introspective triggered feminist

Great template. Love it. Good meme too.

https://i.imgflip.com/2w3fnv.jpg

I understand the argument behind Veganism, but it has flaws.

Great meme tho

Yeah, moral veganism doesn't make sense. There's the countless soil-dwelling animals that get killed during the tilling and harvesting process of crops.

And vegans believe it's ok to eat and use products from plants and fungi because they don't have brains and presumably can't feel pain... but sponges, cnidarians, tunicates, and fan worms, which are animals, also fall into that category.

And what about medications that use ingredients derived from animals?

Actually it's the only thing that *does* make sense. I examined all the old conventional arguments against it, and they failed in flames.

Vegan for close to 20 years.

You say that, and yet you haven't rebutted any of my points.

The fact that there are animals which have no brain or ganglia/centralized nervous system makes the animal vs. plant & fungi distinction arbitrary in terms of whether or not it's immoral to consume them.

And what about life-saving medications that use ingredients derived from animals? Should we stop producing them?

And the vast majority of vegans are pro-choice and believe that a human fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells". If that's the case, then why is it immoral to consume the unfertilized eggs of animals?

And then there's the countless soil-dwelling animals - vegans are still participating in the mass-slaughter of animals unless they buy all their produce and plant-derived products from hydroponic farms.

I had already answered them for myself years ago and didn't consider them serious enough to bother with. For example regarding soil-dwelling animals, your argument essentially boils down to "it's impossible to never kill anything, so why bother trying to minimize it, kill things on a massive scale and who gives a sh*t for their obvious pointless preventable suffering." You seriously consider that a point? You've confused veganism with Jainism.

Medications. Alternatives already exist, and to the extent they don't, it's because people have gotten ethically lazy and not bothered looking. Why would they when they take animal slaughter as a given instead of something to ethically question? Nicely compartmentalized.

Abortion. More complex than either "side" thinks it is. Is someone who argues for late term abortion a hypocrite? Sure. Is someone on the other hand who eats scrambled chicken fetuses for breakfast also a hypocrite? Absolutely. So why not be REALLY consistent all the way around instead of selectively.

Like I said, I went through all that, plus actual "harder" arguments years ago. It was in fact much less hard than people try to make it - IF they're willing to be ethically honest. Few truly are.

I have no problem with vegans who choose it as a personal lifestyle. I have a problem with sanctimonious ones who act like they are morally superior and more enlightened because of their diet. They are like the young-Earth creationists of the left.

Chicken eggs people consume are not chicken fetuses. They are unfertilized eggs. When hens lay them, it's akin to a human woman having her period. They're waste material just like period blood and the microscopic egg discharged with it. I don't see how it's immoral to consume unfertilized animal eggs. People who are pro-life but eat chicken eggs are not hypocrites.

Then there's the types of animals that have no brain or centralized nervous system: sponges, cnidarians, tunicates, and fan worms. Indeed there are species of jellyfish, sea anemones, and tunicates that are edible. I do not believe these animals are conscious or can experience emotions or pain. If you DO believe these animals are conscious and can experience emotions and pain, then there is no reason to assume that plants and fungi can't. Thus, the kingdom of life which a particular organism falls into becomes an arbitrary determinant as to whether or not it's immoral to consume it. It's entirely possible that scientists in the future will be able to synthesize entirely new kingdoms of life through DNA printing. And it's entirely possible that completely different kingdoms of life may have evolved on other worlds; even non-carbon-based life. We could also genetically-engineer very animal-like plants such as ones that move about to search for sunlight, water, and nutrients, and it's possible that such plants could've evolved on other worlds. Indeed slime molds, which are protists, exhibit rather animal-like behavior, at least in comparison to the aforementioned sessile animals. Would it be immoral to consume such organisms?

You cannot know for certain that a non-animal-based substitute exists for every animal-based ingredient required in medications. And by barring the use of animal-based ingredients, you would be preventing new life-saving medications and treatments from being created. For example: https://start1.org/news/a-sea-sponge-could-save-your-life/. You are the one doing lazy thinking.

Moral vegans are just as foolish, sanctimonious, and insufferable as leftists who assert that it's bigoted to not want to date trans people, fat people, disabled people, or have racial preferences (like Riley Dennis).

As an NRA member as well as vegan, I oppose the mischaracterization of a group by the specious typing of the selected extremists. Both "left" and "right" do this.

Even if you dismissed sea anemones - and I think it can still be established they experience pain - that's still kind of a copout to argue that larger animals can therefore be dismissed also, given that they are what people consume and not the "lessers".

I think my case for laziness stands similarly based on the logic I already gave.

Your "foolish, sanctimonious, and insufferable" comment is a naked falsity and honestly worthy of no further reply.

"Even if you dismissed sea anemones - and I think it can still be established they experience pain - that's still kind of a copout to argue that larger animals can therefore be dismissed also, given that they are what people consume and not the "lessers"." Where do vegans get the belief that animal pain and suffering is evil to begin with? And why should others adopt this belief? The vast majority of vegans in the West are not religious and tend to be atheists. If your argument was "I believe in Religion X, and according to the teachings of Religion X, I am not supposed to consume meat/any animal products." the argument would end here, as your beliefs on this WOULD be logically consistent.

None of the animals vegans care about remotely care about the sufferings of other animals, or care about the suffering they may inflict upon humans. I was attacked by a dog when I was a toddler, and I was bit by a spider on my leg the summer before 9th grade. In both of these instances, my pain and suffering was no concern of the dog's or the spider's. Nor would either animal ever feel any remorse for what they had done to me. Additionally, no animal is ever going to remotely appreciate the concern humans have for their suffering. Caring about the sufferings of other species is an entirely man-made concept.

"Your "foolish, sanctimonious, and insufferable" comment is a naked falsity and honestly worthy of no further reply." My point there is that moral pansexualists (like Riley Dennis, NeonFiona, and Franchesca Ramsey) are, like moral vegans, asserting that the vast majority of people are immoral because of the pain and suffering they inflict upon a particular group (in the moral pansexualists' case, by having preferences which exclude certain "marginalized" groups of people). They are both pulling moral obligations out of thin air, and using them to assert that the vast majority of people are cruel, but that they are clean and enlightened and pious.

"I think my case for laziness stands similarly based on the logic I already gave." You are the one who is mischaracterizing people - medicinal researchers - as being lazy and intentionally trying to contribute to the suffering of animals. Your belief that a non-animal-based substitute just HAS to exist for every animal-based ingredient required in medications is naive and unscientific.

Additionally, for people who live in very cold and/or low-sunlight climates, a solely plant-based diet is NOT going to provide sufficient calorie and vitamin D needs. Veganism seems to be most common in warm, sunny places like California. Veganism doesn't sound very appealing if you live in the tundra and it means your diet will consist mainly of lichen and moss.