311–320 of 427 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People want it to be but facts are not up for a debate.
Why isn’t it a living chicken after 3 days? 1 day? Immediately after fertilization? Whatever this has been argued ad infinitum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 18,000,000 million people Yes, of course! (Facepalm) > by the way, 30g of chicken at hatching are not 30g of meat) And of course again, it's just to prove how much actual good food it's wasted by simply not considering the alternatives 30gr of chicken at hatching become 1.5 kg of poultry in 3 months not killing them as soon as they hatch it's good, selling them to someone who's gonna eat them is even better
> 30gr of chicken at hatching become 1.5 kg of poultry in 3 months 30gr of chicken plus many kg of corn (and, as discusesd in other comments, not all the chicken are equal when it comes to transforming corn into meat)
Why everything must be reduced to an industrial activity when clearly it doesn't need to?
I guess "teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" is not a good advice either, how much fish food do you need in a lifetime?
And who's gonna pay for it?
I wonder where anti-abortion people come down on this. In their view, isn’t destroying the male egg the same as culling the male chick?
For anti-abortion vegans/vegetarians, quite possibly. If you're already eating meat, you're already demonstrably OK with the killing of an animal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Warning: American viewpoint that might not make as much sense applied globally. I’d go so far as to say it’s also because it is not heavily politicized either. The political right already has (human) abortion to win the emotional vote, they have no reason to go any further as those people will never change their minds on average (which is good enough to win elections) For the record I don’t at all think abortion shou…
While I don't agree with the right's view, I wish more people would take the approach of steelmanning[1] their political stance before trying to debate it. Do you really not see how someone on the right could simply accuse you of the same bad behavior as you have of them? > For the record I don’t at all think abortion should be politicized But put yourself in a charitable version of your opponent's shoes: they believ…
Look I get that I was wrong in stating my own opinion, in such a way the vilified the other side. Such behavior will not lead to compromise, so I’m happy to say I myself have no influence over politics
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Warning: American viewpoint that might not make as much sense applied globally. I’d go so far as to say it’s also because it is not heavily politicized either. The political right already has (human) abortion to win the emotional vote, they have no reason to go any further as those people will never change their minds on average (which is good enough to win elections) For the record I don’t at all think abortion shou…
While I don't agree with the right's view, I wish more people would take the approach of steelmanning[1] their political stance before trying to debate it. Do you really not see how someone on the right could simply accuse you of the same bad behavior as you have of them? > For the record I don’t at all think abortion should be politicized But put yourself in a charitable version of your opponent's shoes: they believ…
The argument is that an unborn child that can't support itself outside the mother isn't a whole life yet. And if accept that it is a whole life and the mother is obligated to use her body to sustain it, why don't we apply that same argument for say mandatory organ donation? We don't even do mandatory organ harvesting on dead bodies, let alone compel living people to donate organs, due to the principle of bodily autonomy.
> I sincerely think that if the left took the time to argue against the steelmanned argument from the right,
I don't agree, since most of the right's objections are rooted in religion. You can't convince someone to abandon what they consider an article of faith using logical arguments. The right also consistently opposes government support for poor mothers (the group most likely to get abortions) and children, and sex education (reduces abortions among teenagers, the next biggest group). If they were sincere about being "pro-life" rather than just "anti-abortion", they would be strongly in support of these policies. Why bother arguing with people who don't even act in a manner consistent with their proclaimed beliefs? What argument would they accept?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They generally don't care because it's not humans being killed. You'd need to ask an anti-abortion vegan.
Warning: American viewpoint that might not make as much sense applied globally. I’d go so far as to say it’s also because it is not heavily politicized either. The political right already has (human) abortion to win the emotional vote, they have no reason to go any further as those people will never change their minds on average (which is good enough to win elections) For the record I don’t at all think abortion shou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OP did not make a good point - they made a Nirvana Fallacy. And your analogy in no way captures that argument anyway.
I interpret OPs point to be one that highlights the already existing Nirvana Fallacy that is the core of idealistic veganism. My analogy adds directly to that point.
Vegans in general choose to not consume animals or (non-human) animal products, by definition. There is a large variety of adherence and some variety in self-definition, just as there is in any common human community.
The Nirvana Fallacy lies in claiming that all vegans are vegan because they wish to be perfectly ethical, or follow a particular definition strictly, and are therefore failing on their own terms.
But vegans in general make no such claim to be perfectly ethical. They are not failing on their own terms - they are failing on your invented terms: ones which only highlight your own cognitive dissonance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hacker News, where technology > empathy
I value ethics and empathy deeply but, I don't understand vegans and vegetarians. Their biggest line of defense is "animals are alive and they have feelings and senses, we abuse them for food". That's sadly right. And they implicitly say that "eating plants are OK because, plants are not animals and they're just happen to grow. They don't feel, they don't understand". On the contrary, there's a growing mountain of re…
If 800 rats and fluffy squirrels die violently & painfully for the equivalent amount of veggie nutrition of one cow who is killed ethically, eating grass grown naturally, are their lives worth less? What is the ratio?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't sure about this because it contradicts my priors so I did some quick searching: Venus Williams is a "chegan" and uses milk-based protein. Lewis Hamilton is a driver and is unlikely to have protein demands related to his sport that are different than the average person. Colin Kaepernick became a vegan at approximately the same time he stopped playing professionally. Kyrie Irving: I can't find what he does for…
Formula 1 athletes (Lewis Hamilton) get that critique a lot but from what I've heard, it's a physically demanding activity that requires a lot of physical fortitude and therefore the "F1 drivers aren't athletes" argument is dubious (although I admit it's not a persuasive argument on my side precisely because people don't automatically think of F1 drivers as athletes). Professional surfing is not physically demanding…
Thanks for the reply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. I was vegetarian for 2 years for ethical reasons. Animal-based protein is much easier to digest. And your average person perhaps doesn't need much protein...because your average person has no concept of exercise or fitness except as something other people do. Then your average person falls victim to metabolic syndrome and other western lifestyle related diseases. Once you set fitness goals your nutrition…
Quick reminder that the vast majority of Americans eat too much protein.