Why Do You Eat Animals?

[GPC100s]

It sounds like nerve pain, not anything mechanical. It's probably a neurological issue of some kind. Neuropathic hypersensitivity to pressure.

It may be a nerve disorder brought about by lack of B12, but I think it isn't because I only get the pains when I touch things. It's my feet when I stand, my butt when I sit, and a lot of places when I lay down. Lack of collegen sounds more plausible.

But who cares if my diet has lots of sugar? I'm not diabetic, and "you need more vegetables" means nothing to me. Vegetables have nutrition, the nutrition is what I need, not the vegetables. I used to eat bananas, and OJ, but I was getting too much potassium and my blood pressure was so low that I felt like I was gonna die in my sleep. So I changed that.

Many of the things you've suggested warrant a trial, but it's gonna take a while. I can't do it all in one go because that'll prove nothing.

Almost everything we do is a little bit wrong (in some component), but with actions that have a net good there's more right in the consequences than wrong, which makes them a net positive in the end.

We don't agree on morality. Nothing is a little bit wrong, it's either wrong or not wrong. It should be done, shouldn't be done, or it doesn't matter either way.... We agree that results are notgood measure of morality but we disagree on the relevancy of the probability of results. You shouldn't look at results or potential result at all, you look at intent and knowledge. If my intent was to kill, and killing is unwanted by the individual who owns the body being killed, then it's a wrong action. If my intent was not to kill, but death happened anyway due to my action, then we look at the reasonability for me to know or find out the result. Regardless of probability, if I couldn't have known the outcome, I'm not wrong in performing the action.

I've read Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape (which sounds like your morals), and I disagree with it. It doesn't have the power of proving why immoral people are immoral even in their own view, but Stefan Molyneux's book Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics does that much better.

Look at hard solipsism- you could say there's a chance than nobody and nothing is sentient except for yourself, and you're a brain in a vat, all alone in the universe. Or everything around you is just a dream.
Given that criteria, there is a lack of evidence that anything is actually 'real'- should we all be solipsists?

But solipsism doesn't properly explain where my sentience comes from, whereas not solipsism (whatever you call that) does explain it. That's evidence. Until we have more information, not solipsism better explains reality.

I will, however, concede that your phylogenetic order assumptions makes sense. It wasn't intuitive to me, but it makes sense.

[brimstoneSalad]

It may be a nerve disorder brought about by lack of B12, but I think it isn't because I only get the pains when I touch things.

That's how hypersensitivity works. It's a nerve disorder of exaggerating some kind of sensation. If there's no sensation, then you don't feel anything. But if the particular kind of sensation is activated, it's multiplied a thousand times and becomes very painful very easily.

It's probably not caused by a true B-12 deficiency relative to your state while eating meat, because that takes years to develop, but extra B-12 could possibly mitigate its effects.

No way to know without trying.

It's my feet when I stand, my butt when I sit, and a lot of places when I lay down. Lack of collegen sounds more plausible.

How long does it take to come on, exactly, if you don't eat meat?
The same day, or later that week, or a month later?

But who cares if my diet has lots of sugar? I'm not diabetic,

Added sugar contributes empty calories, which have no mineral, protein, or micronutrient value. Having a diet with too much sugar means a diet with less of everything else.

and "you need more vegetables" means nothing to me. Vegetables have nutrition, the nutrition is what I need, not the vegetables.

Vegetables are an optimal, affordable, dietary source of such High in fiber, micro-nutrients, and protein, containing only good fat, and low on harmful substances like carcinogens.

When you're thirsty, you say "I need something to drink". You don't say "I need hydration, and drinking something containing water and some electrolytes would be the safest and most efficient readily accessible means of obtaining said hydration."

I used to eat bananas, and OJ, but I was getting too much potassium and my blood pressure was so low that I felt like I was gonna die in my sleep. So I changed that.

You have to eat a lot of bananas to get too much potassium. It's possible, but unlikely unless you have an underlying medical condition or aren't drinking enough or consuming other salts.

Have you been diagnosed with hyperkalemia?

You may have been eating too little salt at the time.

Have you had blood tests? And if so, do you have the results that you can post?

I will, however, concede that your phylogenetic order assumptions makes sense. It wasn't intuitive to me, but it makes sense.

I'm glad. I wasn't aware that would be unintuitive to some people- for me it's very intuitive.

