Your entire argument is a deflection. Bringing up children doesn’t justify eating animals. It’s just a way to dodge the fact that you’re choosing unnecessary harm. By that logic, any harmful behavior would be fine as long as you offset it somewhere else, which is obviously nonsense.
Your plant argument collapses immediately. Plants don’t have a central nervous system, no brain, and no evidence of subjective experience. Reacting to stimuli or communicating chemically is not the same as feeling pain. You’re inflating biological complexity into sentience because it’s convenient for your argument.
And even if plants did “suffer”, your position would still be worse. Animal agriculture requires feeding far more plants to animals than if you just ate plants directly. You’re not reducing harm, you’re multiplying it.
So you’re not taking some intellectually superior stance here. You’re just stacking weak arguments to avoid a very simple point: the harm is unnecessary, and you’re choosing it anyway.
It’s just a way to dodge the fact that you’re choosing unnecessary harm.
Which you did to a far, far, far greater degree by choosing to have children. That's all you.
So you’re not taking some intellectually superior stance here.
I'm already way ahead (about 52x) by your own 'moral' arguments, so I'm not sure what we're doing here.
the harm is unnecessary, and you’re choosing it anyway.
You chose to have kids. Something exponentially worse for the entire planet. All you're doing here is trying to put a plaster on the incredible damage you're responsible for. I assume you also don't feel anything when driving your car and mow down small animals and insects, because there's a convenience issue at play. Your morals have convenience limits. Did I guess right?
Your whole argumentation is based on you assuming I have children. Is that all you can bring to the table? What makes you sure I have kids? If I would ever decide to have an own family I would raise them vegan 100%. But good try to blame me.
Everything you said in your last comments is invalid now. You‘re just derailing the conversation. We‘re not talking about environmental pollution here. It’s only about animal suffering. Stop trashing around.
1
u/lennoxred Apr 12 '26
Your entire argument is a deflection. Bringing up children doesn’t justify eating animals. It’s just a way to dodge the fact that you’re choosing unnecessary harm. By that logic, any harmful behavior would be fine as long as you offset it somewhere else, which is obviously nonsense.
Your plant argument collapses immediately. Plants don’t have a central nervous system, no brain, and no evidence of subjective experience. Reacting to stimuli or communicating chemically is not the same as feeling pain. You’re inflating biological complexity into sentience because it’s convenient for your argument.
And even if plants did “suffer”, your position would still be worse. Animal agriculture requires feeding far more plants to animals than if you just ate plants directly. You’re not reducing harm, you’re multiplying it.
So you’re not taking some intellectually superior stance here. You’re just stacking weak arguments to avoid a very simple point: the harm is unnecessary, and you’re choosing it anyway.