BonfireOvDreams @ BonfireOvDreams @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

96

Joined

2 yr. ago

When the Vegan is right 😡⬇️

Math equation says, plant eating requires less land, which means fewer workers exploited. Also I'm pretty sure plant farmers don't have a 400% turnover rate. It's almost like even if the math were equal, which it isn't, killing animals all day is bad for your mental health.

two major companies who

Exploit animal bodies on mass scale. I'm shocked they'd exploit children's bodies too 🥴

During the hair falls in my face phase I just used a beanie or hair tie when it got long enough for that. Five years of growth FYI. I don't use product so cant chime in on that. Would just recommend to be sure you find the right conditioner for your hair.

Ive got curly hair so cant recommend brushing like some of the others here. If you have wavy/curly hair look for advice on that.

Have you eaten beans? I eat them on the regular and am a feces excreting machine

Go back to school. Arguments lead to logical conclusions. Your point is stupid. You are worried about framing in discourse far more than the argument. Just use that brain power of yours to reformat the argument minus the framing you don't like. Such as, 'if anything digestible is morally permissable to digest, that would include babies, which you probably wouldn't morally permit, so perhaps you should find a more useful argument. Babies have meat too.' There, that better? You shouldn't eat animals (or 99.9999999% of them) because they are conscious - entailing varying degrees of thoughts, feelings, social dynamics, and the obvious capacity to suffer - many animals of which exhibit higher degrees of consciousness than a newborn human.

And jfc my dude you responded to the idea of babies being eaten with 'besides, some people are cannibals.' I didn't strawman. You actually said that.

If you still can't figure out how 'my body can digest stuff so its a-okay to eat literally anything digestible' is incredibly dumb even after I've told you where that logic leads then just don't participate in discourse at all and we'll help you get through life since you can't do it on your own. Are you done with the intellectualy dishonest semantics or no?

My point is that our “body” is able to sustain itself on a diet that includes animal meat, out body has evolved to be able to process it. Including babies and dogs.

Your point is stupid and absolutely includes babies and dogs. You can digest those beings just fine.

Besides, while I don’t share their views, there are cultures where eating dogs or practicing cannibalism is common.

'I'm not normalizing eating babies,' proceeds to normalize eating babies

Why can your body digest new born babies and dogs? Why can your body sexually violate them? Dumb take. You dont derive ethics from what your body is physically capable of doing.

Looks like an improvement to me

Fuck off you dumb carnist animal abusing POS IDGAF about SBF or you.

Homie there are absolutely people who think vegans are crazy and eat plant-based. They don't want to be described as vegan. A lot of them are in the Gwyneth Paltrow goop crowd, you know, the crazy holistic people that like incense and hot yoga and shit. People who really really like the word journey when they describe things changing in their lives. People who think eating plant based is a personal choice just like they claim eating meat is a personal choice. They do it for health and some weird hippie superiority thing. Sometimes because its what God originally wanted people to eat in the Garden of Eden.

Those people exist. Idk why you're suggesting I'm lying.

Okay. Lets try again. Stealing people's finances is not the same as stealing from their anatomy. I dont know know why you think I care about SBF specifically.

If I'm more specific, what Vegans care about is conscious experience. They don't care if something is alive or has some form of reactive biological intelligence. Its not a loose definition of killing that's the problem, it's the killing of conscious beings.

There is no scientific consensus as to the potential for consciousness in plants/trees. Almost nobody affirms that they are. You'll find generally that when we discuss consciousness we describe beings with brains, or if we get in to gray areas, beings that at least have some form of nervous system. Since there is some level of brain plasticity, I tend to take the position that consciousness is an emergent property found in those with a nervous system at bare minimum, but absolutely and especially those with brains. That said, there are particular areas of brains that if compromised will show patterns of lost consciousness, but I just don't affirm that those areas are entirelly responsible.

So if plants and trees are not conscious, and they don't experience reality, and there is no subject, then there is no one to grant rights to. If we were talking about some random planet that had no conscious life on it, a planet that for some reason could never support conscious life but could support plant life, I would have no ethical quandary with a space fairing civilization taking all of those resources and leaving the planet with not but rock.

The need for residential housing complicates the ethics of forest habitat removal but not by that much if we consider what a vegan world looks like. Roughly 37.5% of the world's habitable land could be redistributed as that land currently is required for animal agriculture that otherwise wouldn't be. Roughly the size of North America and Brazil combined. You'd have loads of land that could be reforested but also some land that could be reused for housing purposes. As for current reality, I think there's a strong argument that group housing or apartment blocks would be far better for both people and the planet.

He is not supposed to be malnourished. If the option is malnutrition, or disregard of ethical beliefs, I'd argue they actually are forcing him.

Yes this chain was very revealing. I've done the same. No need to interact with that ilk. Kudos for humoring his dumb takes long enough that it would encourage me to do the same.

Yes earlier in the thread it was very mob like. That's me just placating I suppose. He has not been proven guilty and they're already starving him. Doubly wrong.

I explained this elsewhere but stealing from someone's body is completely incongruous from using other's funds.

Ethical vegans tend to describe people who are simplying choose a diet without animal products as plant based eaters. So that would not necessarily be Vegan as they could be exploitative in all other manner than food. Of the people who don't want to associate with veganism, they often also refer to their diet as plant-based rather than Vegan.

So while we can't know for sure if SFB is an ethical Vegan, the fact that he'd self-described as Vegan rather than as a plant-based eater is a very good indication of his beliefs. I am not aware of any text describing the particulars of his belief, but I think it's best to assume in good faith since he uses that exact word.

Veganism is not strictly a dietary preference. It is a stance against all forms of exploitation and commodification of animals. Comparing Keto or pescetarianism to ethical veganism is unsound. Veganism is about animal rights, bodily autonomy, & consent.

It's the precedent set for prisoners in general that you should have a problem with. He just so happens to be the one in the public eye that is affected right now. Forcing him to either go against his beliefs or be nutritionally deficient is not okay. Your feelings about SBF are not at issue. We can end this chain on that note.