But for me, evolution is also very intuitive, and I grew up learning about it- some people have different backgrounds, and find evolution unintuitive; it's not intuitive to me that people would find it unintuitive. I'll have to be more careful about assuming people will see those links without them being demonstrated.

But solipsism doesn't properly explain where my sentience comes from, whereas not solipsism (whatever you call that) does explain it. That's evidence. Until we have more information, not solipsism better explains reality.

Well, explanatory power isn't technically empirical evidence, but it is a reason to believe something (or disbelieve it) from a rational perspective.
Which I think is my point. You could say the same thing about a rock. A rock being sentient would offer no explanatory power, and moreover make less sense and require more explanation.
Chordates and some other animals being sentient offers explanatory power, rather than creating more questions.

That, in itself, is a rational reason to believe or disbelieve something (related to Occam's razor). Empirical evidence, or lack thereof, alone is not a sole determinant.

We don't agree on morality. Nothing is a little bit wrong,

Only Deontologists and their relations believe that "nothing is a little bit wrong". It's a view which is incompatible with reason and practice.

Committing genocide is not an equal wrong to calling a stranger on the street a "stupid-head"

Moral actions have both direction (right or wrong), and magnitude. Without which, it is impossible to form any sense of functional moral theory, because we can not weigh the magnitudes of opposing interests against each other.

No sane modern secular moral philosophers agree that an action is either right or wrong, with no variability of degree of rightness or wrongness.

Some theists, and most Randians are inclined towards this- but neither are fully sane or legitimate philosophies (being internally inconsistent as they are).

it's either wrong or not wrong. It should be done, shouldn't be done, or it doesn't matter either way....

This is true, just as a real number is either positive or negative, or zero. However, not all positive numbers are infinity, and not all negative numbers are negative infinity- in fact, they're all finite, and all distinct from each other, having lesser or greater magnitude.

It is only by recognizing that different consequences have different severities of rightness and wrongness that compound actions can be examined and given value.

Does that make sense?
If not, I can give some more detailed examples and show how it works through moral calculus (and how the competing deontological principles fail to form a usable system).


I'll address the rest later today, or perhaps tomorrow (please feel free to reply in the mean time if anything is unclear).

[cufflink]

. . . my (now idle) blog

You're too impressive a writer and thinker for your blog to remain idle.

[GPC100s]

How long does it take to come on, exactly, if you don't eat meat?
The same day, or later that week, or a month later?

Oh, I did forget to answer this question. It takes a few days. Not much at all. So I guess it probably isn't a B12 problem. You mentioned nitrates earlier as a "self medication" of some kind but I forgot to mention that I didn't always eat deli meat. In fact I found a study awhile back that demonstrates that cured meat is the worst kind of meat for lysine content in rats; so it wasn't my first choice but it was sufficient.

Have you been diagnosed with hyperkalemia?

You may have been eating too little salt at the time.

Have you had blood tests? And if so, do you have the results that you can post?

I haven't been diagnosed with anything. I haven't seen a doctor in years and I'd like to keep it that way lol. You're right though, I do intake very little salt, but table salt tends to have iodine and that makes my thyroid swell (I like learning everything the hard way lol) so it's hard to increase my sodium intake, especially if I stopped eating meat.

Committing genocide is not an equal wrong to calling a stranger on the street a "stupid-head"

First of all, I don't think it's wrong to call someone a stupid head lol. If I want a relationship with that person, it's in my best interest to be nice. It's also in my best interest to be nice to everyone I don't know because that's mathematically the best outcome for me. Have you heard of game theory applied to the game "prisoners dilemma"? Richard Dawkins did a docuentary about it that I really liked called "Nice Guys Finish First".

You only have the one example which I disagree with, and the only example I can come up with that shows degrees of moral wrongness is the idea that double homicide is double wrong compared to killing one person; and theft is less wrong than murder because murder is like stealing everything. These things are quantifiable so it makes sense, each one is wrong and you can count them. How do you count insults and compare that to murders?

And it's funny how you mention Ayn Rand; Stefan Molyneux, the author I recommended earlier, was greatly influenced by her. I haven't read her books myself, though her moral theory seems good, I found out she was incorrect about such things as the necessity of government peacekeepers so I'm not that eager to read her work. Here's a 30 minute video series proving government peacekeepers are not needed, if you care: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEd ... DF96760B37

I'll address the rest later today, or perhaps tomorrow (please feel free to reply in the mean time if anything is unclear)

You can do whatever you like, I've already greatly benifitted, so thank you. I'm starting my proline/lysine tests soon; turns out my father already has some proline supplements, for some reason lol.

