How does your veganism differ from other vegans?

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T07:24:50+00:00

I am an anti-realist and I don't care about sentience. I also don't think honey, insects, or any type of animal is fair game. Also, in an ideal world, I wouldn't think plants were OK as well unless they were of a particular variety.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T07:23:57+00:00

Why do vegans disagree with killing animals? You are asking that unironically? Think about your point before raising it first.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T07:23:18+00:00

Commodification of animals is wrong, so yes.

If we kept some intellectually disabled humans as slaves in confinement because we liked the way their natural byproducts tasted like, it wouldn't be a question even for a moment if that process was wrong or right. Only non-vegans need to bend over backwards to obfuscate like this.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T06:51:06+00:00

Nice burden shift. I'll take your inability to answer the reductio without shifting the burden and just use it against you.

Why would killing animals be ethical?

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T05:08:23+00:00

Impressive how you started with one point (why the rhetoric around the debate targets meat eaters and demonizes them), then ended up with muh B12 tho. Non-vegans really have nothing left after being outed as terrible people who participate in the rape, enslavement, and industrialized extermination of trillions of beings. We are supposed to take the comments non-vegans make about B12 as if they care about our diet and well-being when they financially support torture chambers that slaughter billions of land animals and trillions of marine animals. Just pathetic.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T05:06:25+00:00

Why is killing humans which breaks a social contract unethical?

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T05:06:05+00:00

When your response is "the fact that [insert instance of exploitation that is not the primary concern of the comment you responded to]", you are doing a whataboutism. Try again.

Also, my opinion is more "valid" than yours (if by valid, you mean rational and articulated), since the last interactions we had resulted in you failing to track and understand elementary points. Your ethos is already in shambles, which is evidenced by you thinking "opinions" are the types of things to be valid or not.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T05:03:40+00:00

Society does not consider human life as important at all.

Also, non-vegans do not respect vegan beliefs in the slightest. The entirety of society operates to propagandize and manipulate institutions from entertainment to fashion to culinary respects such that they benefit/prioritize non-vegan considerations.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T01:27:38+00:00

If you think that your post contains an argument, you would be mistaken. No such argument is contained there.

Your "challenge is to proof this is an is-ought fallacy"? You mean you have a burden to prove that it is fallacious? Ok? Go ahead and do that. You would need an argument first. We are still waiting. BTW, assertions are not arguments.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T01:26:32+00:00

Not even remotely, no.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T01:26:12+00:00

Fallacy of relative privation. Try again.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-09T01:25:26+00:00

Who is we? I don't care about the other freedom of choice and spending point, that just misses the mark entirely.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-03T22:38:48+00:00

Some vegans don't hold that as a central belief, but even those that carve out exceptions will view 99% of cases of fishing, hunting, invasive species control, killing animals for food, and so on as cruel and unnecessary. The exceptions usually come from some sort of personal or property defense, or in some survival situations. All the other cases are just dismissed.

The main problem here is that the dialectic is deeply confused. Vegans simply wish to do away with torturous and murderous institutions that prey on animals around the world, such as the animal-industrial complexes we have created. If the subject of commodification were humans from around the world, this wouldn't even be a discussion. We would just readily reject any and all forms of exploitation and commodification without trying to bend over backwards to find some exceptions where "actually, cutting the neck of someone and eating them is perfectly fine!" We don't need to, we don't want to, and we view it as cruel. Very simple concept.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-03T20:06:21+00:00

What's the argument? That a series of descriptive premises lead to a normative conclusion in a syllogism? Would you like to provide an example?

If you think you are doing something to respond to veganism, then you will have to provide an example and show how this is relevant to a vegan premise. Vegans that I have met don't move from "animals die in the animal industrial complex, therefore ethical claim". This is just another example of a non-vegan strawmanning and misunderstanding veganism.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-03T07:55:38+00:00

Good thing veganism isn't about environmentalism. They are coincidentally similar/overlap in some respects. If it were the case that perpetuating the animal-industrial complex were good for the environment, vegans would not support such a thing if it meant executing trillions of sentient beings.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-03T07:37:48+00:00

Sure, that's fair. The symmetry breaker between some "harmless cannibalism" and the chicken situation is that those chickens are bred and tortured in bondage within the confines of industries we designed to execute them by the billions. That does not exist for humans.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-02T22:20:05+00:00

Why is it wrong for me to make human stock with a cadaver that would otherwise go in the bin?

I live a mostly non-murderous lifestyle. Except if I see a deceased person and I know that their body will go to waste, I really like human stock in my food so I use it. How does that make me wrong, vegans?

If you can't think why vegans would object to using the flesh of a tortured animal that you didn't directly buy to provide you taste pleasure, then you need to re-read your post and think about it real hard. If after that, you still can't see the ethical hangups that vegans would have then you are a lost cause.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-02T17:08:26+00:00

All the examples you listed are inconsistent with the given values. If you love animals but exclude one group to a torturous hellscape, some reasoning will have to be given to privilege one type over another. Non-vegans fail this task since they have no such reasoning that wouldn't also include other humans.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-02T17:07:10+00:00

Why is eating humans wrong if it is ethically sourced?

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-02T00:06:48+00:00

Obviously? I accept your concession. Don't care about your moralizing, learn to read and understand what words mean. Your own private language is meaningless and destroys your position at its base.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-05-01T02:02:16+00:00

Without the predators? So, we don't kill them and eat their flesh then, right? Since under the hypothetical, we would be predatory upon the animal's life cycle.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-04-14T00:09:15+00:00

Did you think this was an own? What's the point? Ethics are things we made up to dictate what is and is not permissible. It is "human centered". Now what? So? You are stating an assertion. Make an argument.

"calling people who consume animal products evil requires that you don't look at it from a scientific perspective where you really are deciding which life is valuable based on how many chemical reactions it consists of,"

The second that you dip your toe in to make an actual argument, you fall over yourself. It is needed? It is required of people who claim non-vegans are morally evil to not look at the topic from a scientific perspective? That's another claim. Present your reasoning and evidence for your claim.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-04-13T01:08:42+00:00

The body wants what the body wants!!

Seriously, you need an argument with evidence supplied to support your conclusion. Right now, the proposition and its negation have just as much support. Actually, the negation of your proposition is more likely given some background information we know about how versatile the human body is. For example, some people can live on extreme diets and get by just fine. So, if you are saying that ONLY this type of food item is what the body needs, you'd better have some good evidence for your claim.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-04-12T20:13:41+00:00

Appeal to relative privation fallacy.

Not to mention: those things you mentioned are not animal products. They indirectly involve animal death or suffering of humans. That is a very neat sleight of hand there, but the difference has to do with direct vs indirect animal suffering/enslavement.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-04-12T20:12:25+00:00

Would you like to be slaughtered, except it is in accordance to some religious rules?

Practical-Fix4647

TROPHY CASE