But my cows were in a field eating grass, not feed. So I already answered this one.

Veganism is vague, with different strictnesses. Insulin uses animal products as input. You are changing the definition of vegan to allow some animal inputs but not others.

You also insist on a broad "harm" which you haven't defined. It somehow excludes the complete extinction of at least 2 species.

I'm not chasing eternally moving goalposts. You've asked if your fort is sturdy then bragged that I didn't catch you when you ran away. Your fort got wrecked mate.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

no, insulin does not use animal products as input. even if it did, i never said anything about taking away insulin. that is a straw man

if everyone lived like you, we couldn't feed the meat people consume today. so how you live isn't relevant to the point I made

my statement "veganism causes the least harm" didn't change. i didn't move any goalposts. if you don't know what veganism or harm means, either ask for clarification or don't engage in the discussion

Human insulin genes are injected into those bacteria. They don't just make insulin for fun.

We can't produce enough for everyone to live like you either. Inefficient production choices are the cause of shortages, not the type of food. Almonds? Cashews? Fruit? Even current production levels require industrial bee farming.

I used OED, if you want to use your own definitions you need to share them up front not assume I live in your head. If veganism allows animal inputs and a peaceful protected life is harm but extinction isn't you aren't working from any dictionary I've ever read.

how is injecting human insulin genes into bacteria not vegan?

you're saying that humanity can't live vegan?

what extinction are you talking about?

Avoiding animal derived products, straight from vegan society.

I'm saying that the health outcomes of humans are worse if we do. That counts as harm in my book.

The extinction of the animals that have been domesticated beyond hope of living wild. Dogs, cows, and chickens for example.

you consider bacteria animals?

do you believe people in general can't live healthy eating plant based?

who is harmed when dogs, cows and chickens don't exist anymore?

No, but the humans the human genes are sourced from are animals.

I think that it says a lot that you concede there is a fair amount of supplementation and hoops to jump through to make it work vs just eat a steak.

The dogs, cows, and chickens that went extinct.

You still never addressed mice caught in threshers. I haven't even brought up the issues caused if we lose the population control from hunting.

Veganism sounds great first order thinking but it lives in denial of a fair list of unintended consequences. Lots of consequences to meat eating too, but the difference is I've stared the consequences of my decisions in the eye including 2nd and 3rd order and I stand by my decisions.

Give the animals the best life you can while alive then kill them as quickly and painlessly as you can. Try to limit waste. I'm not taking the position of the status quo at all.

the human genes are sourced from animals and not humans?

you're misrepresenting what i said about supplementation. all humans can have deficiencies and can supplement if needed. i personally only take b12 and taking that compared to killing an animal is worth it imo

i don't understand what you mean with the dogs, cows and chickens that went extinct. the existing ones would die naturally like you and me. where is the harm? i can't see it...

veganism would reduce the death of mice caught in threshers, because most of the food produced today is used by livestock. vegans know that there will always be harm, but the goal is to reduce it

because you mention waste: wouldn't you agree that eating vegan reduces waste more than eating meat? if you answer again with how you personally do it, then again, that is not doable for all of humanity

(sorry that i missed the point about mice caught in threshers and thank you for reminding me, i did not ignore it on purpose)

Humans are animals.

Acceptable and optimal are not the same. Acceptable health with supplements, sure but there is a large gap of human harm between acceptable and optimal. You can choose that for yourself but not for others. B12 is narrow compared to the broad spectrum nutrients in food. You don't know if or what health risks you take on by being so far from the diet you evolved for and the things you are missing.

I don't actually. Preserving meat seems much more manageable to me. Vegetables and fruit are a constant pain with things like looking good on the outside then turning out to be rotten inside. Meat is just a matter of tracking the clock and freezing. That isn't a personal thing, the hassle of telling what is ripe and rotten is universal.

I'm opposed to mass feed growing to feed animals. Cows eat grass, chickens eat grubs and other bugs, pigs are amazing for turning human plant food scraps into meat. Feed is a last resort to get through winter if you are treating your animals decently.

thank you for the discussion