Is there really a strong argument you can make against Veganism?

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

It is about limiting one's possible field of action according to arbitrary laws, and in a "disinterested" manner (in a theological paradigm, not fishing in the hope of going to paradise is intelligent, pragmatic, but it is no longer a question of being "moral").

Morals only make sense in the context of you having an ability to choose between options. If you lack that ability, then you are not considered a moral agent.

Its not about limiting its about finding your values and then being consistent with your values.  If you know that you care about x value the most, then why not make a coherent system that will protect that value or a system that will produce the most amount of that value?

You make decisions about a ton of things all the time and you either have a well thought out system that is consistent with your values that you care about or you make your decisions on a whim based purely on your emotions/instincts  (which, ironically, would be irrational)

But the bottom line is this: You can either be systematic about your decisions or you can be impulsive about it.

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

There is absolutely no reason to deprive yourself of killing an animal to eat it (among other things, but here the subject is veganism) if you do not believe in divine punishment.

Again, its not really about depriving its about systematically choosing between a set of given options based on your previously thought out morals.

With your "no morals" argument you concede every ground to judge any action or any lack of action in any manner whatsoever, because with "no morals"  you essentially claim there is no standard to judge or go by. So when you say this x action or lack of action is "stupid" or "irrational" those  all become meaningless words.

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

Deprive yourself of killing an animal by removing the notions of "moral", "ethics", "justification" or "excuse" when you are an atheist and/or are not convinced of any kind of punishment is the stupidest/irrational thing you can do.

Person x deeply cares about animal suffering and when he sees/hears/knows about animal suffering it makes him feel extremely bad. Now according to you its irrational for him to stop eating  meat even though when he does eat meat , it creates unnecessary suffering for him.

Sounds like a good reason for that guy to act according to his values.

Edited October 15, 2023 by zurew

[Schizophonia]

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

Morals only make sense in the context of you having an ability to choose between options. If you lack that ability, then you are not considered a moral agent.

Yes.

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its not about limiting its about finding your values and then being consistent with your values.  If you know that you care about x value the most, then why not make a coherent system that will protect that value or a system that will produce the most amount of that value?

I have no "values", I only follow my interests.

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

You make decisions about a ton of things all the time and you either have a well thought out system that is consistent with your values that you care about or you make your decisions on a whim based purely on your emotions/instincts  (which, ironically, would be irrational)

No, you can act thoughtfully (not instinctively) without being aligned with any moral value system.
Otherwise it would mean that a serial killer who acts with premeditation is a very moral person, which makes no sense.

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

But the bottom line is this: You can either be systematic about your decisions or you can be impulsive about it.

Ditto

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

Again, its not really about depriving its about systematically choosing between a set of given options based on your previously thought out morals.

With your "no morals" argument you concede every ground to judge any action or any lack of action in any manner whatsoever, because with "no morals"  you essentially claim there is no standard to judge or go by. So when you say this x action or lack of action is "stupid" or "irrational" those  all become meaningless words.

No, semantics have nothing to do with the moral question, whether or not you agree with me on what is rational or not.

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

Person x deeply cares about animal suffering and when he sees animal suffering it makes him feel extremely bad. Now according to you its irrational for him to stop eating  meat even though when he does eat meat , it creates unnecessary suffering for him.

 

Sounds like a good reason for that guy to act according to his values.

No, I said it's rational to continue eating meat if it's in your interest or you don't care, it's also rational not to if it makes you disturbs (so it is not in your interest).
But it's a question of mirror neurons, not "morale".

[zurew]

54 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

I have no "values", I only follow my interests.

54 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Otherwise it would mean that a serial killer who acts with premeditation is a very moral person, which makes no sense

Following ones interest is a moral system in and of itself and its called:Ethical egoism.

Where the highest good is defined as acting according to your best interest.

Also depending on how wide you define "following one's interest", it can suddenly become almost completely identical to a group's moral system where following your own interest will include other peoples and other beings interests, because your very existence relies on other beings and agents.

 

I don't buy though that you don't have any values and I would like to test it. Lets say there is a person who has 50 dollars in his pocket and you have the option to kill that person in such a way where you won't be caught. Do you kill that person or not and why?

