Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by BlueTangerine, 24 Sep 2015.
I disagree with this, whilst you can farm ethically and sustainably, it's not possible to feed 7bn people in a 'natural existance'
Maybe the problem is that there are 7bn people then?
Oh I dunno
New video from 'Ask Yourself' Matt Dillahunty is highly regarded in the athiest movement, or whatever.
- His morality/ethics videos make a lot of sense for vegans.
Personally, I don't eat anything I wouldn't kill myself. I think it's an ethical position. I don't eat pigs, cows or sheep as I'd probably shy away from stabbing them. Chickens, no problem, I've killed loads of them. Ditto fish. Except carp. I like carp.
and what's the 'non-preachy' solution to that?!
That at least has some level of consistency. It's respectable to a point. The (some would call it arbitrary) distinction between a bird/fish and a mammal makes your own personal take less silly, than those who pet their dogs yet eat cows. I'd point you to the the article above.. Chickens and fish are sentient beings worthy or consideration.
I don't doubt it. I'm a mindful predator and aware of the price other creatures pay. I've been considering my position for years. It's the widespread ignorance of separating flesh from life I refuse to be a part of.
There is no 'harm free' existence. I don't think most vegans pretend otherwise. Veganism: "Is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."
At the heart of one's ethics should be consistency. Why treat or knowingly promote the exploitation of a thing with no real justification for doing so?