You're viewing a single thread.
The difference is that the fish needs to eat the other fish. We don't need ANY animal products. So every killed animal suffered and lost their life for 10min of taste for us that we didn't need. Being vegan is so easy in 2023.
taste
what about vitamins? proteins and other nutrients
like omega 3 fatty acid majorly found in fishes
There are plenty of plant sources of Omega 3. Flax seeds, walnuts, soybeans, and canola oil all have decent amounts of omega 3 in them. As for protein, legumes generally have a bunch.
Really, the only thing a vegan needs to supplement is B12, but even that gets added to a bunch of stuff like breakfast cereals and plant milks if you consume those.
Flax seeds, walnuts, soybeans, and canola oil all have decent amounts of omega 3 in them
They also take an enormous amount of resources to cultivate and process at industrial scale.
Wait until you learn what cattle gets fed. Spoiler: it is soy
Wait until you learn that industrial 'murica isn't the entirety of the planet.
I am not american and I dont want to be one. The feed for animals raised for their meat in the EU and a lot of other countries that have industrial animal farms is comprised out of several plants and nutrient supplements, and a big part of that feed is soy and corn, both things that are grown mostly to feed animals.
How does one milk a plant?
You can make your own plant milk usually by soaking/boiling nuts/seeds in water and then blending that together. Some people use juicers for this, and then some people run the blended liquid through a filter to remove any bits. Cashew milk is lovely if homemade!
But why call in Milk then? Shouldnt it be called Nut juice or Seed juice?
You'll have to ask the people who started calling them milks hundreds of years ago.
They have a lot more in common with dairy milk than they do juice. And they're also commonly used as dairy milk alternatives. Plant milk is a much better descriptor even if juice might be more "accurate".
I do it to piss off dairy farmers specifically. They hate it that I get to call it plant milk and that's really funny to me.
You can take them as supplements. It's the same for your body. Oh and you are already doing that, because they give supplements to the animals they raise and kill, we are just eliminating the middleman.
very natural
Worth noting that many non-vegans are vitamin deficient and some medical authorities, including the UK's, even recommend that everyone take vitamin D supplements. Also, please reconsider using your Internet connection, that isn't very natural either.
as I said to the other guy, I'm not saying not natural is bad. But what op is implying is that getting the same stuff from natural sources is bad. That I just don't agree with. It's just the natural order of things. I have other options, yes, but I don't consider the default natural source of things to be bad, so I don't feel the need to switch. Animals eat animals all the time. And they don't do it "humanely" either.
Animals don't have the options we do. That argument fails.
Plus, that argument could be used to justify rape and murder. Perfectly natural. They don't breed humanely.
What if the animals just ate plants instead?
Herbivores must, carnivores must not, omnivores with very high level thinking and moral agency is fortunate enough to choose.
So there isn't the right nutrition available in plants to sustain every animal?
Yes, I'm pretty sure a lion would die if he tried eating only plants, while I'd imagine a cow would die on a meat diet. I'm less well versed on non-human animal diets though, as I've never needed to give it a lot of thought.
I do know that humans can be very strong, fit and healthy on a plant-based diet, as confirmed by the world's medical institutions, and demonstrated by vegan athletes of all types.
No one said every animal, just humans
Why is it worse to get things from less natural sources? Ignoring that everybody get some of their vitamins from less natural sources, e.g. animals injected with B12, cereals fortified with iron, water and toothpaste with fluoride, synthesised morphines instead of smoking opium - would you say these things are bad too because they are less natural? And if so, why?
Also, do you take all of your moral code from the worst things animals do? I hold myself to a higher standard and don't eat my kids, rape, or fling shit at each others.
never said it was worse. what I did say is it's not better either
Well fantastic - best to go for the one with the least impact to the environment and suffering then!
To make one redundant point, a nice thing about the less natural sourcing of things is that exact dosages can be measured during synethesis - so when tree bark is swapped out for aspirin, opium for morphine etc. you can get reliable, pure dosages for medicine. I don't think that's really very important for vitamins of course.
Those factory farmed animals are further away from "natural" than a smartphone
Cyanide occurs naturally. Water can be made in a lab by mixing Hydrogen and Oxygen and applying heat.
Is Cyanide good for you when occurring naturally and water bad for you when artificially synthesized?
no. But it is also not the case that nature intended for us to consume artificially synthesized anything
Natural is such a stupid argument. Is it natural for us to use a smartphone? Sit in a car and drive around? Work 8h a day instead of being with your peer group? Breed a fast growing special kind of animal, feed it with chemical ingredients and plants that don't grow here only to eat them? Eat processed sugar? I think you get where I am going. Stop using this bullshit argument and take some supplements, your body will thank you.
