• vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    as I said to the other guy, I’m not saying not natural is bad. But what op is implying is that getting the same stuff from natural sources is bad. That I just don’t agree with. It’s just the natural order of things. I have other options, yes, but I don’t consider the default natural source of things to be bad, so I don’t feel the need to switch. Animals eat animals all the time. And they don’t do it “humanely” either.

    • irmoz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Animals don’t have the options we do. That argument fails.

      Plus, that argument could be used to justify rape and murder. Perfectly natural. They don’t breed humanely.

    • projectd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why is it worse to get things from less natural sources? Ignoring that everybody get some of their vitamins from less natural sources, e.g. animals injected with B12, cereals fortified with iron, water and toothpaste with fluoride, synthesised morphines instead of smoking opium - would you say these things are bad too because they are less natural? And if so, why?

      Also, do you take all of your moral code from the worst things animals do? I hold myself to a higher standard and don’t eat my kids, rape, or fling shit at each others.