Edited October 15, 2023 by zurew

[undeather]

55 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes.

I have no "values", I only follow my interests.

No, you can act thoughtfully (not instinctively) without being aligned with any moral value system.
Otherwise it would mean that a serial killer who acts with premeditation is a very moral person, which makes no sense.

Ditto

No, semantics have nothing to do with the moral question, whether or not you agree with me on what is rational or not.

No, I said it's rational to continue eating meat if it's in your interest or you don't care, it's also rational not to if it makes you disturbs (so it is not in your interest).
But it's a question of mirror neurons, not "morale".

Acting thoughtfully (not instinctievely) is EXACTLY what implies a moral value system. 
A moral system IS a set of values derived from from thoughtful considerations and basic rationales.
Using your metacognitive abilities to include factors outside immediate ego gratification IS the basis for morality.

Schizo, you absolutely have an ethical framework. 
If I would ask you :"Is it okay to set my neighbours newborn on fire - even if I want to do it?" - your answer is (hopefully) a strict "No!".
Why? Because, we can all agree that this would cause an immeasureable ammount of suffering to anyone involved. There are dozens of good arguments ranging from inherent value of human life, respect for autonomy, the categorical imperative or social contract theory. But there is really no good argument why the answer should be "yes" outside of "I feel like doing it". 

You see the underlying heuristic? By using rationality, empathy & reason, we can determine actions which are utilitarily in line with a greater good that exists outside of your immediate egoic wants and needs. We can see that our actions do have consequences that either increase or decrease the suffering in a given moral reference-frame. 

Stop dancing around the obvious - your take is the definition of inconsistency and I know you are smarter than that. 
Extend what I just said there to include non-human animals and you have a  bullet-proof case for vegan ethics. 

Again, this is not about judging each other. I do eat meat - and I just came home from a barbeque with my family.
I dont give a shit - but let's at least be intellectually honest about it. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by undeather

[Schizophonia]

40 minutes ago, zurew said:

Following ones interest is a moral system in and of itself and its called:Ethical egoism.

Where the highest good is defined as acting according to your best interest.

This concept seems as shaky as “anarcho-socialist”.
Afterwards why not, but it is generally not in this context that people invoke the notion of morality. ?‍♂️

40 minutes ago, zurew said:

Also depending on how wide you define "following one's interest", it can suddenly become almost completely identical to a group's moral system where following your own interest will include other peoples and other beings interests, because your very existence relies on other beings and agents.

agree

40 minutes ago, zurew said:

 

I don't buy though that you don't have any values and I would like to test it. Lets say there is a person who has 50 dollars in his pocket and you have the option to kill that person in such a way where you won't be caught. Do you kill that person or not and why?

I won't kill her, because it wouldn't be worth it to risk getting caught for just 50 euros.

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

Acting thoughtfully (not instinctievely) is EXACTLY what implies a moral value system. 

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

A moral system IS a set of values derived from from thoughtful considerations and basic rationales.
Using your metacognitive abilities to include factors outside immediate ego gratification IS the basis for morality.

Yes, but something done thoughtfully is not necessarily moral. Otherwise premeditated murder would be “moral”.
And what is the importance of acting punctually or not? A thoughtless/one-off act may or may not produce good results, the same goes for a thoughtful act.

Btw, killing an animal isn't really one-off/"instinctive", it takes time and preparation.

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

Schizo, you absolutely have an ethical framework. 
If I would ask you :"Is it okay to set my neighbours newborn on fire - even if I want to do it?" - your answer is (hopefully) a strict "No!".

If you give me money and I'm sure no one will ever know, yes I do.
There is no reason not to do it except if they are friends, in this case I want to keep their presence.

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

Why? Because, we can all agree that this would cause an immeasureable ammount of suffering to anyone involved.

So what ?

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

There are dozens of good arguments ranging from inherent value of human life, respect for autonomy,

It's true that average humans, especially modern humans, have a certain level of empathy, and some have a lot of it.
But it seems to me that that's not really what we mean by "moral" because it's just biology.
Is killing if you are a psychopath moral? It's like being a carnivorous animal somewhere, isn't it?

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

the categorical imperative

It is just a system invented by Kant, based on a theological paradigm.
I am not a Christian.

