pull down to refresh
Thank you for your bad faith strawman.
My point is that my epistemological foundation is based on the faith and practices of my ancestors which explicitly allowed this. I also draw on Nietzschean concepts. I feel no ethical need to minimize the suffering of other animals or people.
- "Some meat is more nutrient-dense than others."
My point was addressing the common vegan talking point that being vegan is healthier than eating meat is often based off of how unhealthy the typical diet is not how healthy meat eating can be. Regardless, that's not really an ethical point so I probably shouldn't have brought it up.
my response- False. We can be civilized and peaceful as much as possible and still be able to dish out violence when we need to for defense etc.. This is exactly why martial arts, weight lifting, and guns (for self defense) exist.
Recreational sparring and killing animals via slaughtering or hunting is not the same thing. The point is being familiar with taking a life. Outsourcing that to large factories (which I agree are poor handlers of animals) was a net negative. Has the world gotten more free since we stopped killing pests, livestock, and prey ourselves? No, the state has gotten continuously larger and the will of people to resist tyrants has diminished as violence has become more distant and abstract. We are domesticated now because we have become prey and not predators. This is obviously multifactorial, but I think to deny this is to be purposefully obtuse.
I do not view pacifism or having an overactive empathy response as masculine or becoming of a man of strong character. I struggle to see how any such person could function throughout the day when everyday, everywhere people and animals are dying in horrific manners.
You did not address my arguments in good faith. Furthermore, your ethical points so far have not even been ethical. Your point has largely been "you can go without". Can you tell me why I should ethically?
You have not made any positive arguments and your argument that people want to reduce animal harm at a higher preference than the enjoyment or benefit conferred from consuming animal products. I do not have that preference.
What are your positive arguments besides animals are nice and hurting things is mean and imagine if everyone was kind?
This doesn't prove me wrong as requested. Lets go through each of your points:
response- Can you explain why this is logical?
response- True. What's your point?
my response- False. We can be civilized and peaceful as much as possible and still be able to dish out violence when we need to for defense etc.. This is exactly why martial arts, weight lifting, and guns (for self defense) exist.
Honestly bro, this is disappointing. Is this the best you can come up with?
Pathetic.