debate

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/07/27/life-expectancies-2018-japan-switzerland-spain/848675002/ I'm just going to leave this here. Very easy way to judge diet vs health. Just look at average lifespans of different countries vs diet.

1. Yes too much cholesterol can be bad for you(Depending on the kind of Cholesterol.), But one can argue too much of anything can be bad for you in many respects. My point is that the most healthy people in the world, at least when compared to athletic ability have not been Vegan, so saying a minority are body builders or athletes doesn't mean much when that's put into perspective. I never said that there are no vegan athletes, I stated the vast majority, and the best, Are not. An athlete isn't going to care about whether something is vilified if it get's them to win. 2. I did. Just like I stated down before in my previous comment, but in the end to state it again briefly. "Intelligence does not automatically mean Self Awareness. But It is required for it." One study isn't enough for a good amount of research, While it does argue make an argument for the intelligence level of rats, it doesn't make one for the rest of animal kind, and more data is required before you can make an assumption. Correlation is not Causation after all. But it's a start for sure among that specific species. You keep saying for the least amount of suffering, if you kept eating meat, and decided to stop using phones and computers you'd be objectively stopping more suffering, due to the fact humans are proven sentient. You just prefer the pleasure and convenience of having said electronics. You stay they are necessary, but where is your proof? I already said if you truly needed to, you could just go use a libraries computer if it was absolutely necessary for needing to use one. So that kills any point of necessity of supporting them. If you truly were trying to stop as much suffering as possible you would do so. Why can't you abuse a small child? Because it's affects the life of a future sentient being. Having loved ones does not equate human rights, it only equates emotional value to some, which can be towards from a pet to a rock. Using my logic they deserve life because they will be sentient. Emotionally speaking I'm not for abortions at all, However I say five weeks because I'm using the scientific definition of human life. One, they must be human obviously, Which any fetus is at any moment after conception. Two, They need to meet the merits of being alive, or the opposite of death. Medical science confirms death at around 3-5 minutes of no brain activity and heartbeat. Meaning if the subject has brain activity and a heartbeat, they are alive. A fetus gains both at 5-6 weeks. Hence why I use that point. I'm using science instead of my own personal values. You're ending a Potential life, yes. But scientifically speaking it's not alive until that 5th week. And that means it's not ending the life of a potential sentient being until that point, because one can argue that they aren't alive just yet. After that point, they are. So no it's not hypocritical. Depends on the slaughterhouse, a quick bullet to the brain is all but painless. Is it stressful on the way to the slaughterhouse? Possibly. But that's not much of an argument. You misinterpret what I said. I said it's the no better than, not that it's the exact same. Pain does not make a person, Emotions does not make a person. There are people without the ability to feel anything, there are sociopaths who cannot feel emotions. Both are still sentient beings. Humans do work off of instinct that is true and emotions are chemical reactions. But I've already stated both those things don't make something sentient to begin with. We have that self awareness that changes the game. again my view of self awareness or personhood is the ability to think beyond instinct, truly. Not chemicals just running through your head, not the instinct of fear or maternal instincts. Something that proves individuality and intelligence to a certain degree. and I've studied cows enough to tell you, they are not one of them. Experiencing something and knowing something are two different things. An animal who has a bad run in with a someone of a certain skin color for instance and suddenly dislikes those of that skin color, Shows memory yes, but that's again, not self awareness. I didn't dodge the alien question at all. So I'll just requote my answer from before since you seemed to miss it. " Animals are not sentient by default. It takes a level of intelligence to become sentient yes, but after that point you're still sentient whether another race is more advanced or not. For example, let's say sentience takes a level of intelligence of 10. Humans are at 12, and a cow is at 7, a bug at 4. You can see that these other beings do not have sentience, because it's literally impossible for their weaker brains to process it. However if an alien race came at the level of intellect of let's say, 20. Just because they are at a higher level doesn't change the original point where they became sentient, nor does it change the scale of sentience. Just like if another came at 50. That level of minimum intelligence and brain capacity stays the same. Just because a cow is higher than a bug, doesn't make it sentient, it has a level of intelligence yes, but so does the bug. Neither are at the minimum requirement however." You can believe that all animals are sentient, but until it's an actual provable fact, you cannot state that's it true or moral. Which it isn't yet, by far.

