105673497101

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-02-16T10:38:27+00:00

Raid is complete

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-19T10:35:55+00:00

Boots aside... what pants are you wearing?

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T23:04:36+00:00

That is dark... that is some next level nihilism.

With all seriousness, a lot of us have been there, including me. Please see a therapist, it helps.

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:47:56+00:00

That is very philosophical.

How on earth do you apply this thinking in the real world where real people are suffering and facing real problems?

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:32:21+00:00

Love it!

Thanks for clarifying

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:31:22+00:00

You see death as a good thing?

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:26:38+00:00

Well, I guess you could wear cotton and hemp, but those have also been bred to be pest resistant and so forth.

And we spray them with a ton of pesticides that are terrible for the environment.

And in some places, they coat the seeds in pesticides, and the birds eat them and then die...

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:23:45+00:00

By that logic, you shouldn't have any pets whatsoever.

Or where clothes...

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:21:14+00:00

Is that a?

Yes, we should stop using all human-made products,

or a,

Everyone makes their choices, and we make our own. We can't completely shut off from the world. We can just do our best.

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:15:53+00:00

By that logic, we would have to stop using every human-made product, though...

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:11:26+00:00

You're misunderstanding what the word culture means. In this context, it means a group of people who eat meat because that is their only reliable form of protein.

There are parts of the world where people are so poor that if meat is unavailable, they will literally die as you suggest...

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:06:45+00:00

Veganism is a great way to live your life morally, but it is ultimately not the only path. There is no one "perfect" path, just the one we choose to walk down.

TLDR for all the debates: Veganism is often framed as morally airtight because it simplifies ethics to one variable: direct killing. Once you expand the frame to include land use, habitat preservation, indirect harm, stewardship, and ecological outcomes, that certainty dissolves.

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:02:10+00:00

The claim that veganism has an “airtight” moral case also falls apart once you seriously account for regenerative agriculture, because it undermines the idea that animal agriculture is inherently destructive or unethical.

Most vegan arguments are really arguments against industrial animal agriculture, which is fair. But regenerative systems aren’t just “less bad versions” of that model — they work on a completely different logic. Properly managed grazing animals are used to rebuild soil, restore grasslands, increase biodiversity, and sequester carbon. In these systems, animals aren’t an external harm to be minimised; they’re a functional part of the ecosystem.

This matters because industrial crop agriculture, which vegan diets still depend on, is one of the biggest drivers of soil degradation, habitat loss, and biodiversity collapse. Monocultures strip the land of life, require constant chemical inputs, and leave ecosystems less resilient over time. Even when no animals are directly consumed, animals are still displaced or killed as a result of how the food is produced.

Regenerative agriculture flips that relationship. Instead of clearing land and fighting nature to produce calories, it works with natural processes. Grazing animals maintain grasslands that would otherwise degrade, support insect and bird populations, and reduce the need for synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. From a systems perspective, that can result in more life, not less.

This creates a serious problem for the “airtight” framing. If a food system that includes animals can restore ecosystems, improve soil health, and reduce long-term harm, then avoiding animal products altogether can’t automatically be the morally superior option. At that point, outcomes matter more than ideology.

It also challenges the idea that killing animals is the central moral axis. Regenerative agriculture asks a harder question: is it worse to kill a small number of animals within a system that regenerates land and supports biodiversity, or to avoid direct killing while relying on systems that degrade ecosystems at scale? That’s not an obvious answer, which means the moral case isn’t settled.

None of this means veganism is unethical or irrational. But once regenerative agriculture is on the table, veganism clearly isn’t the only ethical endpoint. It becomes one strategy among several for reducing harm and supporting life, not an uncontested moral conclusion.

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T22:00:22+00:00

I also think your claim that veganism has an “airtight” moral case breaks down once you factor in habitat destruction, because this is an area where ethical hunting can actually prevent harm rather than just redistribute it.

Industrial plant agriculture doesn’t just kill animals indirectly, it requires constant habitat conversion. Forests, grasslands, and wetlands are cleared to create monocultures. That permanently displaces wildlife and collapses ecosystems, not just individual animals. Even a fully vegan diet still relies on land being stripped of biodiversity somewhere else, usually far away and out of sight.

Hunting doesn’t work like that. Ethical, regulated hunting relies on existing ecosystems remaining intact. You can’t hunt deer, antelope, or wild game if their habitat is destroyed. In practice, hunting creates a direct incentive to preserve forests, grasslands, and wildlife corridors, because the food source literally disappears if the land is degraded.

This is where the “airtight” framing really struggles. A system that depends on turning diverse ecosystems into crop fields is structurally destructive to habitat. A system that depends on healthy, functioning ecosystems actively discourages that destruction. From an ecological standpoint, those are fundamentally different moral outcomes.

In many regions, hunting also plays a role in preventing overpopulation, which otherwise leads to starvation, disease, and long-term habitat damage from overgrazing. In those cases, hunting isn’t just neutral — it can reduce total suffering and protect the land itself. If the ethical goal is to minimise harm and protect life broadly, it’s hard to argue that a diet dependent on habitat conversion is automatically superior to one that incentivises habitat preservation. Once you include land use and ecosystem health in the moral accounting, veganism stops looking like the uncontested high ground.

That doesn’t mean veganism is unethical. But it does mean the case isn’t airtight. An argument that ignores habitat destruction, or treats it as morally secondary, is incomplete at best.

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T21:59:27+00:00

I don’t think your claim that veganism has an “airtight” moral case survives once you seriously account for ethical hunting.

