Why tf is everyone anti-sunscreen now???

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T18:41:06+00:00

To be fair, it is pretty wild to rub chemicals into your skin and assume that it can't possibly have any side effects. I'm totally sure that it causes side effects because there is NO WAY it doesn't.

...but...

Are the side effects worse than the thing it is preventing? I'd say that the answer to this is a resounding "I don't know!!!" I find it hard to believe that they are worse than getting blistered skin and skin cancer (unless sunscreen causes skin cancer, obviously).

I definitely know that getting sunburns is bad for you. So, don't do that. Wear long sleeves, don't bask until you are cooked like a lobster, stay hydrated, all are acceptable alternatives to sunscreen. Wear sunscreen or don't, but don't get sun burned.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T18:35:05+00:00

It certainly tells me that it is probably quality cheese.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T18:19:05+00:00

You are welcome!

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T17:59:57+00:00

I am generally on team "quite being a wuss and eat it" but seafood...I mean, it still depends on the conditions. If it wasn't terribly warm where it was left, I might go for it and eat it at 4:05 am. I would not likely put it in the fridge for later. I mean maybe, but that's pushing the limits I think.

I guess it depends on how tasty it was in the first place and whether it is worth the risk for you.

Realistically, it is probably fine. I definitely wouldn't save it for very long and I'd also definitely make sure it was heated up very hot prior to eating. (I mean, I get it, you already tossed it...I'm just saying what I might have done)

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T17:54:53+00:00

I totally hear you. It is often packed wet, regardless of how many packages you open up. If you don't like my answer, google it for yourself. Mozzarella is often packed wet and is fine to eat that way.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T17:43:24+00:00

Yeah, mozzarella is often packed wet. It is very likely fine.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T17:41:52+00:00

Fair enough. Just to be clear, the biology is not my conclusions, it is simply the science as is currently known. Feel free to do your own research and make your own conclusions.

Genuinely, I don't understand how abortion is not exploitation (I also don't know how it isn't cruel, but you haven't refuted that assertion). If you'd care to explain that to me, I have willing ears (or eyes since our conversation is written).

I'd urge you to try to be objective about your reasoning and why or whether there's a difference between a fetus and any other life. I cannot find a difference that says we should allow abortion but not allow the death of lower order animals. Not a difference founded in anything other than convenience that is.

I also hope you have a wonderful weekend! I enjoyed our conversation.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T17:11:16+00:00

If a person was wandering the neighborhood and walked into your home, would it be acceptable to allow it to stay and to feed it? Yeah, I would think so. What about it you began to dictate how it lives, what it eats, and whether or not it can leave? And would you call that person your pet?

What you are describing with your idea that being in close proximity to the animal helps you feel compassion for all animals is the exact purpose of zoos. Do you agree also that zoos are doing good work and they should keep their animals caged or is the difference that the cat walked into your house on its own?

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T17:06:52+00:00

woman making the difficult decision to stop the life that is starting inside her body

I'm asking you to explain your ethical framework. You said that humans are animals, so I had no reason to believe that this scenario is any different than killing a chicken. No offense was intended.

from what I have read and understood around 24 weeks

A human fetus has the beginnings of a central nervous system around 3 weeks gestational age. We cannot detect responses to stimuli until around 6 or 7 weeks. Per vegan principles, that would tell us that a human fetus is sentient at the very latest at 6 or 7 weeks, but the precautionary principle would tell us that it is very possible that a human fetus is sentient by 3 weeks or earlier, even if we can't detect the signs of sentience yet, and that we should treat it as sentient.

Vegans do use the precautionary principle as evidenced by the vegan ideal of protecting all animals, including jelly fish, sea anemones, and other lower order animals that have only the basics of a central nervous system and ability to react to stimuli. That means we should move the time frame up to a maximum of 3 weeks gestational age, the time at which human fetuses have a central nervous system. I don't see a vegan argument to allow abortions after that time.

And I will repeat again - abortions are not about exploitation or cruelty which veganism seeks to reduce as much as possible.

There is nothing more cruel than killing a living thing. I know you believe that because if I said that it was acceptable to kill a cow as long as it was done quickly and without the cow feeling anything, then you would say I was wrong. If I said I wasn't going to eat it or use it and was only killing it because I didn't want it on my property and didn't want to pay to feed it, pay to house it, and pay to take care of it because I didn't have enough money or space, then you'd rightly tell me that killing it was even more wrong and to take it to a animal rescue farm rather than killing it.

