Sorry, but there are flaws in your reasoning. Morality is a concept that defines the boundaries of right and wrong and is defined by a certain society, i.e. us as people. You can view it as immoral to kill an animal yourself and you are free to live vegan but it remains a fact that the sort of protein that is best processed by the human body is a protein that originates in an animal. Animal protein gave the human species the brain power to evolve in the first place and you would be cruel to disallow children to have food prepared with animal proteins since it is necessary for their growth and development. That actually means that it is immoral to not feed children with animal protein, since you'd be hurting a representative of our species and put them into disadvantage. For adults, the choice is a little more complicated, since it involves more consideration and free will.
This is nonsense. The idea that you can
only get protein from animals is bullshit (it isn't true). There are plenty of ways one can get protein from plant sources. Also, the idea that animal protein helped the human species "survive" is a myth. Animal-derived foods are
not necessary to live a healthy life. The thing you said about feeding food to people is nonsense as well.
You can absolutely love deer and still support killing them. Turns out that, without our very personal assistance, we (mostly) live in ecosystems whose natural balance disturbed by humans. However, I am not saying that interfering with the balance of an ecosystem is fundamentally wrong because that would actually mean that we put ourselves below any other living species, just because we know we are actually doing the interfering and the others do not, even though they interfere. Anyhow, we live around ecosystems that are out of balance (missing predators, for instance). So if you are arguing for e.g. the diversity of species then hunting herbivorous species, that threaten to put certain plants out of existence or seriously skew the balance again, is moral by your standards.
This is also not true. It is
not possible to kill deer and also love them, because the act of killing a deer is itself immoral and is the opposite of loving them. It's like claiming it's possible to kill dogs and also love dogs at the same time (it's bullshit). There are ways of keeping ecosystems intact that don't involve killing / slaughtering animals.
What if your interest is to end suffering in a certain case?
The only responsibilities I see that we, as sentient humans, should live by are:
1. avoiding unnecessary cruelty
2. living sustainably
That means:
1. our intelligence as humans and empathy towards others (as well as knowledge from experience and experiments) tell us that animals know pain and since we know pain, we should aim to not harm animals unnecessarily and cause them pain
2. this aims at our main purpose as a species which is actually something that is a basis of how we define morality: we aim to procreate, evolve and advance as a species. In nature, every non-sentient species advanced by benefiting from the exploitation of resources and by being adapted to circumstances better than another species. We do have the same right. But we (should) aim to make this advance generally possible for our descendants as well. And that means to employ at least a little amount of mindfulness and foresight about how we use the resources that we are given, so that our children do not have to grow up in a barren waste. Killing all living non-human species by being too wasteful or not respecting nature at all falls under the category of being unsustainable.
Having empathy towards animals means not killing them, and not supporting the killing of them. It's the same way that killing humans is viewed as wrong (except in certain circumstances such as the death penalty, euthanasia, etc.) -- the killing of
any living being should be viewed as wrong.
Your argument from nature (the idea that because non-human animals exploit other animals, humans can too) is part of a naturalistic fallacy. Just because something happens in nature
does not mean humans have to automatically follow it.
Nobody cares about disappointing vegans. At this point in time, having a purely vegan lifestyle but enjoying the luxury (and being vegan is MOST DEFINITELY a luxury of being in a situation and living in a country where you can afford that without getting sick) can have an extremely bad ecological footprint. That is because all the technology to replace animal products is just in its early stages and can take up lots of other valuable resources in a way that is not immediately obvious and is often missing from statistics. However, doing research toward this goal is honorable and good and comparing it with the efficiency of other technologies that have been around for centuries is not exactly fair.
Having a vegan diet
does not have to be a "luxury". Also, the ecological footprint from meat-eating is
far worse than the ecological footprint of being vegan, because animals such as cows require a lot of farmland, which results in the destruction of a greater number of forests (than a plant-based situation).
So: it definitely comes down to personal choice of how you want to live but some ways of living are definitely not benefiting the goals of sustainability. You can choose to not be cruel and you can choose to reduce meat consumption. You can also take special care about where you get your meat from and nowadays you can even live meat-free (hooray, human ingenuity!).
Just a reminder, that it is not possible to get meat from "ethical" sources, because killing an animal is wrong in and of itself.
P.S.: I definitely love my burgers and steaks and all but I don't care about having them every day. On days that I do, I'm grateful that I can have them and I'm happy to know (and, sure, *hope* to know because I did not kill the animal myself and have to trust the choice that I made when I bought it and the information that I had at the time) that the animal did not suffer overly much and was kept under the appropriate circumstances.
It is speciesist to eat meat -- the reason for this is that it treats non-human animals as being simple objects that have "less value" than humans. The process by which an animal becomes meat is a cruel and torturous one, and it is one that is inherently unethical; thus, eating meat is inherently unethical. Even if an animal is killed without suffering, it is still immoral (in the same way that killing a dog without suffering is still immoral -- the act of killing is itself immoral).
If you love deer you would support the ethical harvesting of them. Instead of a deer suffering for weeks and succumbing to starvation or disease, it's taken out with the quickest and most painless death that occurs in nature. Instead of me or my loved ones consuming farmed meat, one healthy buck supplies us for months with all the meat necessary.
You're on par with flat earthers and anti vaxxers, ignoring vast quantities of scientific data because it doesn't fit your emotional agenda
And you bet I do.
That is this falls harvest. Each one of those packages is enough for several meals for me and mine.
It is
not possible to "ethically harvest" deer, because "harvesting" (killing) deer is
inherently unethical. By the way, sometimes when hunters hunt deer, the deer does not immediately die, and spends weeks suffering in the forest from its wounds. "Taking out" a deer is morally wrong, just as "taking out" (killing) any living being is immoral. People
do not need to consume
any animal-derived meat.
The fact that you're comparing vegans with "flat earthers" is bullshit, and just shows where your morals are. You claim vegans have an "agenda", when in fact it is hunters and meat-eaters that have their own agenda.
Stop treating living beings as "meals" -- that is wrong. Deers are living beings with a right to live, just like humans, dogs, etc.
Absolutely Agree. I have no hard feelings against vegans until they start pushing their ideas about meat eating on me. I have to wonder about them too because of late there have been some pretty well known vegans who have returned to eating meat and all claiming how much healthier and how much more energy they now have.
People who ate meat, then became vegan, then went back to eating meat (and claim it's "healthier" to eat meat) are ignorant and don't know what they're talking about. The reason for this is because eating a plant-based diet is much healthier than eating meat. Also, you're picking and choosing the stories of people that support your point of view. There are plenty of people out there who became vegan and
did not go back to eating meat. Also, the notion that eating animal-based meat is required to maintain "energy" is a myth, and the notion that having a vegan diet is "unhealthy" is a myth.
Vegan movement is a superiority complex and nothing else.
This is nonsense -- the vegan movement is about compassion towards animals, and respecting their rights (and not going along with speciesism) -- it is not a "superiority complex and nothing else" as you claim.
PP stay mad hippie lol
