…And how exactly do you think people are going to be able to eat meat otherwise? Or have dairy, eggs, wool, etc.? Do you think that people should e.g., raise chickens in the city?
And that’s ignoring the small obligate carnivores that make up most of the pets in the world.
Hey, I’d rather hunt my own food too, but we no longer live in tribal or feudal societies where you can reasonably expect to engage in animal husbandry yourself.
Is there a reason that you’d prefer to not have exposed metal? Unless you have PTFE (Teflon) coated cookware, that’s not an issue. I mean, I’ve got stainless steel pots that have gotten dinged up over the years, but I can buff that out with 400 grit sandpaper, and when I manage to burn something to cast iron and have to scrub it, I can freshen up the surface with any drying oil. And if you do have PTFE coated pots, I’d be more worried about the PTFE than about the utensils. Pots and pans that are PTFE coated are more or less disposable, and I would recommend against them in most cases. PTFE frying pans can be a real risk, because when heated, PTFE can release toxic gasses.
Mmmmm, it’s more like no one can reasonably demonstrate the truth of any god, rather than any specific god being demonstrably false. It’s an important distinction. You can’t disprove a thing, but you can prove that alternate explanations are far more probable, or that the thing doesn’t fit the evidence.
I don’t have to; you have to provide good sources to back up your claim. If I say that god exists, and then claim that the bible proves is, well, I’m not proving my point because I haven’t yet given any solid evidence to my claims. This is how a debate works when your arguing like a rational adult.
And, for the record, CNN/NYT/et al. are also biased, but they’re (usually) more factually based. Bias is not the same as factually incorrect; bias is reflected in which stories you choose to report, and what language you use in reporting. And example of a source that would be both unbiased and highly factual would be Reuters News Service, or the Christian Science Monitor. Similarly, Jabocin is strongly left-biased, but also highly factual.
Three of the sources you cited are not credible because they continually play fast and loose with facts and don’t bother verifying information. One of them was unsourced entirely, and the backup you provide is not in English–or based in the US–which makes determining the veracity difficult.
In short, you aren’t acting in good faith.
Daily Mail
Fox News
NY Post
…And a Twitter account that doesn’t link to a credible news source.
Would you like to try again without the sources that continually fail fact checks and exhibit a far right bias?
“Disagreements” are for things like tax milage, or whether or not a school needs a new football field. “Disagreements” are not for things like, “jews should be gassed”, or “trans people are all pedophiles”.
First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don’t. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)
Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?
Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren’t causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?
Fourth: “Exploiting” is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?
Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?