You have to eat, but you don’t have to eat meat. It’s just as optional as creating art that involves animal abuse. (Not a vegan, just interested in this topic).
My sis had to loosen her vegetarian standards for the sake of her daughters health.
We are omnivores, accept that fact. While you can survive without flesh (and the modern person eats too much of it), it requires personal effort and research to find substitutes, with the risk of damaging your health. And most just prefer some meat or fish now and then.
Btw, almost all herbivores are opportunistic omnivores, because they can’t research substitutes. Even sheep eat chicken, there, i said it.
I accept it; I enjoy most types of meat. But the fact that you can survive without meat makes it optional, which is relevant to the debate we were having about the morality of killing/harming animals for different purposes.
Humans need nutrition and vitamins found in meat. Without them they get health issues or die. When lab grown meats are available, real meats become optional.
“with some effort”. Eating food humans are meant to eat in a balanced and healthy manner is already borderline impossible for everyone. Eating only vegetarian is more akin to a full time hobby than what food is to most people: fuel.
People don’t even give a shit about cars that they drive around and spend insane amount of money on each decade. I just don’t see most people just switching to vegetarianism without a survival need. Plant based foods are just stupid expensive to boot outside of rice and potatoes.
Yeah, it’s harder for sure. But what I’m saying is that not everyone needs to kill to eat-- if you can afford it and have some time to plan meals, it isn’t a “necessary evil”. I’d argue it’s still more moral to kill for food than for entertainment, of course.
You have to eat, but you don’t have to eat meat. It’s just as optional as creating art that involves animal abuse. (Not a vegan, just interested in this topic).
My sis had to loosen her vegetarian standards for the sake of her daughters health.
We are omnivores, accept that fact. While you can survive without flesh (and the modern person eats too much of it), it requires personal effort and research to find substitutes, with the risk of damaging your health. And most just prefer some meat or fish now and then.
Btw, almost all herbivores are opportunistic omnivores, because they can’t research substitutes. Even sheep eat chicken, there, i said it.
Cool anecdote.
Cool pseudo-science derived from an anecdote.
Yes, it takes effort to do something different from the rest of society. Apparently you’ve never done this.
Cool story.
Nobody gives a shit. Nobody is saying go veg because sheep are veg. This is just more wacky carnist babbling.
I accept it; I enjoy most types of meat. But the fact that you can survive without meat makes it optional, which is relevant to the debate we were having about the morality of killing/harming animals for different purposes.
You can survive without eating any food for some amount of time. Fasting works until you run out of fat. It’s not sustainable.
It is not possible to be healthy sustainability on zero animal products, those that do it require supplements.
There’s research in this area, I don’t feel like debating it as if it were a matter of opinion.
Humans need nutrition and vitamins found in meat. Without them they get health issues or die. When lab grown meats are available, real meats become optional.
No, that’s a myth. There is actually no need for consuming animals. We owe the perpetuation of this myth by the meat industry
There are literally billions of vegetarians in the world who don’t have health issues.
There’s multiples more of omnivores who don’t have health issues either.
So? That somehow means the vegetarians don’t exist?
Where in the fuck did you get that?
You say:
I reply that billions of vegetarians exist without health issues, proving that humans don’t need nutrition and vitamins found in meat.
You reply that many omnivores exist without issues as well, which is a non-sequitur. Why was that your reply?
What they mean to say is that there’s only one healthy diet, and since more of the healthy people are carnists, the vegetarians are doing it wrong.
We need things that can be found in meat. With some effort, you can obtain them from alternative sources.
Yes.
“with some effort”. Eating food humans are meant to eat in a balanced and healthy manner is already borderline impossible for everyone. Eating only vegetarian is more akin to a full time hobby than what food is to most people: fuel.
People don’t even give a shit about cars that they drive around and spend insane amount of money on each decade. I just don’t see most people just switching to vegetarianism without a survival need. Plant based foods are just stupid expensive to boot outside of rice and potatoes.
Wow, I must be doing it wrong then. I learned basic combinations and a variety of recipes. No different from when I learned to cook with meat.
I’m not saying that it’s for everyone. I personally still eat fish from time to time. But it definitely isnt a full time hobby
Yea, it’s easier than some people try to say it is. It’s a matter of habit and produce availability, which varies depending on your location
Yeah, it’s harder for sure. But what I’m saying is that not everyone needs to kill to eat-- if you can afford it and have some time to plan meals, it isn’t a “necessary evil”. I’d argue it’s still more moral to kill for food than for entertainment, of course.