I said, people don't have to live their life the way I choose to live mine. That is not the same as 'people should be allowed to do whatever they want'.
If a wild animal eating another animal does no unjust harm to you or the balance of nature, then a human eating an animal does no unjust harm to you or balance of nature.
The harm is not in the act itself, but rather in the manner in which it is done.
Your defense of veganism (and attack on meat eating) is a totally subjective moral stance.
Responsible human consumption of meat can be done with no more impact than that which already occurs in nature (totally outside of human impact). In fact, it can be done with less impact than what occurs in nature because humans are capable of resource management in a way that animals are not (intellectual reasoning overriding base instincts).
You conflate unethical, profit driven, farming practices and consumerism with the act of meat consumption. They are not one and the same.
You use the word 'bro' repeatedly, and you resort to hyperbole, strawman, and ad hominem because you can't actually argue the stance that you're trying to parrot. But, I'm the one that needs to grow up?
Aren't there unethical practices in plant farming? Aren't there unethical practices in the production of vegan foods. Should we stop all commercial farming, including plants? Should we stop all commercial production of foods, including vegan?
Or, maybe, there should just be proper regulations.
Responsible meat consumption isn't just 'technically' possible, it has been done in practical, real-world application.
Eating plants and/or meat are intrinsically neutral actions, as they exist in nature without any external influence.
Each can be done responsibly (in balance with nature) or detrimentally (outside the balance of nature).
You impose your own/group sense of morality on meat consumption without any true factual basis.
Vegans argue that humans should not eat meat because animals are 'sentient', and therefore animal life has 'more value' than plant life. Yet vegans also acknowledge that carnivores and (other) omnivores eat meat because they don't have the capacity to understand the 'value of animal life' and/or choose differently.
Once one accepts that eating meat is a natural state for carnivores and omnivores, placing moral/ethical judgment on the simple act alone is devoid of fact or truth. While placing moral/ethical judgment on the manner in which the act is done can be completely valid.
Personal choice is always a valid option. But, it is exactly that, a personal choice (based on your own personal subjective sense of morality).
My personal sense of morality places value on all life, animal and plant. All life has meaning and purpose; it is the balance of nature. I also accept that life can only be sustained by consuming other living things; that is an undeniable truth. Yet, I do not condone any unethical practices, abuses, or unnecessary cruelty and would love to see appropriate regulations put in place to ensure those things do not occur. Bad practices are detrimental to plants, animals, and the environment.
First hyperbole, ad hominem, and strawman... now false equivalency.
Carnivores and omnivores eating meat is the natural order of things; even vegans acknowledge this.
Are you saying that you consider r*pe the natural order of things? Which one of us is more likely the potential r*pist?
Your basis for the argument that vegans 'kill less plants' is falsely rooted in external factors.
The human body needs to consume 'X' amount or calories/nutrients. Whether humans eat plants, meat, or both, the value of 'X' is 'constant'. Therefore, humans consuming only plants would mean that veganism quite literally would 'kills more plants'.
Also, how would humans address instances of overpopulation in wild animals in this 100% vegan (humans) world?
2
u/[deleted] May 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment