[Gem]

Originally Posted by Altair

We live in a situation where we have choice. You are forsaking agency and rely much on relativism and materialist-reductionism.

You have to ignore what I have actually said to arrive at that conclusion.

Humans got out of the wild and have agriculture and civilization. That is the reality. In this world, also with billions of humans, that also means veg diets are better to reduce animal suffering.. that too, is the reality.

As I said, given those circumstances, a vegan diet is possible, and ethically sound.

Harping on about a bygone age, of which only a tiny % of humanity still relies, just isn’t relevant. We can’t use any negative consequence of civilization and hold it against vegetarianism.

The reason I contrasted the old world and currently existing remotely located tribes with the modern developed world is to point out that vegan ethic applies to the modern civilised conditions, but such ethics are not universal or divine.


Fact is, a major proportion of the world live in poverty and have subsistence lifestyles where veganism would be inapplicable.

We exist in civilization.. we participate.. we consume within this setting. That is key, not what may still happen in very remote places or what happened many thousands of years ago..

Talking about compassion being “ego” and “delusional” is just you having issues Gem. The ability to be compassionate is universal and your focus on old contexts of the past are pointless exercises. We have choice and that will have consequences.

I have issues, but not the ones you imagine I have, and they are probably worse than you think. Everyone has issues, but I don't know you people well enough to know about them, and even if I did, it isn't up to me to to be the expert on you.


You could ignore what I said about how ethics depend on context, and the ethical dilemma concerning how the destructive economy makes veganism possible in the first place, or how Lucky1's food ethics probably have high integrity within his particular circumstances, but that's all I was saying.


The egomanic thing comes from 'divine veganism' which suggests if you are enlightened/evolved/woke you would definitely be a vegan and never touch meat, and if you are not a vegan it means you are not as 'spiritually evolved'. Then parade around on a puff of self aggrandisement virtue signalling how compassionate they are. That is not cool! It's not cool for animal consumers either.



But on the other hand, if a person has decided for ethical and health reasons to restrict meat from their diet, It's perfectly valid given our modern circumstances, and more power to them.



You can see how my perspective is reasonable and fair, and even though I find 'divine vegan' rhetoric moronic, I support the ethical and health choices of everyone (even though ethics invariably present dilemmas).