• 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!

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

                    Nice to know that you don’t have any arguments. Vegans are the dumb ones for sure! Continue trolling and pretending to be an idiot, that really shows how you have a point and they don’t lol

            • @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.

                  • there are other approaches to sentientism that aren’t based on valence. I don’t feel like writing a book on the different ones, but to give an example of a rights based one that I think is strong is that every sentient being has, at the very least, a right to their body, since that’s the one thing they’re born with and that is (almost certainly) what gives rise to their sentience in the first place. And to violate another sentient beings bodily autonomy is to forfeit your own (a sort of low level social contract), which allows for self defense and defending others

                    but to go back to utilitarianism, I think there’s a strong argument that most ethical frameworks can be defined in terms of a sufficiently creative definition of utility. I don’t really feel like getting into the weeds of that discussion though, and I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to the conversation anyways

                  • I explained why it’s not arbitrary, then pointed to a group that does draw arbitrary distinctions. That’s not tu quoque because I’m not saying “you also”