BonfireOvDreams

I'd agree that it's not. What about honey makes you feel like you need it or otherwise that it is somehow different than eating other animal products? If you use it just because you like it, you could argue the same for any other animal product. I'm primarily concerned with their lack of consent, in some cases the clipping of queen bee wings & confinement to a fixed space, & resource theft. There's also the concerns of native bee populations being unable to compete with honey bees.

Go Vegan

May as well not considering willful complicity in their deaths is wrong.

Would need to go the a priori, teleological, or modal route - definitely no empirics to claim. I absolutely think objective morality can coexist with invented morals. As stated prior, the majority of morals likely are subjective, but it doesn't follow to me that all of them are. I don't think the idea that 'using zyklon b to kill millions of innocent people is bad' is an invention. I'm fine with the idea that people realized not through invention but discovery that, 'yeah it is pretty fucked actually.'

I expect this response despite the indication of its issue. Were nazi's morally rigtheous in gassing millions of innocent people to death because they believed so? At that time that was their 'progress.' Independent of other socities or yourself having any issue, it's simply fine to say that because a nazi thinks it's fine, it is fine?

I don't think so, and I don't think that injustice is dependant on my preference to view it that way. It just is wrong.

Have you eaten beans? I eat them on the regular and am a feces excreting machine

Go back to school. Arguments lead to logical conclusions. Your point is stupid. You are worried about framing in discourse far more than the argument. Just use that brain power of yours to reformat the argument minus the framing you don't like. Such as, 'if anything digestible is morally permissable to digest, that would include babies, which you probably wouldn't morally permit, so perhaps you should find a more useful argument. Babies have meat too.' There, that better? You shouldn't eat animals (or 99.9999999% of them) because they are conscious - entailing varying degrees of thoughts, feelings, social dynamics, and the obvious capacity to suffer - many animals of which exhibit higher degrees of consciousness than a newborn human.

And jfc my dude you responded to the idea of babies being eaten with 'besides, some people are cannibals.' I didn't strawman. You actually said that.

If you still can't figure out how 'my body can digest stuff so its a-okay to eat literally anything digestible' is incredibly dumb even after I've told you where that logic leads then just don't participate in discourse at all and we'll help you get through life since you can't do it on your own. Are you done with the intellectualy dishonest semantics or no?

My point is that our “body” is able to sustain itself on a diet that includes animal meat, out body has evolved to be able to process it. Including babies and dogs.

Your point is stupid and absolutely includes babies and dogs. You can digest those beings just fine.

Besides, while I don’t share their views, there are cultures where eating dogs or practicing cannibalism is common.

'I'm not normalizing eating babies,' proceeds to normalize eating babies

Why can your body digest new born babies and dogs? Why can your body sexually violate them? Dumb take. You dont derive ethics from what your body is physically capable of doing.

Yes earlier in the thread it was very mob like. That's me just placating I suppose. He has not been proven guilty and they're already starving him. Doubly wrong.

He is Vegan. Irrespective of how we feel about what he did, the failure to address his core ethical beliefs is completely unacceptable. If his belief was rooted in ideas of a higher being or afterlife, everyone would acknowledge how fucked up it is. Not that I'm planning on going to jail anytime soon, but if I could not be able to abide by that daily practice of my life it would be incredibly distressing. Unless he is doing it for environmental reasons (I don't know) he likely seeks total animal liberation, and you're going to force feed him stolen animal secretions? Coproducts of dead baby cows, blended up chicks, and beings bred into painful bodies? The alternative is malnutrition? I would highly consider Jainism or Sikhism on this fact alone. Fuck you if you think he should be forced to go against these ethical beliefs. It is 100% a human rights violation IMO.