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.
Kacarott
joined 3 months ago
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.
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.