8 Lesta Nediam LNC2018-01-27 0925 PUBLIC

Lesta Nediam LNC2018-01-27 0925 PUBLIC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIh-EwqXgws&lc=Ugy71gEjbX8ZT2ck5LZ4AaABAg
https://pastebin.com/QpDKrKWt
+That Vegan Couple
__

Howdy all. Are there any vegans here?! I bet there's one or two. Here is a question I'd like your opinion on: *In the future there may exist so-called "lab-grown meat" that is indistinguishable from real animal meat in every possible way, except that no animals are harmed or affected in its creation (let's further suppose the cost is identical).* Here are two questions to consider:

1) Would you (a vegan) be okay with others (non vegans) eating this perfectly equivalent lab-grown meat instead of real animal meat?

2) Would you (a vegan) consider including some of the perfectly equivalent lab-grown meat into your own diet - if only rarely?

For what it's worth: I believe vegans are right, and that veganism is a moral obligation for the intelligent in locations of "food abundance" (i.e., where it is possible to be a healthy vegan) since I have yet to encounter any moral or intellectual justifications for the unnecessary consumption of animal products that go beyond "taste pleasure", "eating traditions/habits", and "might makes right".

My question is one I'd also like meat eaters (especially those who debate against vegans) to answer: *If lab-grown meat that's indistinguishable from real animal meat in every way (and has the same cost) becomes readily available: would you (a non vegan) continue to eat animal meat, or would you switch exclusively to the perfectly equivalent lab-grown form?*

Any responses from vegans or non vegans would be appreciated. _Many thanks in advance!_


__________
2018-01-27 1040

+Clare Birschel __ I'd be curious to know if proud meat eaters who debate against vegans, e.g., "Matt Dillahunty", would switch to perfectly equivalent lab-grown meats if they became available at the same cost - or if someone like "Matt" can only be satisfied by cholesterol burgers when he can _really_ imagine the animal must have suffered and died for his fleeting taste pleasure.


__________
2018-01-27 1450

+David Henderson __ On some things "Matt Dillahunty" is indeed logical! With veganism he accepts it is "morally virtuous" to not kill and eat animals. But, his objection (and reason to keep eating animals) is that he does not consider it a "moral obligation" to not kill and eat animals.

Mr Dillahunty will continue killing and eating animals _until_ someone has presented him with an argument that there is a moral obligation to not kill and eat animals. These points I have just mentioned can be gleaned from 17m:35s of his recent conversation with "Vegan Gains" here: watch?v=F1DLg-DAsmU

I have a response to Mr Dillahunty which I won't go into beyond the gist: *As long as humans are the _only_ species on the planet _able_ to look after and save animals, it is a moral obligation for humans to do so.* However, this is only going to be self-evident to someone who is intelligent enough to understand it.

And so for most people veganism would remain a "moral virtue" (a moral act, as Mr Dillahunty accepts), whereas for the intelligent veganism becomes a "moral obligation" (but this can only understood/appreciated by the intelligent).

Effectively it is an argument in support of veganism being a moral obligation that can only be understood _by those who don't need to be convinced of it!_


____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.