Mrs_deWinter

Germany wanted to replace nuclear with renewables. This "replace with coal" bs is straight up misinformation.

You know what sucks as well? Taking too many painkillers against headaches actually causes headaches. Horrible ones at that. Glad to read that you're feeling better, but that's a real trap many people out there are stuck in.

Heute Morgen endlich wieder mit Tageslicht in die Tagschicht gestartet! Danke Normalzeit.

Ich will mir gar nicht vorstellen wie miserabel der Winter erst wäre, wenn wir das ganze in Sommerzeit durchmachen müssten.

What is your goal, and what are your methods to get there?

I wanted to show that your argument is stupid. That's it, really.

Because I've never actually tried to convince you, or praise veganism, or do any of the things you'd like to argue against to begin with. You are arguing against an army of strawmen.

Claiming I'm the one who's confused only makes you seem delusional. You seem desperate to stir the conversation into a direction where you're getting praised for your diet choices, while I'm still amused about your original comment.

You're standing on the proud achievement of a claim that is not only wrong, even if it was true, it wouldn't work as an argument in your favor. Maybe on some intellectually detached level you are in fact aware how stupid of an argument that really is, so now you're trying to change the topic to vegan goals and systematic issues and convincing people of your unsurpassable approach to a sustainable lifestyle.

I am not a hardliner by any means. And I'm not even talking down your eating habits. I'm talking down dumb arguments.

Sounds like there is still some room for improvement in terms of "eating as sustainably as they can" then.

I don’t subscribe to the vegan moral system, I find it often inconsistent and confused. Like here… What’s best for the bees? What’s best for the ecosystem? What’s best for the humans?

Do you mean the vegan moral system is confused, or are you confused? Because not many vegans are confused about those things, that much I can tell you.

Right now you're voting with your wallet to increase an economic demand for the death of billions of innocent blades of grass. Not to mention dead animals - but we're not talking about them, that would be silly.

Was ist denn das für eine Definition von "Flexitarier"? Was der Textblock beschreibt ist ja wohl eher ein Fleischliebhaber.

Zum Thema Schlaf wichtig zu wissen: Auf Alkohol zu verzichten wird den Schlaf langfrisitg fast garantiert verbessern, das ist jedenfalls die Erfahrung der allermeisten, die das hinter sich haben - aber die ersten Paar Tage (je nachdem, wie gewöhnt der Körper an den Alkohol ist) gibts den gegenteiligen Effekt. Ich würde dir empfehlen es, wenn möglich, mal eine Woche durchzuziehen. Im Besten Fall merkst du an der Stelle echt direkt eine Verbesserung.

Deinen ersten Punkt find ich aber auch sehr wichtig. Es ist nicht einfach, mal eben aufzuhören, und Suchtmittel sind in Fall einer Abhängigkeit oft nicht (nur) Problemursachen, sondern ja fast immer (auch) Lösungsversuche für darunterliegenden Probleme. (Bei Abhängigkeit kehrt es sich irgendwann schon auch um und das Suchtmittel wird zur Ursache vieler gravierender Probleme, aber mindestens am Anfang ist es eigentlich immer so.) Wenn man in der Situation das Sichtmittel "einfach mal weglässt", sitzt man mit den Problemen, die man damit zu lösen versuchte, gegebenenfalls erstmal alleine da. Aus einer Sucht rauszukommen geht über "Weglassen" des Suchtmittels deshalb deutlich hinaus, da geht es echt auch darum zu schauen: Für was brauch ich das bislang, und kann ich mir diesen Nutzen auch organisieren, ohne meine Leber zu zerstören. Also alternative Lösungsstrategien finden.

Für so etwas gibt es inzwischen echt gute Suchtberatungsstellen, die auch ganz niederschwellig erstmal mit einem schauen, ob überhaupt schon eine Sucht vorliegt. Ich hab dort immer wieder gute Erfahrungen gemacht, kann ich nur empfehlen.

Being sealed off wouldn't have to mean having zero contact with the surrounding nature. I think we can coexist with predators while still using some land for agriculture - just not all of it.

That being said, it’s bold of you to assume someone conscious of the suffering of plants isn’t eating as sustainably as they can with the choices they have available

Oh so you are a vegan?

I am not vegan, but simply trying to understand how honey is bad, but as you say “unavoidable collateral damage of agriculture” or not.

Is bad as well, we simply have no good way of avoiding it.

Think about it this way: Beekeeping is bad, agriculture is bad. Can we avoid both? No. But can we avoid at least one of them? Easily so. So let's do that - half a win is better than nothing.

There are many ways agriculture could be less harm, less pesticides, less monotone growing practices, more spread out growing. We do not have to accept these practices to not starve.

I agree, which is why many (if not all) vegans strive to support those more sustainable forms of agriculture. But economic constraints are a real thing for many people. Not everyone can always decide to buy the higher quality produce. If we can - good, let's do that. While and if we can't, same thing with the honey: Can we avoid all the problems at once? No, but at least we can do as best as reasonable possible, so let's do that. That's veganism for many people.

I don’t think honey collecting is worse than agriculture (even of direct plants for human consumption), so I don’t think vegans should discount honey.

Even if it's just 1% worse than agriculture wouldn't we reduce a bit of suffering by replacing it? And I mean it's not even like we need honey for anything. We consume too much sugar anyway. Even if honey is exactly as harmful as sugar cane farming (which is debatable), by omitting it we would save not only agricultural resources but animal exploitation as well. Not consuming it is better than consuming it in terms of animal suffering. Since we don't need to consume it, from a vegan perspective I think it's understandable why that's seen as preferable.