[brimstoneSalad]

Oh, I did forget to answer this question. It takes a few days. Not much at all. So I guess it probably isn't a B12 problem.

Yeah, at that rate it wouldn't be B-12, but B-12 might help anyway (since it improves nerve health, having more of it could buffer the effects of whatever it actually is). The same goes for Omega 3. It's all hypoethical, though, until it's tested.

At that rate, I feel like it probably isn't collagen either. That's *really* fast onset.

I would expect it to be either nuerological, or possibly viral- there are some viruses which may be suppressed in activity by Lysine, for example. Herpes has been a subject of study, and it lives in the nerves; even without outbreaks or visual symptoms, some viruses could have effects on the nerves where they reside that are repressed or expressed with varying activity or environmental/diet factors. Viral gene expression can be sensitive to all sorts of random stuff.

Again, this is all just brainstorming, and means nothing until it's tested, which I'm sure you know. I just want to make sure that nobody else reading this (hi lurkers!) takes this as any kind of medical advice or advocacy of any particular naturopathic remedy/theory.

You're right though, I do intake very little salt, but table salt tends to have iodine and that makes my thyroid swell (I like learning everything the hard way lol) so it's hard to increase my sodium intake, especially if I stopped eating meat.

Oh, that's unusual. Not unheard of, but unusual. This may be linked to your pain issue. Autoimmune is a possibility; there are a lot of things that can set that off, or exacerbate it (interestingly, a lot of it may also come back to viral and bacterial issues).

Oddly enough, there's an outside chance you could even be intolerant/allergic to something in the meat itself, and that could be "distracting" your immune system from attacking your own body. Have you heard of parasite therapy?

Do you have any other symptoms? If things are related, they could help point to a particular cause.

Have you been tested for any type of Herpes virus? Have you had chickenpox? Strep throat? Is there any family history of autoimmune disease?

Anyway, there's lots of salt without iodine. Just look for one that says "this salt does not supply iodine". On the ingredients, it will lack Potassium Iodide.

I'm starting my proline/lysine tests soon; turns out my father already has some proline supplements, for some reason lol.

Good news I hope it goes well. I'll be really interested in hearing how it turns out.


And on to the philosophy:

(Game theory is great- and is related to social contract- I will try to get to that later, but I might not in this post)

the only example I can come up with that shows degrees of moral wrongness is the idea that double homicide is double wrong compared to killing one person; and theft is less wrong than murder because murder is like stealing everything. These things are quantifiable so it makes sense, each one is wrong and you can count them.

There you go. I was using a more extreme example. Comparing the wrongness of theft and murder is fine too. Or even comparing the wrongness of different degrees of theft.

It's more wrong to steal a car than to steal a pencil or a square of toilet paper. It's also more wrong to steal $100 from a poor man, than to steal $1,000 from a very rich man (which I think it one of the biggest failings of our criminal justice system, next to the war on drugs, but that's another topic).

All things that are quantifiable moral actions are fundamentally matters of varying magnitude.
And that's my point, which I'm glad you basically agree on.

First of all, I don't think it's wrong to call someone a stupid head lol.
[...]How do you count insults and compare that to murders?

The same way theft is.

If you didn't WANT the apple, it's fine for me to take it. If you WANTED it, then it's wrong.
Absolute value is an illusion- value is fundamentally subjective, and it depends on the person what value something has.

It could be more wrong to steal a penny than to steal a million dollars, whether the value was determined in:

A. Simple economic context (a penny from a starving person in a third world country, or a million dollars from a billionaire)

or

B. Emotional context- that penny could have been given to the person by his or her grandfather as a child as a lucky penny, passed down from generation to generation, and have immense sentimental value.

The fact is, the reason it's wrong to take something is because it has value to the people from whom you took it, and taking it harms them in some way that THEY can quantify.
It doesn't matter if WE can quantify it or not, but if THEY can put into context the magnitude of value it holds to them, that's what matters.

Theft can even be worse than murder, when the people murdered value something more than their own lives.

Let's say, as a real world example, Palestinians defending their ancestral lands. They will willingly die to keep those lands with their families. Who are we to say it's less wrong to take that land than to kill them?
It's not us, but those who have the wants, who define the relative value of those wants with respect to each other.

