Eating cats and dogs is controversial. So is eating sharks or whale. Some diets are unnecessarily harmful. Since we all live on the same planet, that affects others and it makes sense to have an opinion on this.
Outside of the US, it’s not controversial to say the average meat intake in the US is too high: for health reasons and for the environment. I think it’s okay to judge people when they eat abnormal amounts of meat.
Because this loser mentality of “it needs killing”. Yeah it’s called the circle of life. I guess we morally shame owls for hunting the mice that hunted the insects. If you want to make a statement on factory farms and torturous methodology, that’s one thing. But death is a part of life, and having meaning in death to provide nutrition for continuation of life is just a reality.
death is a part of life, and having meaning in death to provide nutrition for continuation of life is just a reality.
You’re missing something pretty important here. Death is part of life is an argument that you’d use to try and justify hunting. Farming also means breeding more animals that will be raised for their meat and killed after a few years.
Globally, 60% of all large mammals are livestock. It’s a crazy number and there is nothing natural about this. The killing isn’t the root problem, producing/breeding huge numbers of animals is.
Death might be a natural part of the circle of life, but we’re artificially starting this circle for many farm animals. If we’d stop doing this at such an insane scale, we wouldn’t need to discuss their death (or quality of life)
Importantly, this is something that we choose to do even though we don’t have to. The owl has to hunt for mice and isn’t able to choose not to. This makes our moral position not comparable to owls or any other animal.
This makes it easy to argument against and if arguments start, information is lost. Someone could say crop death, eating more vegan food than absolutely necessary to survive.
Vegan candy, tasty but all the crop death. I’d recommend simple arguments like, I love animals and only want to hurt them as little as reasonably possible.
It’s not as flashy as “the least amount of harm possible” I know, but it’s at least the Truth. I think the difference between a vegan and others is only the level of harm they’re willing to cause. But then again it was always like that. You’re just lower than others in that animal-harm spectrum and not the absolute bottom. But still a lot lower.
Removed by mod
But let’s also be reasonable.
Eating cats and dogs is controversial. So is eating sharks or whale. Some diets are unnecessarily harmful. Since we all live on the same planet, that affects others and it makes sense to have an opinion on this.
Outside of the US, it’s not controversial to say the average meat intake in the US is too high: for health reasons and for the environment. I think it’s okay to judge people when they eat abnormal amounts of meat.
Are you saying I can eat people now?
Try some Soylent Green, it’s not people this time!
One of the diets require killing, the other one doesn’t. Be the better person and choose the latter.
it’s wild youre down voted in vegan community
That’s the omnis with bad conscience, not the community members.
Because this loser mentality of “it needs killing”. Yeah it’s called the circle of life. I guess we morally shame owls for hunting the mice that hunted the insects. If you want to make a statement on factory farms and torturous methodology, that’s one thing. But death is a part of life, and having meaning in death to provide nutrition for continuation of life is just a reality.
You’re missing something pretty important here. Death is part of life is an argument that you’d use to try and justify hunting. Farming also means breeding more animals that will be raised for their meat and killed after a few years.
Globally, 60% of all large mammals are livestock. It’s a crazy number and there is nothing natural about this. The killing isn’t the root problem, producing/breeding huge numbers of animals is.
Death might be a natural part of the circle of life, but we’re artificially starting this circle for many farm animals. If we’d stop doing this at such an insane scale, we wouldn’t need to discuss their death (or quality of life)
Importantly, this is something that we choose to do even though we don’t have to. The owl has to hunt for mice and isn’t able to choose not to. This makes our moral position not comparable to owls or any other animal.
The only morally correct metabolism is photosynthesis
shit man, guess treating disease is a mistake. Those bacteria need to grow in us after all. Sepsis is the cycle of liiiiiiife.
Wrong. They both require killing.
Only one demands awareness of it though
This makes it easy to argument against and if arguments start, information is lost. Someone could say crop death, eating more vegan food than absolutely necessary to survive.
Vegan candy, tasty but all the crop death. I’d recommend simple arguments like, I love animals and only want to hurt them as little as reasonably possible.
It’s not as flashy as “the least amount of harm possible” I know, but it’s at least the Truth. I think the difference between a vegan and others is only the level of harm they’re willing to cause. But then again it was always like that. You’re just lower than others in that animal-harm spectrum and not the absolute bottom. But still a lot lower.
“I’m not vegetarian because I love animals. I’m vegetarian because FUCK Plants.”
-one of my vegetarian friends
Removed by mod