• FelixCress@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    It is completly illogical and it tries to impose unnatural limitations - you know, like religions do.

    • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I’m not a vegan - but we are omnivores, we can eat plants. There is nothing unnatural about it. Let alone if you compare it to our modern ‘normal’ food, which is chock full of extra sugar, extra fat, extra protein, extra artificial additives like preservatives, sweeteners, and what not. It’s also factual that you can get more energy out of directly consuming plant material than eating an animal that consumed said plant material. If you take the biggest offenders for that, cows. You need 8 kg of feed for them to produce a kg of meat, this is known as it’s feed conversion ratio (source). Other animals (Like chicken and fish) are better, but a ration below 1 is essentially impossible.

      I like the taste of meat as much as the next (average) person, but vegans do have a factual basis for their stance. But non-vegans rebuttal to that is realistically just “I don’t want to give up meat because I like it” not “the facts aren’t on your side.” - Lets be honest about that.

      • FelixCress@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        but we are omnivores, we can eat plants. There is nothing unnatural about it.

        Yup, precisely, there is nothing unnatural about omnivores eating plants and meat. It is an attempt to restrict part of this normal for omnivores diet which is unnatural and this is what religions do. Thus my point.

        • Omniforous@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m glad you found a natural computer to post with from inside your natural house. Seeing your dogshit opinions is funny.

          Appeals to nature are not compelling because all of human progress and civilisation is built upon using technology to surpass nature. Just about everything we interact with in modern society isn’t natural, why would we think that your idea of humans natural diet would be the ideal?

          Veganism is an ethical stance, not religious. There are plenty of ethical stance that place restrictions on human behaviour that I’m sure you are totally on with, like when society tells you not to steal from or murder people. Are you prepared to argue against ethics as a whole?

        • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          You can eat shit if you want, it won’t kill you. There’s tribes in Greenland that eat bird poop as a delicacy. So it must be natural! Or how about snails, grasshoppers, worms, crickets? All edible, even good. All things an omnivore can and do consume at time. You should stop being so unnatural and cutting all of these things out of your diet.

          Oh, you won’t? Guess that makes you a religious believer now. C’mon man, you must be trying to be dense on purpose.

            • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Shame you’re not willing to see the unreasonableness in yourself. Now you have to go to the shop to buy some crickets to avoid being seen as a hypocrite.

              • FelixCress@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                2 days ago

                Shame you’re not willing to see the unreasonableness in yourself.

                More religious zealot talk, carry on, it is highly amusing 🤣

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Pointing out hypocrisy using logical arguments is religious zealot talk?

                  I thought appealing to “common sense” or “nature” is what religious zealot do more often.

                  • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    I appreciate the back up, but with the rare sighting of an organism that is able to consume downvotes and irrationality for a living, I don’t think it’s worth your (or anyone’s) time trying to convince them to change to an ‘unnatural’ diet ^^

                  • FelixCress@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    No, sweetheart. Calling eating meat a “murder” and claiming veganism has nothing to do with religious zealousy in one breath is a rare example of either shouting hypocrisy or sheer stupidity. 🤣

    • Pilgrim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      My question was how it’s illogical to you and your answer is “it’s completely illogical”?

      Like, how hard is it to write down a simple sentence in which you explain why it’s illogical!?

      I can do you a favour and already unfold it: The vegan argument is that unnecessary harm towards animals should be avoided when it’s “possible and practical”, like when you live in a modern society, you don’t need to buy leather clothes or eat meat, there is no necessity to do so because of the incredible amount of alternatives, where no animal needs to be killed nor harmed.

      To say thats illogical therefore means that you see no logic in avoiding unnecessary harm towards animals. So please, just start your response like this:

      “I don’t see how it’s logical that we should avoid unnecessary harm towards animals, because…”