3 ms·
That's quite the comparison, considering one of those is practically impossible to do and would have a lot of negative consequences in other areas. Whereas the
by LinXitoW 8y ago
That's quite the comparison, considering one of those is practically impossible to do and would have a lot of negative consequences in other areas.
Whereas the other is doable (as evidenced by the existence of vegans) AND has a lot of other positive consequences (environmental, moral).
Most definitions of veganism include something like "reduce suffering as far as possible and practicable". It's not absolute.
Of course, another objection to your comparison is that it suggests if we cannot remove ALL bad things, we ought not to do anything.
- close04 8y agoI replied to a comment asking to "prove a negative". Either due to poor understanding of how it works or to skew the answer in their favor. But to the point, you could wear sunscreen. But you consider that to be too much of a hassle even when risking cancer. And no, that's not what my comparison was suggesting. What I tried to say clearly (not just suggest) is that if you live and die by studies than don't cherry pick. Don't ask for studies only when it suits you and it supports your point of view. In the end it's mostly personal preference. No study said "moderate meat consumption will cause cancer" yet people are willing to skew the conclusions to better justify a personal choice. Just give up meat if you feel like it and use the study as additional justification if needed. Don't go waving studies to justify your choice but put them aside when they don't.