Argument I used to make against veganism:
1. We need milk for our teeth.
2. We are able to eat meat, we are omnivorous, its a natural thing.
3. If a beef tastes good, then it must be healthy.
4. We are predators, it is a function of ours to perform.
5. Our stomachs can transform meat into energy, as such a viable energy source, we are like any other beings - we use what we have available to us to survive.
6. Food is food
1. Nourishment-package idea:
The nourishment comes in a pre-made package with necessary parts (meat-only eating diet thinking).
2. "Some books are like meat"-thought
Eating meat is like reading some books, they come to be through consuming and slaughtering. Resulting in contemplation: "Can I then not read books? Will my freedom be restrained?"
3. Indirectly one can consume more flesh, milk and eggs:
-- My own
1. Dentists say so, academia and educational proof systems certify them and validifies their opinion, i.e. says so. Researchers say so.
2. Life unfolded to be so; thus this must be what is right - my trust in the perfect unfolding of the system we call life (withborne assumption?).
3. Assuming that we can blindly trust our senses to navigate us; perhaps stemming from pre-tool-able life?
4. Observing the rest of life while not thinking about re-adaption and how that adaption came to be...
5. Living by the idea that our bodies are perfect system and perhaps an extreme trust in evolution.
6. If food is food, then what if that which is ingestible is not food, simply because it can be ingested as food?
-- Other arguments:
-- My own
1. 1. A certificate authority can be faulty, as such the statements made by such a certified authority can be faulty; if anything such an arguments speak of the validity of the given certificate authority (at least on this and similar points).
1. 2. Family members whom are dentists, a father whom is a doctor and similar are heavily biased by their respective work.
1. 2. 1. Dependent on their income-provider and may assume it to be in the interest of this to hinder other thinking.
1. 2. Old thinking may stem from faultily observed patterns, other patterns correctly observed however the greater frame of thought lacking and the relativity to for example time-frame and geography lacking.
2. We can consume many other things; natural is not always healthier - life is a system; there can be errors and re-adaptions ongoing (increasingly compatible in going both on the error and progressive thought).
3. 1. Although this can have come to do so through conditioning from an early age.
3. 2 Our senses are tools...
3. 3. Not being able to do better formerly? Also a situation where we may not have needed to do better. However we are now.
4. We have something akin to predatory ability, however differing massively in inability to hunt without tools. Actual predators perform the role of hunting and regulating on that consumptive level; tool-able can regulate on our layer.
5. We also have available to us the ability to not eat meat when we do not need to; using that to survive and live.
6. There are many things we can eat, the questions is the cost and overall harm to us and the intention that drive us to eat flesh in the first place.
-- Other arguments:
1. 1. This package involves a lot of things uninterested in.
1. 2. Upon taking this in a package, a lot of important things are lost (for example microbes healthy for strong stomach)
1. 3. What contains the package and the package comes from a place that is in direct contact with fleshfarms; a lot of really harmful microbiology (corruptive, entirely inhumane and frankly, I assume that microbiology reflects its sorroundings (and vice versa) meaning that a non-compassionate microbial environment is likely to exist.
1. 4. This stems from old times, both rationalization however also observations that pertain to a situation of wintery regions; today we have greens available year round.
What is gained is relative to the situational-frame, circumstance, what is possible and not possible, the norm, the effort involved and so forth, the cost to doing so/not doing so and the whether the investment is worth it.
1. 5. A package can be more harmful than what was used in making that package; both in the transformative process however also in taking from parts of a system for harmful purposes, meant for other things; harming the natural functioning), especially when unnecessary.
2. Strange thing is, being vegan would only grant the wisdom on this matter and enable choosing what to read. The ability to select would improve, not absolutely forced, and this would be a natural feeling; not a situation of restraint.
3. However the direct action is going beyond a border, once done once its a lot harder to not do the same again. An example is that the contact can feel extremely good and create a desire for the contact to be there (sometimes it is not thought of that upon forcing such contact it changes nature; however upon causing uncomfort sometimes one can end up beaten/hindered from causing uncomfort, forgetting that its a natural thing to happen, something happening passively as the contact is not wanted).
-- This one is only applicable on existing non-meat eaters to strengthen the system.
Pro vegan science. News, facts and simple philosophical talk. Discuss the philosophy and ethics of veganism.
1 post • Page 1 of 1