I’m sorry for misunderstanding.

Can I ask though, did I read your non-veganism correctly? Your point about enabling sustainable meat-based diets seemed inherently non-vegan to me, which I wouldn’t expect to see from a vegan.

in order to enable sustainable meat-based diets requires some out of the box thinking.

Disregard all of this if you were, in fact, suggesting plant-based meat-based diets.

.

Why are you talking about the sustainability of omnivorous diets as an objective for out-of-the-box thinking in a vegan community? It reads as a tacit endorsement of carnism, and therefore omni apologia and advocating violence against animals; both of which are against the rules of this community.

It doesn’t matter whether omnivorous diets are sustainable or not. That point is a more peripheral concern to the concern that meat-based diets are categorically unethical and evil, besides the situations wherein we need to caveat and prioritise a basic and acceptable quality of life and/or our survival.

You should be wanting the exact opposite of “enabling [sustainable] meat-based diets”. “Sustainable” and “meat-based” (= conscientious omnivorism) should be A) inherently contradictory, besides the fact that B) it’s unsustainable.

A) Endorsement of a meat-based diet is in direct contradiction with our high regard for sustainability.

I remind you that the reason we care about the environment is that sentient animals, including ourselves, live within it. The biotic community- the entire ecological community - is not important without the necessary ingredient of sentience. You should first and foremost care for the environment only insofar the reason that sentient beings live within the environment, and that the environment gives us the inexplicable value of the life that lives. In this way, our value for self and other is foundational for our high regard for the environment. (As an aside, sentience outside of the animal kingdom is plausible, but that’s a different discussion.) I remind you of this, because your high regard for sustainability seems divorced from the understanding that the reason we value the environment is because there is something foundational we value in it.

As an aside, not that I believe the next part, as that would be uncharitable, but the only way for a high regard for sustainability to be compatible with endorsing meat-based diets is if you had an anthropocentric or selfish world view that only benefitted your in-group (excluding non-human animals and additionally not including all humans), or that only benefitted yourself.

B) You can’t get sustainable omnivorism. That’s a discussion for another time, if it even needs discussing.

tl;dr: Enabling sustainable meat-based diets is missing the point. It’s like endorsing welfarism instead of abolitionism in a vegan community.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Appreciated.

The insult doesn’t bother me. I had to actually google that term because I didn’t know what it meant, and I’m actually quite impressed I gave the impression of a philosopher, as much as I find them as a general rule of thumb revolting people.

Your insult does beg the question, though: Are values unimportant to you? I focus a lot on values in the points I make. I value human life, for example, and that’s why I became anticapitalist. My value for them means I believe shelter should be a human right, and therefore I’m against capitalist private property, like landlordism, for example.

I did say:

You don’t have the right to simply disengage when the facts don’t suit your material interests.

So… …engaaage and stop ignoring / avoiding the issue vegans raise?

No Gods, No YouTubers.

Kill your heroes (fig).

The vegan society supplement is very good for base needs and very cheap if you’re in the UK. You can get a 6-month supply for £12.70, not including posting. As well as having B12 and vitamin D3, it also has B2, B6, B9 (folic acid/folate), iodine and selenium.

Edit:

I also generally take EPA + DHA algal oil combo and a probiotic. Anything with an antidepressant effect :) - though supplements get pricey with algae oil and probiotics.

Not good enough. You clearly don’t view the animal holocaust as genocide. You don’t have the right to simply disengage when the facts don’t suit your material interests. Your actions have real-life harmful consequences on the lived experience of subjective, animal people.

Three questions:

1. How do you define sentience?
2. What is the base value of humans?
3. What do you call systemic killing?

I’ll give you the answers now to save time:

1. capability of feeling
2. capability of feeling. Therefore, you should extend the base value of humans to other animals, who are also capable of feeling.
3. genocide

Nota bene: If you absolutely understood, you’d be vegan.

No problem. You’re welcome.

Though, you do realise one of the reasons why the other person wasn’t answering your question is because it’s offensive to tokenise groups of people with a bad-faith question. At least, I wouldn’t answer in their shoes. The user provided the perspectives of holocaust survivors or their family members. Please read the compiled perspectives, but more crucially please urgently change your behaviour to the animals according to vegan ethics. You don’t need to know theory to know that killing innocent beings, our animal cousins, is wrong. You only need empathy and an empathetic (empathic?) response. You understand they suffer like us and want to live? And that their suffering at our hands and their desire to live are valuable for our decision-making? Then, we can act on that. The theory is an added treat, helping us to develop our understanding, but it is not crucial to make this change in behaviour. The theory can come after the switch, and can help develop your praxis.