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

or social contract theory.

The social contract is pragmatic, it's not really about morality in the universal sense, as we can understand it.

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

But there is really no good argument why the answer should be "yes" outside of "I feel like doing it". 

 

Money

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

You see the underlying heuristic? By using rationality, empathy & reason, we can determine actions which are utilitarily in line with a greater good that exists outside

Why do something you won't benefit from? It's as if it didn't exist.

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

of your immediate egoic wants and needs.

That's all there is.

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

We can see that our actions do have consequences that either increase or decrease the suffering in a given moral reference-frame. 

Whatever ?

What do I gain from it, if not the (still egotic) gratification "oh, I do good, I'm the good side, blablabla" ?

If that's so, not interested in "regressive anal sadist" rewards.

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

Stop dancing around the obvious - your take is the definition of inconsistency and I know you are smarter than that. 

?

No, it's very simple and rational.

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

Extend what I just said there to include non-human animals and you have a  bullet-proof case for vegan ethics. 

No

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

Again, this is not about judging each other. I do eat meat - and I just came home from a barbeque with my family.

You think what you want, of course ?

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

I dont give a shit - but let's at least be intellectually honest about it. 

I don't see any place where I have been "intellectually dishonest"

[undeather]

 oooof....

Are you willing to debate this on Discord right now?

Edited October 15, 2023 by undeather

[Schizophonia]

2 minutes ago, undeather said:

 oooof....

Are you willing to debate this on Discord right now?

I would like  but :

-I have to go to sleep.

-I speak English like a Hindu pharmaceutical wholesaler, lol

But I'll think about it..

Edited October 15, 2023 by Schizophonia

[undeather]

2 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

I would like  but :

-I have to go to sleep.

-I speak English like a Hindu pharmaceutical wholesaler, lol

But I'll think about it..

I have a thick german-english accent as well, so don't worry about that.
I am having a 24h shift at the hospital starting tomorrow at 7:00 am - still your call, just saying.

We can keep it private or record it for this forum. I dont mind either way. 

[zurew]

@Schizophonia

You are not a nihilist.

 A nihilist wouldn't care about any value more than any other value , but you do care about following your own interest which in and of itself a subjective value that you optimize/strive for. 

You calling other people irrational who seem to follow other subjective morals compared to you, seem to be a contradiction on your end (or if not a contradiction it makes you irrational according to your own definition, if you define irrational as following subjective morals) because you follow a  subjective moral system of "following one's own interest".

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

I won't kill her, because it wouldn't be worth it to risk getting caught for just 50 euros.

My hypothetical included that you won't get caught. So here is the hypothetical: if you kill a person you get 50 euros or dollars without any possibility of being caught. This hypothetical includes that you will only get that 50 euros if you actually kill that person. Do you kill that person for 50 euros or not? and why or why not?

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

Why do something you won't benefit from?

The answer to such a question will be grounded in a moral system, but here is the thing: If I ask you "Why should I only do things that I benefit from" - for that question the answer will also be grounded in a subjective moral system.

.....

I think this is the crux of this whole thing:

For some reason you think that people who are ethical vegans choose their morals for themselves but I don't think thats the case. Its just that when you start to examine very deeply what you actually care about, a lot of  people bottom out at caring about animals ,because they also care about humans and you need big mental gymnastics to reason your way out in such a way where you can care about humans but not about animals.

Now the point is that I don't think you can choose what you deeply care about, but you can deeply examine yourself and find out what you actually care about. Now once one knows what he/she actually deeply cares about ,there is nothing irrational about following such a thing. Its just as simple as "I deeply care about x, therefore I protect x or optimize for x".

Edited October 15, 2023 by zurew

[Davino]

I'm a vegetarian and it's a pain in the ass to think everyday what to eat to have a healthy and well rounded nutrition.

Everything else for me has been positive but it really burns me out the ammount of work you have to put into it.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Ethics and morality do not exist, they are irrational aberrations.
There is no reason to want "a fairer world" or "to be more empathetic", it doesn't even work anywhere except to protect your ego with magical thinking.
Everything you do by distilling these irrational ideas is in fact maximizing the possibilities for a very rational and cynical elite, even psychopathic/sociopathic.

