If it is about producing less waste and consumption, it is moral in that humans consume less vegetation than a cow would and therefore less toiling of the earth.
But on a conscious level it is the same. Either meat or plant is just as conscious as the other.
at least eating meat: consumers are at least admitting to the suffering they are committing on another conscious being and have the humility to acknowledge as much while they also acknowledge they require to eat to continue to survive in human form. this is what it means that existance is the cause of suffering. regardless of what you consume.
The type of vegans who refuse to acknowledge plants as a conscious being for no other reason that a plant cannot run away or make noise to ‘prove’ their consciousness to them and then have the audacity to turn around and judge others. i believe that to be immoral and unethical as well as emotionaly manipulative and deeply disassociated to the encumberance of life.
Eating plant based: while it is healthier, it is better treatment to the earth itself by consuming less but i would not be fooled into thinking there is a moral high ground in consuming consciousness to be looking down on anyone else.
consiousness has been undeniably defined on a scale and now has been located within the physical body and i have all these scientific papers to back it up so i can continue to use magical thinking to feel better about eating plants which over animals using the consious argument [citation needed]
then you got my point: it’s just as much of an insane take saying they dont. yet having not acquired any burden of proof of consciousness to say let alone commit to such absolutes.
you need to drop that as an argument and keep it as your personal belief until it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt.
til then; just as much conjecture to say equal consciousness to say consciousness exists.
we will meet on that day when theyve written the paper to prove consciousness and where it exists: then we can get proof that one has more than the other.
til then: we are two batshit insane people screaming at eachother. nothing more.
better arguments out there to be plant based. this here is just magical thinking for no other goal than to emotionally manipulate other people.
stick with facts. efficiency, less farming of animals were way better arguments than magical consciousness beliefs to be bullshit and screamy about.
You are so close yet so far. You’re still missing that one link of refinement to make your argument water tight and it is very important to acknowledge nuance here.
You don’t suddenly eat less just cuz you changed what you’re eating. Caloric intake is still requiring to be the same.
If you change to plants you need less animals to eat. They’d in turn require less.
You can’t just lazily spew thermal dynamics and nothing to connect it. It makes you sound almost smart but missing the point.
Again you keep missing your opportunity regardless how often I’m bringing it to you on a silver platter. I’m arguing with myself for you…and its a point i actually agree with. And yet you still keep missing it lol. im not even àrguing against thermal dynamics. i was arguing consiousness. you are so lost. I guess some ppl really can’t be helped.
Depends on what you are basing your morals on.
If it is about producing less waste and consumption, it is moral in that humans consume less vegetation than a cow would and therefore less toiling of the earth.
But on a conscious level it is the same. Either meat or plant is just as conscious as the other.
at least eating meat: consumers are at least admitting to the suffering they are committing on another conscious being and have the humility to acknowledge as much while they also acknowledge they require to eat to continue to survive in human form. this is what it means that existance is the cause of suffering. regardless of what you consume.
The type of vegans who refuse to acknowledge plants as a conscious being for no other reason that a plant cannot run away or make noise to ‘prove’ their consciousness to them and then have the audacity to turn around and judge others. i believe that to be immoral and unethical as well as emotionaly manipulative and deeply disassociated to the encumberance of life.
Eating plant based: while it is healthier, it is better treatment to the earth itself by consuming less but i would not be fooled into thinking there is a moral high ground in consuming consciousness to be looking down on anyone else.
Either meat or plant is just as conscious as the other [citation needed]
consiousness has been undeniably defined on a scale and now has been located within the physical body and i have all these scientific papers to back it up so i can continue to use magical thinking to feel better about eating plants which over animals using the consious argument [citation needed]
Oh dear, seek help.
Seek citations
For what? Burden of proof is on you.
Why? No vegan ever produced a paper proving consciousness. Why do they get a pass?
I’m not here defending vegans, I’m here questioning your batshit insane take that animals have an equivalent level of consciousness as plants.
then you got my point: it’s just as much of an insane take saying they dont. yet having not acquired any burden of proof of consciousness to say let alone commit to such absolutes.
you need to drop that as an argument and keep it as your personal belief until it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt.
til then; just as much conjecture to say equal consciousness to say consciousness exists.
we will meet on that day when theyve written the paper to prove consciousness and where it exists: then we can get proof that one has more than the other.
til then: we are two batshit insane people screaming at eachother. nothing more.
better arguments out there to be plant based. this here is just magical thinking for no other goal than to emotionally manipulate other people.
stick with facts. efficiency, less farming of animals were way better arguments than magical consciousness beliefs to be bullshit and screamy about.
Eating plants directly causes less plant harm compared to feeding them to animals and then eating those animals.
Because it’s more efficient. Every step along the food chain a lot of energy is lost due to thermodynamics.
same damage. animal eats plant. you are also eating plants. there isnt a zero sum just cuz you moved off of one onto the other.
had you argued less animal farming you might have had a good point as feeding large amounts of meat is inefficent.
you really missed your chance there.
No that’s why I brought up thermodynamics.
Directly eating plants kills less plants than eating animals that grew up eating plants all their life.
unless we feed animals p arts of plants we don’t want. one harvest, two uses.
What if the left over parts are not enough and you had to dedicate lots of land and grow crops just to feed farm animals?
you don’t have to. just don’t do that.
You are so close yet so far. You’re still missing that one link of refinement to make your argument water tight and it is very important to acknowledge nuance here.
You don’t suddenly eat less just cuz you changed what you’re eating. Caloric intake is still requiring to be the same.
If you change to plants you need less animals to eat. They’d in turn require less.
You can’t just lazily spew thermal dynamics and nothing to connect it. It makes you sound almost smart but missing the point.
Again you keep missing your opportunity regardless how often I’m bringing it to you on a silver platter. I’m arguing with myself for you…and its a point i actually agree with. And yet you still keep missing it lol. im not even àrguing against thermal dynamics. i was arguing consiousness. you are so lost. I guess some ppl really can’t be helped.