• The vast majority of humans can thrive/be healthy on a vegan diet, therefore it’s not consuming for survival. That’s an excuse or ignorance (again, for the vast majority of humans, especially those who are reading this. There are always exceptions tho)

      • @LemmysMum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Vegans just casually creating a class system to value one life above others.

        We have a name for the class of animals that eat grass, stay in packs for safety, and lack the individual skills necessary for individal survival. And even they are smart enough to be opportunistic omnivores.

        The only species of animal stupid enough to consume against their needs and instincts are humans.

        • What? That’s what you took from vegans saying “stop killing others unnecessarily”?

          Carnists are literally putting out an idea that values someones sensory pleasure over the lives of others and then acting accordingly and killing by the billions each year.

          • @LemmysMum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            6
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The word you’re looking for is omnivore, not carnist.

            How many house plants have you killed not for the purpose of your own survival? Nobody can disregard life like a militant vegan.

            • Carnist, omnivore, speciesist. If the shoe fits 🤷

              To the best of my knowledge plants are not sentient. If they were I would take much better care of houseplants and still be vegan because eating other animals still kills way more plants (google trophic levels)

              • @LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                6
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Disingenuous, ignorant, mentally deficient from years of choline deficiency. You’re right. If the shoe fits.

                Eating keeps things alive, only a vegan would think taking something out of its natural environment and subjecting it to worse living conditions and a shortened lifespan without the purpose of benefitting another lifeforms ability to survive as being less harmful.

                We kill for survival, you kill for pleasure and ego.

                Classist vegans only care for sentience, not life.

                  • @LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    61 year ago

                    I’m going to assume you can’t defend your position so you’re going to curl up in your ego to keep warm. Enjoy!

                • @WldFyre@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  We kill for survival, you kill for pleasure and ego.

                  Why do non-vegans always have the stupidest takes wrapped up in some pseudo-intellectual bullshit. You obviously don’t believe that someone killing your houseplant or lawn is as bad as someone killing your dog, so why say something so blatantly untruthful and dumb?

                  And how are vegans killing for pleasure when they have a more restricted diet than you?

                  Go out and continue the circle of life in your local Publix, you ferocious lion you!

              • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                plants are not sentient

                this cannot be proven, but even if it’s true, it doesn’t matter. sentience is an arbitrary charcteristic on which to base your diet.

                • @oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Sentience is what I base my ethics on (i’m a sentientist or sentiocentrist), which has implications on diet when considering whether to exploit and/or kill sentient beings for food. I don’t think it’s arbitrary, if someone is sentient, they are morally relevant because they can experience positive and negative valence (pleasure/pain, to put it more plainly but lose some nuance). If something is not sentient, I don’t see how it can be ethically relevant except in cases where the nonsentient thing matters to a sentient being

                  if you’re looking for arbitrary, the anthropocentrists are that way

                  Also I agree we can’t prove that plants aren’t sentient, that’s why I said “to the best of my knowledge”

                  • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    21 year ago

                    if someone is sentient, they are morally relevant because they can experience positive and negative valence

                    this is a moral virtue only to utilitarians.