring the small obligate carnivores that make up most of the pets in the world.
Hey, I’d rather hunt my own food too, but we no longer live in tribal or feudal societies where you can reasonably expect to engage in animal husbandry yourself.
We shouldn’t be eating meat or any other animal products.
Animals are living and feeling beings who experience the world much like humans do, we shouldn’t be exploiting, abusing or killing them for profit/taste when we can easily avoid it.
And it’s terrible for the planet.
Environmental Impacts of Food Production
First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don’t. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)
Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?
Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren’t causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?
Fourth: “Exploiting” is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?
Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?
I’m not a vegan, not even a vegetarian - but your message is so full of logical fallacies and whataboutisms, it’s enough to drive someone to veganism. Is that really the best you can do?
The first sentence is like when a child has done something wrong, and their mother tells them off, so the child says “Well, did it too”, to which the mother responds, “Well, if jumped off a cliff, would you also jump off a cliff?”
Isn’t it crazy the kind of things people will say and upvote as soon as it’s about owning vegans?
Such obviously flawed arguments would never fly for any other topic lol.
Genuinely curious: How do you feel about the lab-grown meat technology? Would you consider being an omnivore if no animals suffered or died to provide the meat?
If no animals were harmed in the process I wouldn’t mind but it’s not something I really want all that much, I’m good with plant based stuff.
Wait just a hot second there. Plants are living, breathing, creatures as well. The largest organism on the planet is the aspen tree.
Why do people always pretend to suddenly be stupid when talking about veganism?
You know damn well that plants don’t experience anything, pretending to be dumb isn’t a gotcha.
I do enjoy how you went straight to insults to deflect your lack of knowledge. Then followed by implying I’m missing the same knowledge.
Just because we have yet to understand how plants experience life, does not mean that they do not. We know that plants respond to pain. We know plants respond to music.
Wife and I have been following the vegan eating habits for about 2 years now. We just don’t feel the need to proselytize about it. Yes, proselytize is the correct word. You’re trying to “save the animals because they feel pain”, we’re just trying to get in better shape in our 40s. We are not the same.
When you make bad faith arguments you can’t expect well worded replies lol.
Even if this argument made any kind of sense(which let’s be clear, it does not) then going vegan would still be the answer.
A plant based diet uses way less plants than a meat filled one because you get to skip the inefficient middleman of animals.
Ah yes, asking people to not needlessly abuse animals is the same as trying to force people to join your religion, totally!
You’re right, we’re not the same, I’m standing up for beings who are getting abused and killed by the trillions because of profit and taste, you’re just not eating animals so you don’t die quicker.
Not sure why you brought that up.
See how you skiffed right off of the “plants feel pain” and dug your heels into “I’m protecting the innocent animals”?
Edit: You realize that anyone can see that you’re self-upvoting right?