Search results for query: *

  1. JacobVeganism

    Code and Conduct in Ethical Debate.

    That's funny because I get called a troll almost every post I make. I care about the troubles of wild animals and I don't know how to deal with it, I just want people to accept that their suffering matters. People's appeal to nature is irrational for justifying meat, yet vegans use it all the...
  2. JacobVeganism

    Code and Conduct in Ethical Debate.

    Thanks haha I guess you're called a troll by a lot of people. Seems like you like to talk a lot 😂 have a good one.
  3. JacobVeganism

    Code and Conduct in Ethical Debate.

    The health argument doesn't stop people from buying leather... Or wool... Or animal tested products...
  4. JacobVeganism

    Code and Conduct in Ethical Debate.

    It's fine, I worded it wrong. I said it's not AS wrong as slavery, bit what I meant is it is not for me to say
  5. JacobVeganism

    Code and Conduct in Ethical Debate.

    I didn't mean that animal agriculture is less bad than slavery, I meant that to make the comparison overtly is tedious and futile. My point is that I'm being criticised for something I haven't even done: compare in a utilitarian manner, which is worse between two abominations. I agree with the...
  6. JacobVeganism

    Code and Conduct in Ethical Debate.

    It appears you have misunderstood my point aswell. Re-read my initial statement. I have never used slavery or rape as a comparison of conditions. I have used them as EXAMPLES of where irrational justifications can lead. These are two very different things.
  7. JacobVeganism

    Code and Conduct in Ethical Debate.

    Well it is exclusively how I was won over and how many others are. Look to the likes of Joey Carbstrong, Earthing Ed and Humane Hancock. They present the ethical argument in a calm manner and it very often works.
  8. JacobVeganism

    Code and Conduct in Ethical Debate.

    Did you actually read what I said? No comparisons are being made between women and cows. Nor are any comparisons being made between pigs and Jews or black slaves. If someone used the argument "well if you needed to survive you would do it" And you responded by saying "if someone had a gun to...
  9. JacobVeganism

    Code and Conduct in Ethical Debate.

    So I want to hear some of your opinions in regards to what topics are off-limits when attempting to "win over" a meat-eater. Have any of you guys heard of the vegan teacher on tiktok? Well she's blown up recently and everyone is calling her racist and disgusting for referencing slavery and rape...
  10. JacobVeganism

    UK The wild.

    Not really as we have the ability to perceive and decide ways in which suffering is minimised. But I see your point. Differences in characteristics make it so that we cannot have truly equal consideration.
  11. JacobVeganism

    UK The wild.

    Very true, but it seems beyond me that we are so separate. Why is it that we don't care to manage our own population, but we subjegate prey to death for that very reason? I promote for more research into preventative measures. "It is what it is", doesn't satisfy me. Part of being anti-speciesist...
  12. JacobVeganism

    UK The wild.

    Let me preface this by saying that what occurs by evolution or in the wild does not justify what action we take by any means. However, watching a few wildlife shows has made me rather melancholic about the requirement of suffering and death. I am not necessarily saying that we should intervene...
  13. JacobVeganism

    UK Pesticides and Combine Harvesters.

    I also want to add that I wouldn't boycott wheat to prevent the accidental and incidental suffering of human beings of the same characteristics. This is important, and a crucial difference between dairy and wheat, as I could not say this for the dairy industry.
  14. JacobVeganism

    UK Pesticides and Combine Harvesters.

    You are not morally culpable for accidentally running over a squirrel, but you are if you choose to seek the squirrel. However, if you drink drive you are somewhat responsible for the accident that proceeds it, as recklessness causes accountability. I believe that this analogy could be applied...
  15. JacobVeganism

    UK Pesticides and Combine Harvesters.

    I agree with the sentiment, but couldn't someone use this phrase to justify consuming dairy? I know it's much worse, but it's not as bad as murdering one another, so so long as I am being good in not killing my family, I can consume dairy. Maybe what you're saying is that if more harm was caused...
  16. JacobVeganism

    UK Pesticides and Combine Harvesters.

    I think I'll mark this down as the answer. Very thorough and in-depth. Personally, I believe that it should either not be considered at all, or it should be an obligation. It is either wrong or it is not. If it is wrong, then it is an obligation to avoid doing it. If it is not wrong, then it is...
  17. JacobVeganism

    UK Pesticides and Combine Harvesters.

    I feel like I am obligated to research extensively which crops cause the least suffering as to be consistent with my morals. The same way I expect a meat eater to extend their morals from humans to animals, I should extend my morals from intensive farming to accidental suffering in crop...
  18. JacobVeganism

    UK The ethics of slaughter.

    Exactly, but because of the society it would create (an unideal one) this, therefore cannot be applied to animals, although the efficiency required to feed the sheer number of meat eaters makes suffering inherent in the industry. And, even if I could painlessly kill an animal that only exists as...
  19. JacobVeganism

    UK The ethics of slaughter.

    No-one is pro slaughter for unnecessary reasons, and I can label you dismissive "vegans" who are selective when regarding sentient beings as hypocritical, but it does not benefit debate.
  20. JacobVeganism

    UK The ethics of slaughter.

    I never suggested not to consider harm. I am promoting for research. If we find that there is no way to eliminate suffering without there being other forms of harm, we leave it. I think we should at least look into it. Also, about the might = right argument, I understand where you're coming...