I'm not saying that supplements are bad. What I am saying is that getting those things from their original source is not bad either. And no argument will get me to see it as such. You can have your supplements, it doesn't affect me. But I will not feel guilty of doing what nature always intended me to do: i.e. eat stuff
You eat others who have been feed the same unnatural supplements and much more. Nothing about the Animal industry is natural (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) But I guess you live in the woods and only spear hunt there?
Animal industry is the biggest destroyer of nature and not only kills them but in the long run us too.
nature intended
Nature doesn't intend anything, it simply is. We are, in the grand scheme of things, not separate from nature, and in this sense everything we do is natural. If you're using "natural" to distinguish things from the results of human civilization, then eating animal products stemming from animal agriculture is just as "unnatural" as supplements, as both are products of civilization.
Are you a nudist?
Whataboutism
This isn't whataboutism. Whataboutism isn't about using the words "what about", it's about misdirecting the conversation to a seemingly related but actually an unrelated topic in order to counter argue the point. It's a sub-type of ad-hominem attack, a fallacy.
The person you're responding to is directly answering why people need to eat fish (I'm not validating the claim, just explaining) with sarcastic questions starting with what about.
Dude actually said “what about….”
Again, the wording is not the issue
Guy says “whatabout” and goes on to bring up something else to compare, and you’re saying it’s not a whatabout?
ROFL!
He's not bringing something else to compare. You can rephrase the discussion like this:
Claim: We don't need to eat fish. It is not necessary for humans.
Counter claim: we need to eat fish because humans need nutrients such as omega 3 fatty acids.
This is a direct dispute. The claim and counter claims have not been changed. They are both directly on topic.
Here is an example of whataboutism.
Person1: Biden says 1 + 2 = 4! Biden is wrong!
Person2: But Trump said 1 + 2 = 1000000! He's even more wrong!This argument does not address the claim that Biden is right or wrong. He does not talk about the problem. Person2 is misdirecting by bringing a separate person as form of counter attack. They're both wrong. Trump being more wrong does not validate Biden's incorrect answer. Like I said, whataboutism is a subtype of ad hominem attack.
It's also possible person2 could've said: What about Trump? He said, 1 + 2 = 1000000!
It's easy to formulate whataboutism by using the words "what about", and it is done so commonly. That's why it is called whataboutism. But again, what is being said is important, not how it is said.
A person3 could say: What about 3?
This is not whataboutism. He's showing what is his side to the argument. Even if the person3 gave the wrong answer like "what about 2?" It is still not whataboutism as they are still talking about the problem rather than misdirecting.
Edit: Grammar
"Whataboutism" was invented by the british to say whenever the irish talked about oppression. It was invented to oppress. It is not a fallacy, saying "Whataboutism" is.
Actual proteins you need supplements for if you go vegan
No you don't. Literally every plant contains EVERY amino acid in varying amounts. You don't need to supplement protein as a vegan.
Would you believe that I don't want to eat just plants and pills for each meal? Would you also believe that I disagree with the industrialization of farming and the animal abuse that is so commonly paired with it.
There are humane ways to eat meat, and while they're difficult to find, it's a lot easier than eating what most people would consider disgusting everyday.
Yes you don't want to just eat plants, hence you are eating animals for taste pleasure.
Why do you think it's okay to kill someone for pleasure? What's humane about that?
Man, you are gonna be real mad when you learn how conservation and wildlife management works
Animals other than humans aren't people, that's why it's okay. You should be the first law enforcement official that prosecutes predatorial non-human animals
It's shocking to me how many people don't understand that saying "they aren't the same species as us, so because of that we can treat them with impunity" is analogous to saying "they aren't the same skin color as us, so because of that we can treat them with impunity"
See, now you're actually just forcing your worldview on people. They literally are not people, they are not sentient, intelligent, nor do they have language. They are not analagous to people, and you comparing this to racism is a really shitty attempt at ad hominem.
Grow up.
they are not sentient
Science disagrees with you here. Most of the animals being used for meat are in fact not just sentient, but also conscious:
Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.
-- From the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
Ploughing fields for plants kills animals too
Yeah and having an accident with your car may also kill people. Should that count as murder? You know, since apparently intention is irrelevant.
Literally every plant contains EVERY amino acid in varying amounts.
Guess we can all survive on grass then. Agriculture and societies were a mistake, let's just become cattle and chill all day /s
Or you can just eat plants that you can actually digest but that wouldn't make for a snarky comment huh?
You said "Literally every plant". It's right up there.
They also said, "in varying amounts". That would imply you need to vary your diet. But again, not useful for snark.
Sorry, I can't stomach grass without some mayo or tomato sauce.
That is just a non sequitur.
Elitism