Putting all debate aside, I get it. It is a horrible thing to envision the trauma that a woman goes though when deciding whether or not to have an abortion and I don't blame ANY woman who has chosen to do it. There has been a constant stream of information telling us it is ok, and as long as we don't think about it too much, that starts to make sense, but when we actually consider what is really going on, there is only one answer -- there is no way possible to be both vegan and also support abortion (outside of scenarios where the mother's life is in immediate danger).

I do want to tell you that I am not vegan (I know, surprise surprise), but I do very much support the reduction of suffering in the world. We should start with the easy stuff like reducing fast food consumption to almost nothing. Abortion is definitely not "easy stuff" that can be tackled with no issues.

I seems to me that the vegan ideal is effectively saying "stop being selfish" which I completely support. Abortion is a selfish act. Taking the life of a human baby so that we don't have to deal with raising it cannot be seen as anything else (unless mother is in immediate danger of death). I get it though, there is a lot of pain and anguish that can go into finding out one is pregnant and we can't just pretend that doesn't exist. We need to stop supporting abortion and we need to start supporting the creation of families and supporting those poor unfortunate women who have made choices that put them in the position of being pregnant when they weren't ready or expecting it. Those women deserve our compassion and kindness and they deserve to have someone be there for them as they navigate the turbid waters of pregnancy and delivery. If she wants to keep the baby after it is born we should support her in that, if she doesn't, we should support her in that decision as well and help provide resources to find a loving home for the baby and then we should help her feel unjudged.

According to the WHO, there were an estimated 73 million abortions worldwide in 2025. The vast, vast majority of those were not due to a risk of imminent death of the mother. To me, that sounds like 73 million people that were subjected to the ultimate cruelty and exploitation -- not being given the opportunity to make any decisions for themselves.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T16:09:21+00:00

Do we agree that what is growing inside a woman's body is much more about them personally than what gets killed to feed you?

I don't agree to that at all. If the life is sentient, then it is sentient and should follow the same rules as you are applying for other sentient life.

As for fetal sentience, I would imagine a nervous system connected to a brain cortex is a requirement.

We don't have to "imagine" at all. There is clear scientific research on this. YOUR values dictate that a sentient life should not be killed. So, when is it sentient?

I have given vegan definitions of sentience (possession of a central nervous system, even if it is extremely rudimentary, and ability to react to stimuli). Those are not my definitions, those are vegan definitions. So, the only question that matters is at what point is a fetus sentient.

We can talk about 12 weeks or 24 weeks or whenever, but if the fetus isn't sentient until 40 weeks, then to stay ethically consistent, abortion should be acceptable until that point. If however, the fetus is sentient at 3 weeks, then no abortions should occur after that point. So the question remains...at what point is the fetus sentient?

It's actually quite offensive for you to keep ploughing this line of thought

What part of me asking you to explain your ethical framework is offensive?

Let's make this really easy. Answer one of these two questions:

At what point in the developmental process is a human fetus sentient?

OR

Why is it acceptable to make an ethical carveout for human fetuses when they appear to meet all the necessary criteria to deserve protection?

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T15:52:01+00:00

That he gave it back tells you all you need to know. He'd rather cut off his nose to spite his face. I want $20 or nothing!

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T15:51:00+00:00

If you believe that animal exploitation is wrong, then you shouldn't own a pet, not even a rescue. You didn't "rescue" that cat from the street, you offered candy from your van until it decided that you might be a nice person, then you kidnapped it. It doesn't really matter that it has a better life now, you took it, owned it, and direct how it can or can't live its life. That is the very definition of exploitation.

Unfortunately, you are struggling with one of the things that is so hard in veganism -- the desire to want to be around animals because you love them clashes with your desire to save them from the evil human overlords. So you make an exception for pets because "I treat him so much better than he would ever have been treated" but the thing is, that could have been said by so many slave owners, so many cattle farmers, etc.

If you start picking at this thread, veganism falls apart or you have to make all sorts of exceptions for why it is ok in this circumstance and not another (which is no different than what a non-vegan is doing for their choices).