If somebody says "give me liberty, or give me death" then what they are saying is that they value freedom more than life. And from a moral perspective, where the basis of morality is founded on the WANTS of others, it becomes in that context more immoral to enslave than to kill.

Everybody is different, and some people might prefer being enslaved than killed. And in those cases, the opposite is true.

It is not "do to others what you want them to do to you", it's "Do to others what they want done to them, as you would want the same in return".

It's about respecting each individual's preferences and desires in life.


Now, how does that all tie back into insults?

Well, it ties in by context- and they are quantified in context.

Some people don't care if you insult them- and in that case, it's not wrong.
Some people are even amused, and find it funny to be insulted- in that case, it's even right.
Some people are sensitive, and are deeply harmed by insults- in which case, it's wrong.

If a sensitive child would rather you stole his or her lunch money than call him or her a fatass, then it's more wrong to call him or her a fatass than to steal his or her lunch money.

That's an issue of morality.

Now, it should still be LEGAL to call him or her a fatass, and ILLEGAL to steal his or her lunch money.
Law is not based on isolated morality alone. Law is based on social contract and personal autonomy, and in a social framework, it's important to protect certain rights (like freedom of speech), because the consequences of not doing so are dire (In the extreme, a totalitarian government that hurts everybody).

But just because it's necessary to protect certain rights by law, and grant certain freedoms, it doesn't mean everything people do with those freedoms is moral. We have the choice to do immoral things- and to live in a free society, that choice must exist to some extent.

Conflating the concept of Social contract with Idealistic Morality is the biggest mistake Randians make (and they make many).
The issue is much more complicated than that (and comes down to an application of game theory), but as far as social contract and more superficial moral idealism go, they both have important influences and they act crucially to check and balance each other.

And it's funny how you mention Ayn Rand; Stefan Molyneux, the author I recommended earlier, was greatly influenced by her. I haven't read her books myself, though her moral theory seems good,

Yes, I'm familiar with Molyneux. That's why I mentioned Rand.

Molyneux is one of the most popular Atheist Libertarians, along with Penn Jillette.
However, Molyneux drinks much more deeply of the Rand Kool-Aid, and is a bit of a Kool-Aid mixer in his own right.

I could take his arguments apart here, but I prefer to argue directly with people (i.e. if Molyneux wanted to come here to have a debate, I'd be pleased to discuss it with him). He has made some fantastically bad arguments in the past. He also has some good ideas, but that's aside from the matter at hand.

Here, however, is a pretty good criticism of his book:

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=383

Molyneux's main arguments (like those of the late LaVey, of Satanism fame) are a degraded variant of Ayn Rand's arguments, which are built upon a corruption of Kant's Deontology (although she would deny it, because she thought she was solving the problem Kant failed to solve, and she considered Kant her arch nemesis), which is already fundamentally flawed at its foundation, and itself founded on theistic ethics of dictate (in attempt to rationalize them).

It's all fruit of the poisonous tree- founded upon an essential fallacy that has been carried on, unresolved, from one proponent to the next, and merely added upon.

The problem all comes down to conflating social contract/social responsibility with morality. As soon as you understand what social contract is, in terms of game theory, and understand what it is not (and how it is limited), you gain a much better perspective on the issue.

I can go into more detail, if you like. Or, if you want to present some of the argument in your own words and understanding, I can address them directly.


I'll address the rest shortly.

[brimstoneSalad]

We agree that results are notgood measure of morality but we disagree on the relevancy of the probability of results.

Not only are apparent results not a good measure, but they don't exist. The universe is a wave function; as is all consequence. The things that apparently happen are contingent on chaos, influenced down to the quantum level.

You shouldn't look at results or potential result at all, you look at intent and knowledge.

No, you look at both, and they tell you different things.

One, there are the noumena of the matter, tells you whether your existence in the world (or a particular action) is a net good or bad in actual fact, regardless of your knowledge, perception, or lack thereof.

The other is the phenomena of the seeming consequences, which though science and reason can approach but perhaps never reach the absolute perfection of the noumena. This is viewed through the lens of our understanding and current state of knowledge.

While the phenomena of action from the perspective of the actor is more meaningful in judging moral intent, none of it can have any value without first recognizing the objectivity and value of the noumena- good/helpful or bad/harmful consequences as they are.

The value of any phenomenon is inherited by its imitation of the noumenon. Intent in itself is tautological and meaningless without that.

