I dunno, I kind of care because I find the things they get butthurt about tend to be quite interesting and worth watching/reading.

If I was rich I would live wherever made me happy, probably somewhere with lots of nature, and I'd be happy to pay my share in taxes cus I can trivially afford it.

It would be incredibly depressing to be rich but only find joy in hoarding money.

Well first, I don't think that "is ok to eat meat" is a moral. But it's true that humans haven't tended to find it immoral (though there are exceptions to this in certain cultures, regarding certain meats).

But you make a good point, and I think the answer is that since humans make morals based on their circumstances, and the circumstances of society can and does change, then certain morals become less relevant compared to others. Murder is a fairly constant moral, because regardless of how a society changes, a murderous individual is gonna be bad for it. But on the other hand, there used to be pretty strong morals regarding how dead bodies were treated; you leave them alone. And this used to make sense, since people who messed with dead bodies were likely to get diseases and spread them. But as medicine and science and hygiene improved, this became less relevant as compared to the need to investigate dead bodies to improve understanding of disease and human biology. So our common morals regarding respect for the dead changed.

For veganism, it used to be for most societies that they couldn't afford to simply not eat things, unless they were poisonous. So this need overwhelmed morals of kindness to nature and animals, even though this moral of kindness was still there (respecting nature is a moral found in very many cultures). But in modern day when we now have an abundance of food to the point of large waste, the need to eat whatever you can is no longer as important, and the moral of kindness to animals (and the environment) can be expressed more freely.

And indeed, I think the vast majority of vegans would agree that eating meat is not inherently immoral if there is no other choice, it's only when meat is chosen over other alternatives that it becomes immoral, because it is unnecessary.

Sorry for the wall of text

That's a fair point, I was mostly thinking that many people consume far too much meat, and that reducing it would be healthy, but if it's only being replaced with trash then it wouldn't be any better

Well I agree with you that I don't think it was much of a deterrent, because that was the reality of how people were raised. But I think these days many people have never killed the animals they eat, and they were also not raised in the same conditions, so I suspect that forcing people to kill their own animals today would indeed be somewhat of a deterrent, at least to certain groups of people. But this is of course all just my opinion and speculation.

I believe I just did? My argument is that despite morals not coming from some magical entity, they have an origin in humanities success in society, and are therefore still important. For something to be immoral doesn't merely mean an entity says it is bad, it means that thing goes against principles which benefit our societies. Murder is immoral, not because an entity decided that, but rather because societies which accepted murder were far less successful than societies which did not.

For veganism, the environmental mortality is clear. Besides that I suspect the reason we tend to see unnecessary animal abuse as immortal is because kinder humans tend to be better for society, and kinder humans also tend to be kinder to animals, not just humans.

You are stating strawmen: facts with no relevance to the argument presented, which you then point to and refuse to address the actual argument.

I never claimed to know what any individual needs, but you have started it as a fact as if that is at all relevant. It's not, because I never claimed it. I claimed that I know that the vast majority of people need, based on basic science and statistics. If you have fact which actually argued against that, then please go ahead. But unrelated facts posing as arguments are strawman arguments, and are bad faith.

Of course they did, they also had drastically less options than they do today. It's no coincidence that veganism is a fairly new concept, it's only fairly recently that it's become feasible.

I of course don't know what any specific person needs, but knowing what the vast majority of people need is trivial, it's basic science.

Please stop arguing is such bad faith in every response you make.

It might be a fact, but it's being used as an argument to make a specific point. These things are not exclusive.

And my question stands, why is it being used as an argument when it has no relevance?

Obviously the observer decides for themselves what they think is needed. I didn't think it would be controversial to observe that people tend to dislike/have an aversion to hurting intelligent animals for no reason.

Not everyone necessarily feels this, but many people do. Enough for us as a society to largely ban/shun things like dog fights, bull fights, circus animals, animal torture videos, etc

If people had to kill their own meat, not only would there be more vegans, but people who did eat meat would probably eat a lot less on average than the average person today does. It would probably make a lot of people healthier too.

Who here is claiming that there are moral facts? Of course morals are constructs of human culture, but that doesn't make them less important. Morals are essentially what we have learned to be important rules for good, healthy societies. Humans who abide by the idea that it is "wrong" to kill another human are far more compatible in a community than ones who do not. These concepts have developed over a very long time, which is why we tend to "know" when things are wrong (eg feel bad, guilty conscious, etc). One of these "rules" is that needlessly inflicting pain on intelligent animals is wrong. Similarly, causing unnecessary damage to the environment is wrong. The context of climate change is quite new, but the principle is the same.

Ok but idk if the flying atrocities that are mosquitoes deserve a title as high as "animal" tho

I really don't see how they are strawmen. The vast majority of people do not need meat, the reason they eat meat is because it tastes good. Taste is merely one of our senses, why is it ok to kill to enjoy the taste, but not ok to enjoy the sound or sight? That's what the meme is getting at.

Nature playing out

Why is this an argument, when it isn't an acceptable reason for anything else? Rape, murder, thievery are all things that most people see as wrong, despite them happening in nature plenty.

One of the things that makes humans unique is our ability to consider logic and mortality beyond what happens in nature, because nature certainly isn't perfect.

I agree not everyone can refrain from eating meat, but waiting until everyone is doing it before one stops eating meat is a good way to ensure it never happens. Veganism has grown to where it is now from people deciding to adopt it for themselves, regardless of other people are doing it.

But yes you are right, the argument shouldn't be "you should feel bad". I think educating about the problems of the meat industry, and also making veganism ever more accessible and normalised are the ways forward. But it will spread person by person, not as large communal decisions. At least not yet.

Mosquitos have been causing humans harm since forever. If the vegan idea is too reduce harm then maybe vegans should be obligated to kill the sadistic little fuckers

This is a bad faith argument, similar to saying "so you've never left a light on all day?" To someone protesting climate change.

The point of veganism (besides the environmental side) is that there is far too much unnecessary suffering caused to animals; complex and intelligent animals, because of the meat industry. Of course humans will probably always cause death and suffering to animals and even other humans, but accepting this and taking it as a reason for "why should I care at all then" is ridiculous.

Attaching a system of mortality to a diet is just religion

... what? I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't make sense at all. By this logic what is wrong with cannibalism? Attaching a system of morality to that diet would just be a religion right? And I'm sure eating human meat has all kinds of nutrients.

I was trying to rank up in Codewars, and there was a 1kyu (hardest and worth the most points) kata only available in OCaml, so I learned it in order to solve.