What hills are you dying on?

. The race of a voice actor doesn't matter

. It is possible to wear yoga pants because there comfy

. You don't need to shower everyday

. It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans

. Monty Python is very overrated

You're viewing a single thread.

494 comments

Being vegan is a moral base line.
- It's not that i disagree, but can you elaborate on that?
  
  Inflicting pain and suffering is bad, especially if done for selfish reasons, like pleasure (and tbh if someone were to disagree with that, I'd dont want to talk to them). Exploiting animals is exactly that, taste pleasure to be exact.
  
  classic first worlder with their elevated standard of living:
  Animal based protein is often cheaper and more easily accessible
  herbivores as a middle step helps digest frankly indigestible plants
  I am not disagreeing with you there is a fine line between acceptable and gluttonous, but acting holier than though, just cause you insistently chew grass and destroy your gut biome doesn't help the animals
  
  Would you be happier with the moral baseline being "Whoever can go vegan, should"?
  BTW. there is only one world :)
  
  eating meat doesn't inflict any pain or suffering though.
  
  It does, because the meat industry is tremendously abusive to animals. Ontop of that it's a poor use of land and it contributes greatly to global warming. But for sure, the animals feel pain and suffering assuming it is possible for them to do so. Trillions of shrimp die horribly painful deaths every year, but nobody cares because they have a funny-sounding name.
  
  all of that can be true without necessitating veganism
  
  Moral baseline is not a necessity. It's a comparison point. Basically, if you're not vegan, you should be doing something else to end up net-positive (from a utilitarian point of view). I'm not vegan, I'm vegetarian, so I'm in the negatives I guess.
  
  I'm not a utilitarian. most people aren't
  
  Then I guess for you there is no way to outweigh not being vegan. Consider utilitarianism :)
  
  i have considered it, and its epistemic issues make it impractical as a basis of deciding correct actions.
  
  Oh, you need to employ bayesianism to make utilitarianism even begin to make sense. Regardless of whether I might ultimately find utilitarianism contradictory, Bayesianism is the hill I'd die on.
  
  you are splitting hairs
  
  none of this makes eating meat cause pain or suffering. these are all problems with production, not consumption.
  
  Describe a way to eat meat that doesn't require prior suffering then.
  
  an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. eating the meat doesn't cause it to have been produced.
  
  I am not interested in discussing meta-physics. For you to eat meat, an animal suffered. That is the point.
  
  eating meat doesn't cause an animal to have suffered.
  
  That is true, so the pieces of meat which were placed on earth by god 6k years ago can be eaten guilt-free. However, all other pieces of meat require harvesting from an animal first, incurring the aforementioned downsides. Just as purchasing an item encourages its production, eating meat encourages its purchase.
  Here are two simple scenarios where eating the meat does indeed cause meat to be produced:
  your eating it means that another person doesn't eat it, so another piece of meat must be purchased for that other person;
  your eating the meat signals to whoever got the meat for you (perhaps yourself) that you are willing to eat meat and hence they pick up a propensity to get meat for you again in the future.
  Isn't this simple common sense though? Were you really not aware this is how the world works?
  
  none of that is causal.
  
  I used "so" and "hence" in both of those examples, indicating what I perceive as causality. How am I wrong?
- How are you going to get vitamin B12 while being vegan? As far as I know it's not possible.
  
  By supplementing it. As should people who are not vegan, cause B12 is one of the most common deficiencies.
- Counter argument, I need to eat and I can catch seafood myself without contributing towards capitalism. Isn't a full diet but its a start. Can make it into a full meal with some rice.
  
  How is that a counter argument?
  
  I need to eat food. You can't really just state the moral base line is not to eat
  
  You don't need to eat animals tho?
  
  Must be nice being rich enough to eat what ever you feel like having. Some of us are not so fortunate and have to make do with what is available.
  
  Rice and beans are only for the wealthy I guess.
  
  Assuming fish don't have feelings, it is fine. But if fish have 0.1% the moral weight of a human being, can you say you're worth more than 1000 fish?
- no, it's not
  
  oh but it is
  
  saying it doesn't make it true
  
  Right back at you
  
  I'm not the one making a positive claim.
  
  Well you could have asked this person to explain instead of just saying "no it's not." Also, as far as I'm aware, there's no reason for positive claims ought to have the burden of proof instead of a negative claim. Any positive claim can be turned into a negative claim by phrasing it in the negative anyway, and positing the non-existence of something still carries the burden of proof.
  Anyway, veganism generally has a clear rationale behind it that is widely known, but rarely do I see people seriously arguing that omnivorism is as ethical as veganism. So -- burden of proof lies on you I'd say.
  
  a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. dismissing that claim is not the same as making a claim.
  
  dismissing the claim is merely an action that occurs in the eye of the beholder. Your dismissing a claim does not actually challenge the claim or affect the one who holds it, so why even?
  
  why make an unsupported claim?
  
  ITT: people listing the hills they'd die on. Hardly anyone is giving support for their claims.

494 comments