Moral intent is required to take true ownership of deeds, and taken in a rational context it improves the phenomenal view of consequence, but intent alone is not morality- it is without metric.

As you said:

I've read Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape (which sounds like your morals), and I disagree with it. It doesn't have the power of proving why immoral people are immoral even in their own view,

I think you have misread Harris, but the underlined point is of central importance.

Intent alone does not provide a robust view of morality in reality- it only tells us that somebody intends to be moral, and not that they actually are.

I can intend to fly- that doesn't mean I will actually be able to do it.

Effective morality requires both intent and ability.

If my intent was to kill, and killing is unwanted by the individual who owns the body being killed, then it's a wrong action.

It was a harmful action, regardless or your intent or knowledge on the matter. That is the noumenon- the thing in itself, and the objective fact of the matter.

If my intent was not to kill, but death happened anyway due to my action, then we look at the reasonability for me to know or find out the result.

Either you knew or you didn't. If you did know, then your intent was to kill, because you knew it would happen and you went ahead with it anyway.

A person being reasonable or unreasonable has no bearing on what their intent was.
Somebody can be completely delusional, and think that they alone have the power to end the cycle of death and rebirth and free spirits into nirvana, but only by killing people. The intent, in the context of that delusion, could be benevolent.
The effect is bad in practice.

Not everybody who wants to be a good person can be a good person- be that due to delusion, lack of knowledge, or physical inability.

Whether or not we hold that against them, or we excuse it, is a matter of social judgement and the concept of fault and responsibility. That's a slightly different matter. And actually more complicated than it seems- philosophically, it has to do with the existential definition of self-hood. Practically, it has to do with game theory.

Regardless of probability, if I couldn't have known the outcome, I'm not wrong in performing the action.

Morality starts with good intent, and follows a chain of thought and behavior, which eventually leads to good consequences.

If something goes wrong in the process, and the results were bad, and the person regularly does more harm than good, on the whole that person is a bad person -- regardless of intent.

When we start asking if it's that person's fault or not, that goes beyond the simpler matter of moral rightness and into social judgement of fault and responsibility, which as I said is more complicated, and requires that a number of existential questions about self-hood be addressed.

What is "could have" or "couldn't have"? Compared to what?
What defines a person? Is our knowledge part of who we are, or just something we have?
How about our beliefs? What about our thought processes themselves?
Where is the line between the qualities that define you existentially, and everything else?

If you think you can answer these kinds of questions objective, and for everybody else, then you have another think coming.

We can say whether somebody's intention was good or bad (although we can't prove it easily).
We can say whether an action was good or bad (through science and consequential calculus, though without perfect precision).
We can say whether a person, as a sum of those actions, is good or bad (as above).

But it's more subjective when we start talking about the degree to which the person is to blame for essential character flaws (those things which interfere between intent and consequence).
The best metric we have is socially relative, which is: Given the situation, as well as we can define it, would another person in that situation have done better or worse?

Harris isn't a big fan of the concept of free will. If you're interested in exploring those existential "what ifs", I can perhaps recommend reading some of Daniel Dennett's work on free will, which deals with matters of personal responsibility.

That goes far beyond the scope of this discussion, though.

As to game theory, well, that's probably another topic too.

I found out she was incorrect about such things as the necessity of government peacekeepers so I'm not that eager to read her work. Here's a 30 minute video series proving government peacekeepers are not needed, if you care: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEd ... DF96760B37

Can you start a thread about it? I feel like that might be a bit too far off topic here. It could be an interesting discussion

[Dudugs]

In all honesty, why not? Infact, I'm gonna make a nice list. Everybody loves lists, right?

1. 1. Going vegan isn't going to stop animals from getting killed.

• 2. I don't get bothered by eating meat. If someone killed a pig and handed over meat to meat I wouldn't probably eat it. Out of sight out of mind. It's the same thing with death for example. If someone makes an Holocaust joke I won't be bothered, but I see photos of dead jews and Aushwitz, I will cry my ass off.

• 3. It gives me energy. If I don't eat a good dose of daily meat I really don't get energy enough to trough to a day.

• 4. Captive life isn't that bad. As long as they have a good amount of food, a large space and good conditions their life is better in the wild, without worrying about predators and finding food.

• 5. The animals don't show emotions. Again out of sight, out of mind. I don't feel bad for the animals because they didn't look sad or suffering.

[thebestofenergy]

In all honesty, why not? Infact, I'm gonna make a nice list. Everybody loves lists, right?

