Is it hypocritical to be an antinatalist without being a vegan?

Arguably, but that doesn't mean you have to vegan. Tragedy of commons means that your "voting with your wallet" probably doesn't make any difference.

But anti-natalism isn't inherently coupled to any stance about non human animal's as ethically relevant.

Of course you're never able to achieve 100% saintliness with any ethical ideal, but perfection being unattainable doesn't mean people shouldn't try to be better at all.

No, if you eat meat you are removing animals from the suffering they were born into without their consent.

I don't have the same attachment to chickens that I do to humans.

You're giving economical incentive to breed more of them by eating raised animals though

How so?

Reminder that when you pluck vegetables you kill the vegetable.

Only fruitarianism is consistent in its anti-murder stance as the plant continues to grow.

Vegetables are murder.

are you actually 12?

Go back to fucking tumblr, you numale leftist cuck!!!!

Do you think white civilization could have occurred if people were vegan cucks?

Clearly you are feeling a lot of discomfort and guilt about something

Are you? I mean, you are a vegan, the most emotivist religion of them all.

>!!!!
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

Wonderful thread, really enjoying seeing all the writers being mentioned

You don't kill the mango tree when you take a mango.

You do kill the potato when you take the potato out of the soil.

Reading is for kikes, you yid.

no one speaks like this

thanks mr. yiddenforth, i'll take this ebonics lesson all the way to the cuckshed

>t. Carl the cuck

not literature

see

>muh safe space!! You are using hateful patriarchal capitalist speech!!

redpill me on approved newspeech winstone

Does it matter? They obviously expend effort to avoid death or damage. Why draw the line at pain.

>mfw libcucks hate anti-abortion legislation because it violates the autonomy of the woman but oppose suicide and support reproduction

I mean, I think morally, being vegan is based on the relative value of animal life. Maybe some do it based on food scarcity, would would imply antinatalism, but I don't think it's the defining reason.

Most people who are vegan just do it for short periods of time for attention anyway

I never said where the meat came from. Obviously an anti-nihilist must take a long bow and hunt their own food.

Because suffering is the problem. Moving away from threats does not necessarily imply the capacity to suffer.

>anti-nihilist

Im vegan because meat its not actually good for our health and im not emotionally attached with the food. Also fuck animals.

Hey, not OP. Did anyone read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer? It was actually that text that led me to become vegan. To me it makes a lot of sense. Maybe it's a contradiction, and I am for sure a hypocrite, but who's not? To me it's just about recognizing that there is a lot of unnecessary pain in specific industries and just making a position of being against that suffering. I'm also, for example, against slave labor or inhumane wages, and I can't get rid of either on my own. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Remember that any change is contradictory with the present so we're all contradictory and "hipocrites" if you will. Isn't it like hyper-formalist to think that everyone has to be non-contradictory all the time? It's very restricting and utopian.

Antinatalism is opposed to suffering, not the death of organisms in itself.

>human birth is different to animal birth
user, talk to your biology teacher, they have wronged you.

Robbing something of experience is wrong regardless of the presence of suffering.

Says which god?

>experience is inherently good

Check your privilege.

I've eaten a vegan diet for around three years, vegetarian since around seventeen. Not trying to sound like I'm "not like those *other* girls" but most vegfags I've met and seen online aren't people I have much time for as they are too emotion-driven and edgy (and edgy in ways I dislike). The industrialization of the meat, egg and dairy industries has for the most part reduced animals to anonymous units of value and therefore treated with little regard (both as a matter of procedure and also by callous minimum-wage workers who have been filmed countless times inflicting routine injury on animals prior to slaughter). I find the Animal Rights vs. Utilitarianism argument(s) interesting and I'm still undecided though thankfully each side of the argument supports my own ethical judgement that eating meat and consuming eggs and dairy produced by their respective industries (I have nothing against drinking milk or eating eggs per say, nor honey) is not permissible should I wish to live, as I do, a life wherein I do not inflict unnecessary harm on others.

Only if you want to equate animal life and human life.
The average vegan makes a purely utilitarian argument.

Their very existence causes more harm to other lifeforms than a meateater does purely by merit of eating meat.

By claiming the vegan stance is the most ethical stance they are forgetting that it is very likely that much of what they are in possession in is likely the result of functional slavery. They are also ignoring primitivists that live 'off the grid' but still hunt and such, and are thereby are causing much less sum-harm than a vegan living in an apartment in New York, taking a cab to work daily and consuming black coffee/tea that was likely also the result of functional slavery (because true 'freetrade' coffee beans and tea leaves cost about twice as much as non-freetrade and sweeping that under the rug to save a huge sum of money is a business-savvy decision.)

And I doubt the average vegan is a saint. The Dalai Lama causes suffering by traveling, for example (I don't know his diet so I can't critique that, but certainly he must be flown and driven.)

Can vegans use white sugar or honey? White sugar contains bleached bone powder, honey requires bee breeding, domestication, etc. Bees will die making honey or gathering what is needed to make honey, more will die to make the excess honey (which is the harvested honey) than making the bare minimum the hive needs to survive.

Sugarcane is also, arguably, another farmed resource that is arguably the result of functional slavery, so turbinado sugar isn't safe either.
Harvested potatoes can be used to grow more potatoes. They are not dead, in fact they were never even alive. This is a tuber though so it's a very bad example, a better example would be a fungus which is its own lifeform that is consumed (mostly) whole.

>LOOK AT ME IM A WOMEN!!!!
>LOOK AT ME IM VEGAN!!