The Marxist-Leninists understood this perfectly and this is largely why they criticized the principle of human rights, maintaining bourgeois power by keeping the people in the illusion that these arbitrary laws are somehow "universal" .

But you are weak modern Westerners incapable of killing and gutting an animal to eat it, the paradigm of the unjust jungle as ultimate reality scares you too much so you embrace a world of illusion ideal for your ego, even if it means becoming manipulable.
The height of mental slavery is when you're willing to let yourself die so you don't have to kill an animal to eat it if that's your only option (or even argue about it like it's not obvious) as I have already heard many times, sometimes even from fairly well-known vegan YouTubers (notably Vegan gains and That Vegans Teacher, as I remember)
These people should get a Darwin award, lol.

What if I just like animals? How should I act?

[Reignforest]

There has never been a vegan civilization in recorded history that I'm aware of. Also most vegans require vitamins etc, that have to be produced in a factory and transported long distances.  If you had to provide all of your own resources you would likely perish. The only exception might be in a tropical environment,  but even then it's unlikely. 

[Schizophonia]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What if I just like animals? How should I act?

What do you mean by loving animals? What animals? Do you like wild boars? Are you going to go into the forest to try to find a wild boar to give it a hug (before it charges you, lol)? Do you like Hitler? Hitler is a human, therefore an animal.

But if it really isn't hypocritical and you really "love animals", assuming that it means something, then probably yes it's rational not to eat them.

But personally, I don't really give a damn about animals, the only thing that comes to mind if I want to take care of someone is to have a child.
Seems a lot more logical than getting a stupid and useless dog or cat.

11 hours ago, Davino said:

I'm a vegetarian and it's a pain in the ass to think everyday what to eat to have a healthy and well rounded nutrition.

Everything else for me has been positive but it really burns me out the ammount of work you have to put into it.

You can be vegan and live on chips.
It's not really related.

11 hours ago, zurew said:

@Schizophonia

You are not a nihilist.

 A nihilist wouldn't care about any value more than any other value , but you do care about following your own interest which in and of itself a subjective value that you optimize/strive for. 

You're playing with semantics, I'm not interested.
By morality everyone understands a set of principles with a universal vocation.

I am not a linguist, but for me making “egoism” compatible with the principle of morality makes this notion particularly shaky and useless.

Quote

You calling other people irrational who seem to follow other subjective morals compared to you, seem to be a contradiction on your end (or if not a contradiction it makes you irrational according to your own definition, if you define irrational as following subjective morals) because you follow a  subjective moral system of "following one's own interest".

Following my interests is rational, since my experience is the only thing I can perceive.
This includes being “virtuous” if I believe in a theological system that threatens me with disobedience.
But if not, then it is irrational.

Quote

My hypothetical included that you won't get caught. So here is the hypothetical: if you kill a person you get 50 euros or dollars without any possibility of being caught. This hypothetical includes that you will only get that 50 euros if you actually kill that person. Do you kill that person for 50 euros or not? and why or why not?

Yes I do.

Most humans would refuse because it would be too disruptive to their habitual paradigm since their existence, but my brain has been exposed to many more stressors than normal so killing someone is pretty easy for me.
(This doesn't mean I'm sadistic and want to kill people)

Quote

The answer to such a question will be grounded in a moral system, but here is the thing: If I ask you "Why should I only do things that I benefit from" - for that question the answer will also be grounded in a subjective moral system.

No, it's a question of brain neuroplasticity.

For the same reason that people like me buy substances in BTC on the dark net without batting an eyelid, while others tremble with stress because they are about to smoke a joint, for the same reason that men in the Middle Ages, although much more religious, were more violent than modern Europeans, although they were atheists.

Anything disruptive is avoided.

Quote

.....

I think this is the crux of this whole thing:

For some reason you think that people who are ethical vegans choose their morals for themselves

This is absolutely the case, what else do you want it to be? why would you want your brain not to go your way? lol.
Everything that emanates from you aims to come back to you, everything has a selfish vocation from A to Z if you dig deep enough.