1. 1. Going vegan isn't going to stop animals from getting killed.

It will stop the mass production of billions of sentient animals, and it's also going to stop the environmental destruction related to it.

• 2. I don't get bothered by eating meat. If someone killed a pig and handed over meat to meat I wouldn't probably eat it. Out of sight out of mind. It's the same thing with death for example. If someone makes an Holocaust joke I won't be bothered, but I see photos of dead jews and Aushwitz, I will cry my ass off.

You said it yourself. You don't like to see it, but it's fine to eat it? That's hypocrisy.
It's an unfair comparison with the holocaust joke example. You don't take part in the holocaust by laughing, instead you take part in the meat and dairy industry by consuming their products.

• 3. It gives me energy. If I don't eat a good dose of daily meat I really don't get energy enough to trough to a day.

You can obviously have all the energy you want by being vegan. How do you think vegans that break world records, or just those who make physical activity, do it?

• 4. Captive life isn't that bad. As long as they have a good amount of food, a large space and good conditions their life is better in the wild, without worrying about predators and finding food.

You're saying that life in the wild is miserable or a costant worry, which is not true at all.
Most of the captive life is currently horrible for these animals, they don't have good life conditions at all. But in either cases, they have their lives ended prematurely, and there are other downsides to it aswell (e.g. babies being stolen at birth).

• 5. The animals don't show emotions. Again out of sight, out of mind. I don't feel bad for the animals because they didn't look sad or suffering.

Animals do have/show emotions. They are sentient.
It doesn't matter if they didn't look suffering to you (which is not the case for me, I've always seen them suffering and yelling/yelping when they're in pain), the reality is that they're suffering/being killed.

[Dudugs]

It will stop the mass production of billions of sentient animals, and it's also going to stop the environmental destruction related to it.

No, no it isn't. The animals that I would have eaten are gonna be eaten by someone else. Nothing will change

You said it yourself. You don't like to see it, but it's fine to eat it? That's hypocrisy.
It's an unfair comparison with the holocaust joke example. You don't take part in the holocaust by laughing, instead you take part in the meat and dairy industry by consuming their products.

I am not bothered by dead animals, I am bothered by seeing stuff die. After the pig is dead, it's just a piece of tasty meat to meat.

You can obviously have all the energy you want by being vegan. How do you think vegans that break world records, or just those who make physical activity, do it?

I had a vegan diet for a 2 weeks. I barely had the energy to get out of my bed.

• 4. Captive life isn't that bad. As long as they have a good amount of food, a large space and good conditions their life is better in the wild, without worrying about predators and finding food.

You're saying that life in the wild is miserable or a costant worry, which is not true at all.
Most of the captive life is currently horrible for these animals, they don't have good life conditions at all. But in either cases, they have their lives ended prematurely, and there are other downsides to it aswell (e.g. babies being stolen at birth).

OK, most captive life is bad. Still, instead of giving up on meat, you could buy some meat from a farm where animals were treated well.

Animals do have/show emotions. They are sentient.
It doesn't matter if they didn't look suffering to you (which is not the case for me, I've always seen them suffering and yelling/yelping when they're in pain), the reality is that they're suffering/being killed.

Everything makes sound when hurt, but do captive animals look sad? No, they look indifferent.

[thebestofenergy]

No, no it isn't. The animals that I would have eaten are gonna be eaten by someone else. Nothing will change

The scenario is that everybody goes vegan. Otherwise you can use the same fallacious reasoning for everything.
In order to see change, you have to change first. You can make a difference, even if little compared to the world.

I am not bothered by dead animals, I am bothered by seeing stuff die. After the pig is dead, it's just a piece of tasty meat to meat.

That pig had to be kept captive and killed against his consent in order to be that meat you're eating, even if you didn't see it.

I had a vegan diet for a 2 weeks. I barely had the energy to get out of my bed.

You didn't answer my question.
If you don't have a healthy diet, don't blame it on veganism. I'm having all the energy I want.
You can have all the proteins and carbohydrates you want.

OK, most captive life is bad. Still, instead of giving up on meat, you could buy some meat from a farm where animals were treated well.

I already pointed out the downsides of it. Also, you don't settle the environmental issues,

Everything makes sound when hurt, but do captive animals look sad? No, they look indifferent.

What? Have you seen captive animals suffering? They seem no diferent than when my dog suffers. Their suffering isn't lower than animals who are not captive.