Why veganism does not work

submitted by Alphix from youtu.be

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alphix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I think the best way to do this, is to buy your meat from pasture-raised, ethical, organic farms. There are industry standards for animal welfare too, with various ratings. That way you're not harming yourself, while promoting the ethical treatment of animals. And before you tell me that living for a couple years with their herd in perfect peace and security, only to be snuffed out while not expecting it for even a microsecond isn't "ethical", let me ask you: being shredded by a pack of wolves and eaten while still alive better?

[–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So, the choice is between a natural, free and meaningful life, according to your nature, in a coherent group, with family and peers, travelling, breeding, evolving, under the sky, surrounded by trees and grass not metal and cement, but taking your chances, as there are dangers, wolves, bears, etc.,...

... and, on the other hand, 'life' as a commercial 'product', with all that it entails, e.g. having those that like feeding on you and/or making money from the 'meat industry'(!) explain that the industrialized dystopian nightmare they've set up for you is a good thing: 'no wolves!'

And it was probably also better for negroes to be raised in 'ethical' organic farms in the Americas than living a dangerous and diseased-ridden life in Africa, where there also was starvation and hyenas. :/

[–]Alphix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Oh, I'd rather take my chances with the wolves and bears, for SURE.

But meat animals ARE food. Either for wolves and bears or for us. If we do it ethically, it's a much better thing.

What? You want to talk about natural living but not about eating animals?

Also, animals are not INTELLIGENT. That's all that matters. They do not have minds. Whether they can FEEL or not is besides the point, because, by the way, it has just been demonstrated that plants are sentient too. So have fun eating rocks. Sentience and sapience are worlds apart.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oh, I'd rather take my chances with the wolves and bears, for SURE.

So, there you have it.

But meat animals ARE food. Either for wolves and bears or for us. If we do it ethically, it's a much better thing.

For wolves and bears (or very rarely for us) humans also ARE food, are they not?

Imagine that, on such a basis, some people kill humans on an industrial scale, for profit, but explain that they ... 'do it ethically' ..., would you consider the ethical issue resolved?

Would even the claim to 'do it ethically' make sense?

What? You want to talk about natural living but not about eating animals?

The ethical issue of whether to hunt a free deer, once a month, to feed your family and self (reasonable/ethical unless they're endangered), changes once you're talking about the mass industrialized killing of cows, kept prisoner for life for that purpose, 'as product'.

The one may be considered sad but necessary, the other is grotesque.

Also, animals are not sentient. You don't know what the word means.

Yeah, no, I do, unlike, apparently, you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Bonus:

'Other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things. [original emphasis] … The day has been, I grieve it to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated … upon the same footing as … animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the ossacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?…the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?'

Jeremy Bentham

[–]Alphix[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are equating sentience with sapience. Humans have the latter. It's what matters.

By the way: science has just demonstrated that plants are sentient too, so have fun eating rocks, it's the perfect diet for you.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, you, not I, have (mistakenly) equated them ... read it again.

[–]Alphix[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Read mine again.

And veganism STILL DOES NOT WORK. There is no argument to be had here.