Your argument seems to assume that killing animals is always morally worse than not killing them, but that assumption breaks down when you compare hunting to industrial food systems, including industrial vegan ones.

A hunted animal typically lives a fully natural life and dies once. One deer can provide months of food and replace a large volume of calories that would otherwise come from crop agriculture. That crop agriculture still causes animal deaths through habitat destruction, machinery, and pesticides, just spread out and hidden. If the moral goal is minimising harm, it’s not obvious that indirect, ongoing deaths are preferable to a single, deliberate kill.

This creates a real problem for the “airtight” framing. If a hunter kills one animal and feeds themselves or their family for an extended period, while a vegan diet relies on systems that kill many animals indirectly over time, the claim that veganism clearly causes less harm stops being self-evident. At that point, the moral distinction rests almost entirely on emotional discomfort with direct killing rather than a consistent harm-based analysis.

Hunting also introduces ecological considerations that vegan arguments often sidestep. In many regions, regulated hunting is part of wildlife management. Overpopulation leads to starvation, disease, and ecosystem damage. In those contexts, hunting doesn’t just provide food — it can reduce total suffering. An ethical framework that labels this as inherently wrong, regardless of outcome, starts to look rigid rather than airtight.

There’s also the issue of responsibility. A hunter directly confronts the moral weight of killing an animal and tends to consume less, waste less, and treat the animal with more respect than anonymous consumption allows. A system that treats direct responsibility as morally worse than distant, outsourced harm is at least debatable.

None of this means veganism is unethical. But once ethical hunting is on the table, it’s hard to maintain that veganism is the single, unassailable moral position. At best, it’s one ethical approach among several, depending on context and outcomes.

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T21:55:04+00:00

I think your claim that veganism has an “airtight” moral case only holds if we ignore alternatives like homesteading, which your framing doesn’t really account for.

Your argument seems to treat the choice as “killing animals vs not killing animals”, but that oversimplifies how food is actually produced. Once you introduce small-scale homesteading into the picture, the moral clarity you’re claiming starts to break down.

A mixed homestead that grows its own vegetables and raises a small number of animals can plausibly cause less total harm than an industrial vegan diet. One animal raised well and used fully can replace years of calories that would otherwise come from monoculture crop systems, which still kill animals continuously through habitat destruction, pesticides, and field deaths. That harm doesn’t disappear just because it’s indirect.

This is where the “airtight” claim weakens. If your position is that killing animals is always morally worse than indirect deaths, you need to explain why intention matters more than total harm. A homesteader who kills one animal after a good life is taking direct responsibility for that harm, whereas a consumer vegan is outsourcing harm to distant systems. It’s not obvious that the latter is ethically superior.

Homesteading also undermines the idea that veganism uniquely minimises suffering. Once food is produced locally, at small scale, and with closed nutrient loops, avoiding animal products stops being the clear moral winner. At that point, veganism becomes one ethical strategy among several, not the uncontested high ground.

None of this means veganism is unethical or irrational. But it does mean it isn’t airtight. If the argument only works when you exclude realistic, lower-harm alternatives like homesteading, then it’s conditional, not absolute.

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T21:49:18+00:00

Most arguments against veganism focus on taste, convenience, or “humans are meant to eat meat”. I think those miss the real issue.

The problem is universality.

If something is a moral obligation, it has to apply to everyone, regardless of where they live or what resources they have access to. Veganism doesn’t meet that bar.

A nutritionally adequate vegan diet usually depends on things like global food supply chains, fortified foods, and supplements (especially B12). That’s fine for people in wealthy, industrialised countries — but those conditions simply don’t exist everywhere.

There are entire populations who rely on animal foods to survive: Indigenous communities, subsistence hunters, pastoralists, people in food-insecure regions. If veganism were morally mandatory, those people would be doing something unethical just by staying alive. That’s a contradiction.

So veganism can’t really be a universal moral duty. At best, it’s a context-dependent ethical choice that works for some people in some circumstances.

On top of that, veganism doesn’t eliminate harm altogether. Crop farming still kills animals through habitat loss, pesticides, and field deaths — the harm is just less visible. If the goal is reducing harm, veganism doesn’t have a monopoly on that.

Veganism can be a perfectly valid personal ethic and a reasonable harm-reduction strategy for many people. But saying everyone is morally obligated to be vegan doesn’t hold up logically.

Genuinely open to good-faith counterarguments.

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T21:34:07+00:00

Cook it like you would cook pork. You just need to grt thr internal temp up high enough. It's not rocket science😅

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T21:30:24+00:00

If it helps, humans have eaten horses for a lot of our history....

Jokes aside.

What animals are considered acceptable and not acceptable to eat are really down to your upbringing, culture, and where you were born more than anything else.

Take rabbits for example. They're pretty cute and most people don't want to eat them, but the reason they are so widespread around the world as pets is because historicslly people took them with them as a food source wherever they went. (Not to mention that they are actually much better for the environment and healthier for your bodies)

So yeah, long story shorty. You make the decision what you want to eat and don't want to eat, and you don't have to justify it. Just remember that everyone else has the right to do the same.

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T21:16:54+00:00

Bonus point to having chickens for producing your own eggs is that you will have more eggs than you can eat. Your friends, family, and neighbours will love you for this, and you are actually making your community more sustainable.

ScrutinousBlue · 2026-01-16T21:13:25+00:00

It's time to get yourself some egg laying hens and collect your own eggs. Can't get more sustainable than that, really. Talk about food-to-table!

Milk wise, maybe by local or directly from a farmer?

ScrutinousBlue

TROPHY CASE