4 ms·
Sorry for being rude. No, my [non-]argument wasn't in good faith - it was in response to a parody comment, after all. But you seem serious this time. The probl
by dalmo3 5y ago
Sorry for being rude. No, my [non-]argument wasn't in good faith - it was in response to a parody comment, after all.
But you seem serious this time. The problem with that line of reasoning is: sure, you can (quite literally) weigh the pros and cons of veganism like you did. But why stop there? To sustain a kilo of human flesh you still need several thousands of kilos of plant matter. The ultra-utilitarian solution surely must be getting rid of human flesh? Now I'm not so sure your previous comment was really a parody.
- cubesmarching 5y agoGiven that plants aren't conscious and do not feel pain, any line of reasoning that is predicated on the assumption that plants are conscious and feel pain is irrelevant.
- hhjinks 5y agoYour argument is just antinatalism, but for farm animals. Every animal will suffer in its life. Eradicating an entire population to reduce suffering is pretty extreme. Other arguments for veganism, like the environmental one, are much more palatable.
- cubesmarching 5y agoWhere, exactly, did I argue for the eradication of an entire population? Ending the exploitation of animals does not require eradicating them.