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.
I'm sure you feel that way, but no. It's more like ya'll are anti-animal cultists. Possible longterm anti-lifeists where ecological effects of animal agriculture are considered.
Facilitating animal deaths for eating pleasure is intolerant toward animals and their lives. Yet meat eaters expect Vegans to be nice to meat eaters. In other words, meat eaters expect Vegans to be tolerant of intolerance. One day meat eaters will understand they should rightly be shamed and their behavior and discourse locked out of society, but not today - today they don't understand.
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 entirely 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.
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?