Hacker News Reader

Comment by venomsnake | Hacker News Reader

> I'll ignore the blatant sexism.

Stating a fact or observation is not sexist by itself. The anecdotal data around me shows that the people with food intolerance and I won't eat X because someone in the newspaper misinterpreted a study have a even number of X chromosomes. To make sure there is balance - there is a lot of bronutrition in the opposite direction.

> I have yet to meet a person whose diet choices fall out of the range of rationality

Any person that observes religious restrictions - that is not rational. Also any person that refuses to eat X based on pseudo, improperly conducted or improperly understood science.

> I am vegan because I would rather not have had a sentient animal purposely killed for my meal - and it is a decision I came to after years of thought and consideration.

That will push you only to vegetarian. To go vegan you need more reasons.

View on HN

I will agree that there is much ignorance in the world surrounding what we eat and in science in general - however, as I said, when I talk to people who have dietary restrictions they tend to have a sound, rational basis for them.

> That will push you only to vegetarian. To go vegan you need more reasons.

There are no animal products which do not involve the killing of sentient creatures (if you doubt this I would suggest learning about the process by which milk or eggs are farmed).

Sound and rational means peer reviewed paper ...

I spend the summers on a (nonindustrial) farm, have taken eggs directly from under the hen, milked a cow, drank honey directly from the centrifuge and slaughtered some chickens (funny) and pigs (meh). I am well accustomed to the process.

Your vegan foodstuff also require the killing of sentient creatures - to grow food we have displaced a lot of animals from their habitats. Sometimes quite forcefully. So yeah - you probably have fewer animals on your conscience , but you have some.

Edit:spelling

> Sound and rational means peer reviewed paper

"My doctor has told me I should not take in as much potassium as I have been so I am reducing my consumption of legumes" and "I have an ethical objection to killing sentient creatures so I restrict my diet in ways that minimize such killing"

Are both sound, rational judgements which do not require a peer reviewed paper.

>You(sic) vegan foodstuff also require the killing of sentient creatures - to grow food we have displaced a lot of animals from their habitats. Sometimes quite forcefully. So yeah - you probably have fewer animals on your conscience , but you have some.

I agree with you, completely - it is an uphill battle. It is very difficult to not directly compensate the killing of creatures in a world that considers it moral to kill 50+ billion animals every year (not including marine life) - but my ethics require that I at least try.

> "My doctor has told me I should not take in as much potassium as I have been so I am reducing my consumption of legumes"

That is rational, also requires peered review paper somewhere in the chain. The doctor read it and formulated advice based on it. Or at least that is the way medicine works. I hope.

But is having ethical objection to killing rational itself? We become what we are as being the better killers. Anytime, anywhere?

Stating a fact is not sexist. Stating anecdata often is, it is reflecting your conscious or unconscious biases as you collect the anecdotes.

"It seems like" != "a fact".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com