Every once in a while I get that ominous feeling that killing and specially making animals suffer just for me to eat meat, fish and lactose is extremely wrong, but then I kinda forget.
I kinda see myself hunting wild game though so it’s weird.
Higher calory diets aren’t just for pro athletes, some people just need to eat more food to sustain themselves, i.e. hetero men needing to eat 25% more than hetero women, or just larger and taller people needing to eat more in general.
But that’s not even the basis of what I’m trying to say and I have a feeling you didn’t attempt to read it past the first sentence. Like I said, I don’t eat sweets, meanwhile crops like sugar and coco require huge amounts of raw harvest to produce only a small amount of the final product, and are infamous for abuses of slave labor and unlivable working conditions in places in South America.
Does this then make me, a non-sweet eating omnivore, better than a vegan who likes to have candy? Do we need to each determine how much slave labor our individual diets support to see who the best leftsist is? This whole argument applies to other foods like oils, grains, etc. too. If you want to be vegan, then that’s okay, but attacking omnivores is just so unnecessarily devisive and counterproductive towards solving issues like slave labor.