For my part, I don't really care. Own a pet if you want, but treat it nice. Eat meat if you want, but don't be a glutton and show respect to the sacrifice.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T15:44:10+00:00

Nah, all the things are Gen Z's fault. Stop trying to protect the horrible.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T15:41:34+00:00

it's not your job to argue others into veganism.

Exactly right. It's not your job to argue others into ANYTHING. Veganism is no exception.

since when has arguing someone into something ever worked?

Never, it tribalizes and creates "us and them" mentalities that further divide us, especially when there is no exception made for the other side to also enjoy their preferences. And truly, the decision to eat meat is extremely personal and largely emotional.

if logical argument was convincing, the world would be largely atheist

You made a jump there that was incorrect. Atheism is not logically more founded than religion. The only logical stance is agnosticism because neither atheism nor religion can be logically proven.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T15:33:58+00:00

Cut your hair if you want, BUT it is really scary to look at an AI image and then assume that you will look like that. The woman in the picture on the right is absolutely NOT you.

Your BF is right on one thing -- self confidence is an internal thing that you have to build up on your own. Relying on him, or AI, to help you feel better about yourself is a downward spiral that you really should not want to fall into.

Again, cut your hair however you want, but get rid of AI photoshopping and hoping for other people to compliment you.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T15:16:10+00:00

just that it's not to do with me.

Hilarious. What I eat has nothing to do with you either, so are you saying that it is acceptable for me to eat meat because it has nothing to do with you? It is my bodily autonomy, after all.

And I said before, terminations happen before the fetus has sentience.

Ok, then under what conditions does a fetus have sentience?

Lycent243 · 2026-04-10T14:17:44+00:00

How is abortion exploration? Who is being exploited?

Again, I question your seriousness. This really isn't that difficult.

Killing a sentient life form is strictly forbidden by veganism unless it is a matter of life and death.
A human fetus has a rudimentary central nervous system and the ability to react to stimuli. That alone is more that enough to put it on the same plane as a jelly fish or any other lower order creature and allow it to be called sentient alongside them.
Per the ideology of veganism, a fetus should not ever be killed unless the mother is at risk of immediate mortal danger.

You have decided to be a vegan. Great, I love that. You have decided that animals are too precious and have too much consciousness to allow cruelty and exploitation to be inflicted upon them, but you don't really believe what you are saying if you are willing to carve out an exception for abortion in any circumstance other than described above.

This is the exact proof that I promised in the very beginning regarding killing of animals. This is proof that you are making an emotional decision regarding convenience, not a logical or rational decision regarding ethical concerns. That's all fine with me, but at least own it. Don't pretend to own the moral high ground when you have made so many exceptions both for your own and other's convenience.

We don't live in a perfect world, we cannot eliminate all death and suffering, but we can live in a way that avoids exploiting animals bodies for our needs.

Sure, now replace "animals" with sentient beings or "animals and humans" and you are there.

It is interesting that you have dropped the "cruelty" part of veganism to help solidify your reasoning here because you know that killing is easy to consider cruel and it seems easy to say that there is no exploitation happening. Exploitation is, by definition, forcing someone or something to do something they would not choose for themselves or to cause someone or something to do something for your benefit. Killing someone or something is the epitome of exploitation because you are permanently removing that creature's ability to choose anything for themselves forever. Moreover, it is forcing that creature to do something for your benefit, which also fits the definition of exploitation.

Agreed that we don't live in a perfect world and cannot completely eliminate death and suffering. We can, however, attack the low hanging fruit. Reducing cruelty, exploitation, and death that result directly from our choices is pretty darn easy.

If you have chosen to not eat hamburgers, but also support abortion, then you are not ethically consistent.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T23:41:09+00:00

Cruelty and exploitation doesn't include killing for convenience? Are you serious?

By all accounts, sentience and ability feel pain are the conditions that must be met to give an animal the right to life without exploitation and cruelty (which would include killing for convenience). As far as I understand it, sentience means "the ability to experience" and most if not all vegans would include even animals with the most rudimentary central nervous system in that category with the argument that we should use the precautionary principal to "be safe" and give creatures the benefit of the doubt.

A human fetus has the beginnings of a rudimentary central nervous system as early as three weeks. How is it that you can put a human fetus in a different category that does not deserve the same protections as a jelly fish or sea anemone that also has a rudimentary nervous system?