What I think is that there are particularly narcissistic people and that regressive gratifications overwhelmingly outweigh "phalic" gratifications (I'm stealing a bit from the Freudian/Lacanian system lol, but it works well), and that as a result these people love to embody the “camp of good” and make up a significant part of political and societal groups based on such a paradigm. And there are other people who aren't interested in that.

Have you noticed that vegans are more likely to be left-wing, "progressive" or on the contrary in rarer cases neo-Nazis, and that pro-carnivore/Keto/Priml diets are more likely to be libertarians and /or a slightly “agrarian” conservative and prefer to live in the provinces?
Of course, because everything is connected, it's just a matter of libidinal investment strategies.

 

Quote

but I don't think thats the case. Its just that when you start to examine very deeply what you actually care about, a lot of  people bottom out at caring about animals ,because they also care about humans and you need big mental gymnastics to reason your way out in such a way where you can care about humans but not about animals.

No, animals are not going to have sex and romantic/friendly relationships with me, they are not going to pay taxes to pay for my retirement and health care costs, they are not going to treat me, they are not going to make me/ serve food in a restaurant, etcetc.
In other words, I have plenty of pragmatic reasons to cooperate with humans, almost none with other animals.
Anti-speciesism is like declaring that a random dog, wild boar or praying mantis should have as much right as a human who works and actually contributes to the social contract, it makes absolutely no sense.

Quote

Now the point is that I don't think you can choose what you deeply care about, but you can deeply examine yourself and find out what you actually care about. Now once one knows what he/she actually deeply cares about ,there is nothing irrational about following such a thing. Its just as simple as "I deeply care about x, therefore I protect x or optimize for x".

Yes, but we come back to the original problem.
You consider egoism ethical, that may be true, I don't know, but that's not the way the notion is usually invoked.

12 hours ago, undeather said:

I have a thick german-english accent as well, so don't worry about that.
I am having a 24h shift at the hospital starting tomorrow at 7:00 am - still your call, just saying.

We can keep it private or record it for this forum. I dont mind either way. 

Maybe the next week end or the other (beginning of November), i you can/want.

We can rcord if you want for the forum, lol.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Schizophonia

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

What do you mean by loving animals? What animals? Do you like wild boars? Are you going to go into the forest to try to find a wild boar to give it a hug (before it charges you, lol)? Do you like Hitler? Hitler is a human, therefore an animal.

But if it really isn't hypocritical and you really "love animals", assuming that it means something, then probably yes it's rational not to eat them.

But personally, I don't really give a damn about animals, the only thing that comes to mind if I want to take care of someone is to have a child.
Seems a lot more logical than getting a stupid and useless dog or cat.

In the words of Ye: I love Hitler. And wild boars.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Schizophonia]

24 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

In the words of Ye: I love Hitler. And wild boars.

 

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

You're playing with semantics, I'm not interested.
By morality everyone understands a set of principles with a universal vocation.

I disagree, because I talked about subjective morals but its not even necessary to solve this disagreement to establish what I want.

What I would be curious is for you to show what is irrational about this premise: Person x has the value of deeply caring about reducing animal suffering. He didn't choose this value, he just knows that he has this value. This person organize his life in a way,where he wants to reduce animal suffering as much as he can.

6 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes I do.

Most humans would refuse because it would be too disruptive to their habitual paradigm since their existence, but my brain has been exposed to many more stressors than normal so killing someone is pretty easy for me.
(This doesn't mean I'm sadistic and want to kill people)

Appreciate that you engaged with the hypothetical and didn't dodge it. I wouldn't consider you sadistic, but I would consider you incredibly atypical and a sociopath for sure and this not supposed to be intended as an ad hom, but as a description based on your response to the hypothetical.

By sociopath I mean having no empathy. Maybe you do have some empathy but then it has to be incredibly low.

6 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

This is absolutely the case, what else do you want it to be? why would you want your brain not to go your way? lol.

Few things here:

- Again this assumes that one can choose his/her values, but I disagree with that. Can you show me how this is being done? Like how could a person have value x and then willingly change that value to the opposite? More precisely how can one willingly go from having the value of "I care about reducing animal suffering" to "I care about increasing animal suffering"?

- What is the 'brain not going in your way' means there? You mean reducing your ability to survive or what?