1. On what amount of cholesterol is healthy for you i direct you to the links i posted previously. That's what they were on. You can't imply the best athletes are not vegan because veganism isn't good enough when not providing any proof to that. As you said, the majority are non vegans which means the likelihood of the best ones being non vegan is simply higher. It's just likelihood, there is no actual correlation there. Athletes may not care about what's vilified but they do care about what the majority of people do. Only 3% of american citizens are vegan and the vast majority of people believe eating meat is healthy despite studies showing otherwise, so obviously many would go along with that belief. Most people are only turned vegan by others, its even more rare to be born into a vegan family. What's popular and whats actually best for your body are two different things. 2. "Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates." In this study is shows scientific evidence that animals do in fact have sentients on a neurological level and you still refute it? You say octopuses have sentients and it's listed there, so are you walking back the statement that octopuses are sentient? Your definition of sentients is pretty arbitrary. 3. The people who make the electronics have jobs. It's because of these jobs that they can feed their families. People have argued that getting rid of sweatshops is a terrible idea because then you have many people jobless. I quit buying fast fashion because that encourages the cruelest labor, while many other manufacturing jobs aren't as harsh. Working these jobs saves them for working even worse jobs. I own a computer so i can do work on it and fun on it, and i own a phone to stay connected and stay safe incase im out. Why do you eat meat? Because it tastes good? The things i do keep people employed while the things you do cause the suffering and murder of millions of animals. 100% not equivalent. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jesse-kline-in-support-of-sweat-shops 4. Having a loved one hurt does violate human rights. Not having to experience unnecessary suffering is a human right. Alright, ask a mother who's lost her child and ask a guy whos dog got hit by a car how they feel and see who feels worse. Seriously, equating the loss of a child to losing a pet? When a mother births a child, typically they are hit with massive amounts of hormones and other chemicals. What do you think 'maternal instinct' means? This is an instinct so that mothers love their babies and prioritize them above themselves. This is just a scientific fact and its what humans and animals both experience. We are not debating when life starts, we are debating potential. That fetus has the potential to be alive just as that child has the potential to be sentient, but your for ending one potential but not the other. This is hypocritical. 5. Since you seem to refuse to acknowledge what i said, i'll repost it for ya. Do you think the animal agriculture industry is not creating undo suffering in the animals? Do i need to link you the videos? What actually happens inside there? And why is it ethical to end an animals life short for your taste pleasure when you could live a healthy life without it? 95% of all meat production comes from those big industries. Even if you did go out of your way to drive down to a farm where the cows were out in fields they still have to eventually go to slaughterhouses where they will be shot in the head after being crammed in a tiny truck (keep in mind they've never experienced anything like a truck before) and then put onto a conveyor belt and hit with electric prods to keep moving down the line (because no anime is dumb enough to go down the line when it's terrified and knows death is near). Or free range chickens crammed into trucks cling to the air holes along the trucks so tight out of fear that to get them out of the truck sometimes they're pulled so hard their feet rip from the rest of their body. After that they are hung upside down and have their throats slit. Or that male pigs as babies have their testicals cut off with plyers (0 anesthetic) because testosterone ruins the meat. Does that sound like "little harm"? Because all that happens on small farms too. Crows have been known to give gifts to humans they like. Humans don't even have to give them anything, crows will just decide they like a human. That's "thinking beyond instincts" After all, what do they have to gain from that exchange. "You try to prove a point with humans having ptsd, but all you're proving is again, why humans are different than said animals?" But animals can experience PTSD as well, so does that give them sentients? According to your wording it sounds so. Well let's say the aliens are on another plain of sentiments entirely. Evolved past sentients. They see us as being so unevolved that we couldn't experience things on the same plain, so killing and eating us would be fine. Is it ethical?

https://www.voiceless.org.au/hot-topics/animal-sentience http://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-science-says-about-animal-sentience-88047 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494450/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159106001110 it is the scientific consensus that animals are sentient. Even if they don't meet your arbitrary standards, they are, infact, sentient. lets hop off the sentients argument and instead debate the environmental effects of veganism

the only reason we shouldn't eat meat is because animals put out a shit load of co2 and the food we give the animals spreads out lots of toxic gasses *edit: that only increase green house effects > we should eat insects instead of meat, the meat discussion is not personal preference, but it's not to the point where it's as controversial as gun control laws or banning guns or whatever you guys in america are fucking up about xD in the netherlands we care about pettier stuff because we haven't gone as far down the rabbit hole as you guys have lol

its not the only reason but yeah, thats part of the environmental debate mass farming is bad for our health, the planet's health, and the animals well being absolutely no good sides besides your febal taste pleasure, and even then there are good ethical meat substitutes insects have a shit ton of protein (brotein) as well, id be 100% open to eating them as long as they werent treated like shit prior or its just factory farming all over again i know when feeding insects to your pets its best to feed them a varied diet for best health outcome, so thats a point to farming them anyways many societies already add insects to their diet, so not like it would be anything new to add it to ours