Comment on Fish have heart too.

• LemmysMum@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Disingenuous, ignorant, mentally deficient from years of choline deficiency. You’re right. If the shoe fits.

  Eating keeps things alive, only a vegan would think taking something out of its natural environment and subjecting it to worse living conditions and a shortened lifespan without the purpose of benefitting another lifeforms ability to survive as being less harmful.

  We kill for survival, you kill for pleasure and ego.

  source

  • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think you’re a troll, ignorant, projecting, or some combo of the above, so I’m going to stop responding to you now. Peace ✌️

    source

    • LemmysMum@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I’m going to assume you can’t defend your position so you’re going to curl up in your ego to keep warm. Enjoy!

      source
  • WldFyre@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    We kill for survival, you kill for pleasure and ego.

    Why do non-vegans always have the stupidest takes wrapped up in some pseudo-intellectual bullshit. You obviously don’t believe that someone killing your houseplant or lawn is as bad as someone killing your dog, so why say something so blatantly untruthful and dumb?

    And how are vegans killing for pleasure when they have a more restricted diet than you?

    Go out and continue the circle of life in your local Publix, you ferocious lion you!

    source

    • LemmysMum@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Wow, do you even hear yourself? How lacking in compassion must you be to not have any care for plant life.

      source

      • WldFyre@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Nice to know that you don’t have any arguments. Vegans are the dumb ones for sure! Continue trolling and pretending to be an idiot, that really shows how you have a point and they don’t lol

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  plants are not sentient

  this cannot be proven, but even if it’s true, it doesn’t matter. sentience is an arbitrary charcteristic on which to base your diet.

  source

  • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Sentience is what I base my ethics on (i’m a sentientist or sentiocentrist), which has implications on diet when considering whether to exploit sentient beings to get food. I don’t think it’s arbitrary, if someone is sentient, they are a part of the moral landscape because they can experience positive and negative valence (pleasure/pain, to put it more plainly but lose some nuance). If something is not sentient, I don’t see how it can be ethically relevant except in cases where the nonsentient thing matters to a sentient being

    if you’re looking for arbitrary, the anthropocentrists are that way

    source

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      if someone is sentient, they are morally relevant because they can experience positive and negative valence

      this is a moral virtue only to utilitarians.

      source

      • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        there are other approaches to sentientism that aren’t based on valence. I don’t feel like writing a book on the different ones, but to give an example of a rights based one that I think is strong is that every sentient being has, at the very least, a right to their body, since that’s the one thing they’re born with and that is (almost certainly) what gives rise to their sentience in the first place. And to violate another sentient beings bodily autonomy is to forfeit your own (a sort of low level social contract), which allows for self defense and defending others

        but to go back to utilitarianism, I think there’s a strong argument that most ethical frameworks can be defined in terms of a sufficiently creative definition of utility. I don’t really feel like getting into the weeds of that discussion though, and I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to the conversation anyways

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      if you’re looking for arbitrary, the anthropocentrists are that way

      this is just a tu quoque

      source

      • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I explained why it’s not arbitrary, then pointed to a group that does draw arbitrary distinctions. That’s not tu quoque because I’m not saying “you also”

        source

        • -> View More Comments