6 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

No, animals are not going to have sex and romantic/friendly relationships with me, they are not going to pay taxes to pay for my retirement and health care costs, they are not going to treat me, they are not going to make me/ serve food in a restaurant, etcetc.
In other words, I have plenty of pragmatic reasons to cooperate with humans, almost none with other animals.
Anti-speciesism is like declaring that a random dog, wild boar or praying mantis should have as much right as a human who works and actually contributes to the social contract, it makes absolutely no sense.

I didn't talk about you, because you are obviously an atypical person - I talked about the vast majority of people. When most people pressed about their views why they care about humans in a way where they normally don't want to kill them or hurt them - the honest reasons given for that will be typically grounded in values that won't exclude non-human animals.

 

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

 

What I would be curious is for you to show what is irrational about this premise: Person x has the value of deeply caring about reducing animal suffering. He didn't choose this value, he just knows that he has this value. This person organize his life in a way,where he wants to reduce animal suffering as much as he can.

It's true, arithmetically this sentence makes sense.
But it is not because the sentence is logical that what it tells is rational. 

I am of course targeting the “value” part and all that it tacitly implies.

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Appreciate that you engaged with the hypothetical and didn't dodge it. I wouldn't consider you sadistic, but I would consider you incredibly atypical and a sociopath for sure and this not supposed to be intended as an ad hom, but as a description based on your response to the hypothetical.

2 hours ago, zurew said:

By sociopath I mean having no empathy. Maybe you do have some empathy but then it has to be incredibly low.

I don't know, I've felt a powerful feeling of love for certain people before, for some reason.

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Few things here:

- Again this assumes that one can choose his/her values, but I disagree with that. Can you show me how this is being done? Like how could a person have value x and then willingly change that value to the opposite? More precisely how can one willingly go from having the value of "I care about reducing animal suffering" to "I care about increasing animal suffering"?

This is unlikely to happen unless you become particularly sadistic.

The change would rather be "I don't care", I would say that the first step would be to contemplate to what extent animals dying or not dying changes nothing in your life.

2 hours ago, zurew said:

- What is the 'brain not going in your way' means there? You mean reducing your ability to survive or what?

Your brain always chooses the best possibility for your libdinal agenda, in certain contexts denial is considered the best possibility.
This is just an interpretation, but I think that the only principle for the existence of such notions is nihilism (in the Nietzchean sense of the term), because the idea of a violent, merciless and absolutely unjust nature makes you too afraid, by inference more or less aware of what this means for you, you then melt into a new paradigm on layers of idealism to hide the truth from yourself.
This includes regression narcissism, or why many "unattractive" people fall into marginal diets (including veganism, and more extreme/marginal forms like fruit eating), into simply religions (and the uglier they are, the more they are in extreme delusions, look at the faces of the jihadists).
It’s a way to finally give yourself the right to give love.

2 hours ago, zurew said:

I didn't talk about you, because you are obviously an atypical person

No

2 hours ago, zurew said:

- I talked about the vast majority of people. When most people pressed about their views why they care about humans in a way where they normally don't want to kill them or hurt them - the honest reasons given for that will be typically grounded in values that won't exclude non-human animals.

 

What reasons?

For my part it's pretty clear, I don't want to attack a human because I don't want to go to prison, and because I can have friendly/sexual relations with them.
This is not possible with animals.

[toasty7718]

14 hours ago, Reignforest said:

There has never been a vegan civilization in recorded history that I'm aware of. Also most vegans require vitamins etc, that have to be produced in a factory and transported long distances.  If you had to provide all of your own resources you would likely perish. The only exception might be in a tropical environment,  but even then it's unlikely. 

Veganism is a luxury of the 21st century. 
 

what are you implying by saying this? 

[UnbornTao]

Eating habits seem to boil down to personal preference. 

There, strongest argument there is.  

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

What reasons?

Typically its grounded in sentience. Basically If you have some empathy and know whats it like to be hurt, then you unnecessarily don't want to hurt other beings that are capable of being hurt.

3 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

No

Yes, you are atypical. Most people wouldn't kill a person for 50 euros, even if they would know 100%, that they could get away with it.

Edited October 16, 2023 by zurew