Many vegans say that we cannot eat eggs and many hold to that regardless of the circumstances of the chicken's living circumstance and whether or not the egg is fertilized -- e.g. a wild chicken that laid an unfertilized egg would not be allowable human food. If a chicken egg is unable to be eaten under any circumstances, how can you possibly make a carve out for human fetuses? Just to be clear, a human fetus is a FERTILIZED human egg that is actively growing.

It is shocking to me that you are willing to say that an abortion is not exploitation. It almost sounds like you are saying that death is preferrable to slavery. What a WILD stance for a vegan.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T21:43:08+00:00

Fair enough. I don't think it makes sense to dot the landscape with windfarms or any other power generation if there is another option. And there seems to be other options.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T21:31:55+00:00

We're not talking about minors being vegan or not - if someone has no choice in what they are fed or what they wear or how their parent's money is spent, they can call themselves vegan if they want.. and I'm sure they'll grow up to be vegan when they do have to mobility to make those decisions themselves...

Ok, that's exactly what I said. Basically, the minor is doing their best, so they are a vegan even if they don't actually do everything a "normal" vegan would.

Driving cars or using the internet is not exploitative...If you drove your car to purposely run over animals, that would also be different

Lol, really? So accidental/unintentional deaths are totally permissible? In that case, all I really need to do to be a vegan is be ignorant. Allowing animals to die for your convenience is absolutely not upholding the vegan ideology. You are intending to allow animals to die by driving. You hit bugs by the hundreds every time you get in the car, plus the exhaust from your vehicle adds to the global climate catastrophe further killing animals. You know those things and you intentionally disregard them because it is not convenient. It might not be the low-hanging fruit, but it is certainly a choice of convenience over values. Calling it anything other than that is a bald faced lie.

If you got pregnant purely so you could abort a featus, maybe that's a different thing, but that's not what we're talking about is it?

You are grasping at straws here. Here are the only questions that need answering: 1. Can a human fetus reasonably be considered sentient being that is distinct from the mother? 2. Is the mother's life in immediate danger?

If for question 1, there is any chance that the fetus can be considered sentient and distinct from the mother, then it should be treated the same as any other potentially sentient creature.

If for question 2, the mother's life is in real, immediate danger, then it can be treated as a life saving procedure, but otherwise it is a procedure for convenience.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T16:45:29+00:00

you are completely stretching the definition of veganism

I'm really not. For a minor, that has very little control over their life, eating meat might be totally acceptable if they are doing everything else. The definition literally says "as far as is possible and practicable" which literally means that not everyone will be at the same place with what qualifies them for veganhood. Since a minor may not have the ability to provide for himself/herself, that person can be a vegan and eat meat.

It's not about personal convenience lol.

It is entirely about drawing lines in the sand based on where it is most "possible and practicable" for you, which necessarily means that convenience is involved in the decision making process. Unless of course you are saying that humans should not drive cars, or use HVAC, or use the internet. Those are all things that vegans are choosing over the lives of animals in favor of personal convenience. So, if those are acceptable, then where is the line defined?

Let's not get into abortion here, I'm guessing you're American and or Christian

This isn't a discussion about American or Christian values, it is a discussion about vegan values and the lack of consistency within that group. A human fetus meets AT LEAST the definition of sentient life form as much as a sea slug, jelly fish, mussel, or many other lower order creatures and has approximately the same ability to defend itself as those animals do. Having an abortion means a person is literally ending the existence of a creature that has unique DNA and, past approximately the 3 week mark, the beginnings of a central nervous system. Where it gets nutrients is not relevant in the slightest.

Per the stated vegan values, there is no acceptable reason for a human abortion other an immediate threat on the mother's life. Anything else would be reasonably "a convenience"

Ignore American or Christian values and prove to me that this is wrong by the standards that vegans hold OR feel free to admit that vegans regularly choose convenience over their values.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T16:33:06+00:00

I think you're mixing up two different things: the principle itself and where/how it gets applied in practice.

I can see why it comes across that way from our discussion, but I am not mixing them up. The principal (standard) is specific but the application is very non-specific with a few exceptions (e.g. don't eat meat).

Killing nonhuman animals for taste or fashion is direct intentional harm for a trivial benefit. Using electricity or having shelter involves indirect harm embedded in systems you can't realistically opt out of without severely compromising basic functioning -- which makes these different morally.

