desinetizen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry#Environmental_impact Plenty of sources are referenced in this section. Also, I wouldn't trust some short comments without any explanations over studies published in Nature.

You contradicted without any evidence or reasoning. I reminded you that it's a pretty well-known fact, not something one study unexpectedly revealed, and asked how you would go about discrediting all the science. No personal accusation.

You commented without any methodology at all, how do you expect to be taken seriously? It's not just "this" study either, every credible study on the matter shows quite clearly how disastrous animal agriculture is on the environment. Are you going to claim they all suffer from the same flawed methodology? Do you also believe that climate change is a hoax?

I'm only responding to your critique. You're strawmanning me, I never said their plight invalid - I explained why it's worse for animal products. I'm not trying to "frame" your argument as you claim, I responded to as it is objectively. Bring your counterpoints, not personal accusations.

Being vegan is about not abusing animals. One might call it an ethical philosophy or principle. It's not a "food philosophy".

You talk about nuance, but then just ignore a major point I made? Any kind of exploitation only increases many times over for non-vegan products because of how inefficient they are. Animals don't just pop into existence. Not only that, slaughterhouse workers have it way, way worse. You can look about their trauma and miserable lives, many articles will come up upon a single search.

Moreover, your critique isn't even relevant to veganism, which just makes it disingenuous. It's an agricultural issue and vegans aren't responsible for the way it is with their tiny population. On the other hand, meat and other animal products are inherently morally bankrupt.

I urge you to double-check your supposedly nuanced critique because this has been discussed many times over and it doesn't look like you've looked it up.

They're talking about level of consciousness when it's established that the entity in question has any consciousness at all. It doesn't mean considering those with no consciousness, like plants or rocks. (I don't agree with it though, levels are worth considering.)

Anyone who has attended a single biology class on plants can tell that they can't feel anything. You need a brain and pain receptors, plants lack both. But such obvious lies are perpetuated so you can keep abusing animals guilt-free.

That's like saying morals and religion have always gone hand in hand. Can non-religious not have morals?

Plants don't have any consciousness at all.

Extremely ignorant take. Oxford Scientists Confirm Vegan Diet Is Massively Better For Planet

You don't even need sources for this, use common sense. What's going to cause more harm and resource consumption - growing five times more grain to feed animals and then eat those animals, or simply eating the grains directly? Animal agriculture is responsible for mass deforestation, a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and species extinction. But no, it's the vegans "arguably causing just as much harm."

Wouldn't it be nice if people bothered looking up things before they talk about them?