debate

technically all vegetarians are laco ova, but they make a distinction because some don't drink milk and some don't eat eggs. Can you tell me what nutrients egg whites have that you can't naturally acquire on a vegan diet? I looked it up and it shows no nutrients that I could not eat on a vegan diet. https://www.calorieking.com/us/en/foods/f/calories-in-eggs-egg-white-cooked-without-added-fat/CgZ6WIw7ShWV0IzVT6aUAQ "I can agree on the supplementing part, if u can prepare vegan food rich in proteins and supplemented with micronutrients and other things, then it would become a well-balanced diet and the healthiest. But, why do that when u can eat omnivorous diet within the dietary levels instead and have the same results" Because with a healthy omnivore diet you have to worry about cholesterol and saturated fats, where as in a healthy vegan diet you do not. Supplementation is needed with both diets, not just vegan. Both tend to be deficient in vitamin D, iron, and B12, so they should both take supplements, so I believe your acessment of vegan's needing supplementation as a downside is not a correct one. As both have to supplement anyway and both eat fortified foods, the fact that the vegan diet can achieve this and still edge out as the healthiest seems the logical conclusion.

Vegan diets are not only healthier when compared to the omnivore diets, but also friendlier for the environment and more ethically sound. ill cya tomarrow.

lentils, tofu, leafy greens, and legumes are high enough in protein that they can easily supplement for the protein in meat. people tend to eat more protein then they actually need when they eat meat.

You asked me: "name a trait or serious of traits that gives you moral authority over animals that would not also take away moral consideration to humans as well." Before I respond. I want to clarify your point more. Is your argument for veganism the following that you've previously stated: "I'm saying that animals are the logical extension of the same reason why we give humans moral consideration - empathy." @momoichi

yup. i derive my ethics through empathy. the golden rule do onto others and you would have them do onto you and i apply this to all highly sentient life forms as much as i reasonably can manage

Anyone wanna debate the 14 characteristics and 10 stages? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83mtXbwPNkc

A trait that gives humans higher moral authority over animals is our intelligence. Intelligence is one of the biggest moral consideration that we give to humans that we don't fully extend to animals. Humans can do what animals cannot. For example: -write beautiful symphonies (Beethoven) -create in depth well written stories (One Punch Man) -build tall scrappers that reach the heavens (Burj Khalifa) -discover the laws of physics that govern our universe Species that are not as intelligent as the human species are not morally equivalent to humans. We as a species can create things that no other animal on earth can. We obtain higher moral consideration because of what humans can create. Intelligence based moral consideration is a hierarchy. A simple example of an intelligence hierarchy is roaches, then mice, then chimps, then humans. The average intelligence of the human species is higher than the average intelligence of the chimpanzee species. The average intelligence of the chimpanzee species is higher then the average intelligence of mice. The average intelligence of mice is higher then the average intelligence of roaches. So on and so forth. Think of it this way. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where an advanced alien type III civilization came to earth. An alien civilization so advance that it could harness the entire power output of planets, blacks holes and all the stars in the galaxy. A type III alien civilization would be far more intelligent than the current human race. Since the type III civilization has higher intelligence. They could reasonably state that they have higher moral authority over the human race. A type III civilization could eat humans without remorse. The type III alien civilization could morally justify humans like simplistic ants. You stated: "I'm saying that animals are the logical extension of the same reason why we give humans moral consideration - empathy" To break down what you've stated. Empathy is not a logical extension. Empathy is an emotional extension. Empathy does not belong in the field of logic. Empathy belongs in the subjective field of human emotions (pathos). If empathy was logically equivalent across all people. Then all humans would feel the same emotions. But not all humans feel the same towards different emotional topics. Whatever you may feel empathy towards. Does not necessarily mean that others will also feel the same way. Since different humans feel different levels of empathy. Empathy is a subjective feeling, not an objective logical reason. Humans deserve higher moral consideration vis-á-vis intelligence. But moral consideration and moral obligation are two different motivations. I can feel moral consideration towards the human race. But I am under no moral obligation to help my fellow human. A consideration and an obligation are not the same. For example: assuming someone felt moral consideration for the homeless. Someone out there feels bad for homeless humans. That same person that feels bad for homeless humans is under no moral obligation to help them. The same extends to animals. Just because an animal feels pain does not necessarily mean we give the same moral consideration that we give to humans. Much less the moral obligation that humans sometimes give to other humans. Your pathos reasoning is as follows. Animals feel pain when killed for human consumption. You feel empathy towards the animals. You give moral consideration towards animals because animals feel pain like humans. You then extend a moral obligation to help animals because animals feel pain when consumed by humans. But I don't feel nowhere near same moral consideration towards animals as I do to humans. As I've stated before, humans deserve higher moral consideration vis-á-vis intelligence. If I give animals less moral consideration than I to do humans. Then the moral obligation to help animals is much less than the moral obligation to help humans. This is already getting too long. I assume your counter argument against an intelligence based moral consideration is probably based on humans with extremely small intelligence, when compared to the general average intelligence of the human population. If that is your argument. I'll let you make that argument or some other argument. Then I'll respond again later. @momoichi