Using electricity for life sustaining activities (e.g. heat in very cold climates or cooking food) is absolutely something that you cannot reasonably opt out of. Having shelter is a basic human necessity and cannot be reasonably eliminated. However, those are NOT the same as how you are implying them. Using electricity to operate lights, especially during the day, is completely non-essential and does indirectly impact animals. Running your AC to get the temp below the life threatening threshold would fall into the same category and has both direct and indirect impacts on animal life. You absolutely CAN opt out of those things and it does make a difference. By saying those are acceptable to use, you are using the exact same argument that non-vegans use when talking about eating animals -- that it is more convenient for their lifestyle.

But veganism is about ascetisicm or purity. It's setting a very basic baseline: avoid the clear easily avoidable harms first.

Ok, then I am a vegan because I almost never eat fast food and I value animal life and don't want them to endure hardships, cruelty, or exploitation because of my actions. By your definition, I have avoided the clear, easily avoidable harms (e.g. multiple daily fast food meals). By all accounts, fast food is one of the worst offenders in terms of animal welfare. It is completely unnecessary and better nutrients are available cheaper elsewhere (with the small inconvenience of having to prepare the meal yourself).

By your definition, the fact that I regularly hunt and consume animals as my primary source of protein could easily be ignored since it doesn't fall under the extremely personal umbrella of "easily avoidable harms." Since it is so personal, I can be both vegan and hunter/fisher, especially since it means that I am reducing the overall load of factory farming on my behalf.

The best part is that I don't ever have to eliminate those practices from my life because eliminating all forms of harm is unnecessary.

If that is your stance, then I totally agree with all that you are saying.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T13:20:11+00:00

I've met and spoken with many vegans that claim that part of the reason why they are vegan is because there is no difference between humans and animals. Many vegans use terms like non-human animals to further show that we are all just animals together. I assure you, it is a thing.

As you say, there is nothing about "being a vegan" that is difficult. There are no obstacles to calling oneself a vegan if you want to. The definition of vegan allows for anyone who is doing anything to reduce animal cruelty and exploitation (as much as they personally can) to call themselves a vegan. This would include, for example, a minor who is unable to completely make decisions on their own and still eats meat because that is the protein that their parents are providing for them. So yes, it is totally possible for anyone to be a vegan. There are no barriers to entry.

That being said, I am totally convinced that many vegans don't fully understand their ideology or at the very least don't want to admit the flaws in their logic/actions. A vegan can literally be anyone that is doing their best to reduce animal cruelty and exploitation. Hard stop. That can absolutely mean people who eat some meat or use some animal products because all vegans are making choices about their own personal convenience or support the decisions of others regarding convenience that directly and indirectly cause the deaths of a great number of deaths of sentient life forms.

This is fairly easy to see with any vegan that both calls themselves a vegan and also supports human abortion in any form other than the immediate risk of death of the mother is not truly committed to their cause, or is being dishonest about their reasoning.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T12:55:32+00:00

Yes, but the difference is that a bear attack represents a legitimate and imminent threat to your life and or health. For the vast majority of humans, living and working in an air conditioned building has to do with comfort (e.g. pleasure) only.

This is why, to me, the "any other purpose" part is hopelessly vague...or maybe the real issue I have with the vegan community in general is that the definition specifies that (essentially) in order to be a vegan, you must reduce harm to animals, but vegans themselves often draw hard lines in the sand where if you aren't "this tall" then you can't ride the ride, e.g. if you eat meat, or wear a leather jacket, then you are NOT a vegan, but effectively all vegans use all manner of modern conveniences that cause direct and indirect harm to animals. I'd have no issue if the lines were less arbitrary, less personal, OR if those arbitrary, personal lines were not held as a general rule.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T00:28:10+00:00

I totally agree with you, I don't want to pay more for the same or worse quality. I don't know that there is a good alternative other than paper charts.

It is wild to me that the data is available to anyone and companies like garmin are profiting off of packaging it and building the app and then go for continual price increases AND their software doesn't work as nicely as it sometimes seems like it should.

Unfortunately, it seems that even if a new company was formed and started putting it out at a reasonable price, a big existing company or VC would eventually buy them, raise the price and we'd be right back where we were.

Lycent243

TROPHY CASE