Removed by mod

I’d agree that it’s not. What about honey makes you feel like you need it or otherwise that it is somehow different than eating other animal products? If you use it just because you like it, you could argue the same for any other animal product. I’m primarily concerned with their lack of consent, in some cases the clipping of queen bee wings & confinement to a fixed space, & resource theft. There’s also the concerns of native bee populations being unable to compete with honey bees.

Go Vegan

May as well not considering willful complicity in their deaths is wrong.

Would need to go the a priori, teleological, or modal route - definitely no empirics to claim. I absolutely think objective morality can coexist with invented morals. As stated prior, the majority of morals likely are subjective, but it doesn’t follow to me that all of them are. I don’t think the idea that ‘using zyklon b to kill millions of innocent people is bad’ is an invention. I’m fine with the idea that people realized not through invention but discovery that, ‘yeah it is pretty fucked actually.’

I expect this response despite the indication of its issue. Were nazi’s morally rigtheous in gassing millions of innocent people to death because they believed so? At that time that was their ‘progress.’ Independent of other socities or yourself having any issue, it’s simply fine to say that because a nazi thinks it’s fine, it is fine?

I don’t think so, and I don’t think that injustice is dependant on my preference to view it that way. It just is wrong.

I too highly suspect most moral relativists are full of shit and don’t actually believe in it. Ya’ll don’t believe in moral progress? A society of chronic rapists is not inherently bad outside of your societies or personal preferences? The overwhelming majority of moral decisions being relative doesn’t discount that at least one very important concept can be capable of superceding our preferences.

Yeah, I think people need to focus on this aspect the most. They are not going to deny their book. Worming their way through scripture to claim a new fundamental way of understanding seventeen hundred year old writings is going to be incredibly difficult to do. It’s written so explicity. While certain texts written in different areas of the world have been considered non-canonical The Bible™ has never had a serious alteration aside from translation errors that may not have understood the original authors intent. The church will identify the change as moral progress and a better understanding of God, but don’t expect yhem to condemn those who used scripture against homsexuality previously.

Hey, free odds approaching zero is better than paid options approaching zero

I cannot for the life of me begin to understand who would still want to buy a kia. The company fucking cuts so many corners that inevitably cost the consumer, irrespective of the engine itself being completely unremarkable.

A) Congratulations, you account for almost no one on Earth and haven’t accounted for the totality of it in determining how people should/can live in regards to the environment. Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.

B) Are you not also still neglecting to consider the methane release of those grazing animals?

C) even if the environmental factor were not real, which it is, you’d still be facilitating intentional animal murder. An already disagreeable matter.

Reminder that you started with ‘I dont see how less workers would be exploited.’ And we’ve arrived here. Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture? The degree to which you are interested in justifying environmental damage and animal murder on the grounds of your local meat market being isolated from reality and that almost no on has or can have access to seems entirely lacking a basis for this level of argumentation and I’m growing tired of arguing with someone who cannot grasp this.

Are they raised entirely on grazing though? Are you in hypothetical land where people eat 1% of the total meat they currently do eating only animals that exclusively graze?

No.

I honestly don’t care if you believe in the particulars of their methodology.

Let me be even MORE straightforward. Feeding animals plant calories (yes, human edible plant calories) to feed yourself animal calories is literally a caloric defficient. You would have to break the laws of thermodynamics to get more calories out of feeding animals plants to eat them rather than feeding yourself those same plants. It is inherently less efficient. Are you about to move the goalpost further and debate the laws of thermodynamics?

My dude you are either being misled or are attempting to mislead. Yes some inedible material from crops we eat is used and in some countries like the US they even feed garbage to pigs.

If you are taking the ‘nothing gets wasted approach’ it absolutely does, Americans waste 40% of all their food availability for example.

But to the point they absolutely are clearcutting rainforests and other lands specifically to increase feed production for animals. They absolutely feed a shitload of human edible material to animals grown specifically for animals. I’m too lazy to reiterate statistics to a single person who will see it so for the love of God please research this and do not send me any regenerative animal farming bullshit that does not scale.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks

Let me be way way more specific for you than should be necessary. It takes more plants to feed animals than us to feed plants ourselves directly. E.g., a culture of animal product consumption requires more land to be cultivated and maintained to feed those animals before we can even feed the animals to us. This requires more workers to be exploited in the ‘consumption’ industry.

If you are arguing that ‘well those workers will just be exploited in another business,’ you could make that argument about any change in the workforce where labor requirements are reduced. It’s not relevant if we are focusing strictly on the food system and the amount of workers required within it. If we continue this more broadly though, it’s still not necessarily true if we don’t assume a political/socioeconomic system that puts them in that position. So in a hypothetical far far future, if we for some reason still need human labor to work fields but have outsourced enough jobs to robotics elsewhere so as to have UBI for many citizens without work, it would still require less workers to focus on a plant based diet than a meat eating diet. Frankly, by reducing the amount of workers required in any instance, you inch ever closer to UBI. So if you want to inch closer to a society that doesn’t exploit workers generally, even from that point of view, The Vegans are still approaching this closer than meat eaters.

This will be remembered fondly. I quite enjoyed the first two episodes of the season as well

When the Vegan is right 😡⬇️

Math equation says, plant eating requires less land, which means fewer workers exploited. Also I’m pretty sure plant farmers don’t have a 400% turnover rate. It’s almost like even if the math were equal, which it isn’t, killing animals all day is bad for your mental health.

two major companies who

Exploit animal bodies on mass scale. I’m shocked they’d exploit children’s bodies too 🥴

During the hair falls in my face phase I just used a beanie or hair tie when it got long enough for that. Five years of growth FYI. I don’t use product so cant chime in on that. Would just recommend to be sure you find the right conditioner for your hair.

Ive got curly hair so cant recommend brushing like some of the others here. If you have wavy/curly hair look for advice on that.