oshitwaddup

there are other approaches to sentientism that aren't based on valence. I don't feel like writing a book on the different ones, but to give an example of a rights based one that I think is strong is that every sentient being has, at the very least, a right to their body, since that's the one thing they're born with and that is (almost certainly) what gives rise to their sentience in the first place. And to violate another sentient beings bodily autonomy is to forfeit your own (a sort of low level social contract), which allows for self defense and defending others

but to go back to utilitarianism, I think there's a strong argument that most ethical frameworks can be defined in terms of a sufficiently creative definition of utility. I don't really feel like getting into the weeds of that discussion though, and I don't think it's particularly relevant to the conversation anyways

I explained why it's not arbitrary, then pointed to a group that does draw arbitrary distinctions. That's not tu quoque because I'm not saying "you also"

Sentience is what I base my ethics on (i'm a sentientist or sentiocentrist), which has implications on diet when considering whether to exploit and/or kill sentient beings for food. I don't think it's arbitrary, if someone is sentient, they are morally relevant because they can experience positive and negative valence (pleasure/pain, to put it more plainly but lose some nuance). If something is not sentient, I don't see how it can be ethically relevant except in cases where the nonsentient thing matters to a sentient being

if you're looking for arbitrary, the anthropocentrists are that way

Also I agree we can't prove that plants aren't sentient, that's why I said "to the best of my knowledge"

the scientific consensus is that a well planned vegan diet can be healthy for all stages of human life. Plant staple foods are some of the cheapest foods around (rice, beans, grains)

I think you're a troll, ignorant, projecting, or some combo of the above, so I'm going to stop responding to you now. Peace ✌️

Carnist, omnivore, speciesist. If the shoe fits 🤷

To the best of my knowledge plants are not sentient. If they were I would take much better care of houseplants and still be vegan because eating other animals still kills way more plants (google trophic levels)

What? That's what you took from vegans saying "stop killing others unnecessarily"?

Carnists are literally putting out an idea that values someones sensory pleasure over the lives of others and then acting accordingly and killing by the billions each year.

The vast majority of humans can thrive/be healthy on a vegan diet, therefore it's not consuming for survival. That's an excuse or ignorance (again, for the vast majority of humans, especially those who are reading this. There are always exceptions tho)

The fishing is sadder to me because it's intentionally causing unnecessary harm. I can see why accidental harm might be sadder though, and it is very sad either way. Systemic injustice and global catastrophe both need to be addressed though obviously

The plastic pollution is also sad, but not as sad imo

I'm sad for the fish. Imaging being forced into a massive pile of others just like you while being crushed by the weight of them and suffocating to death. It's fucked up

Tuta has a linux desktop app, and their android app is on fdroid and doesn't depend on google play services. Plus they use green energy for their servers

I was tired of proton because their linux vpn app is pretty awful, especially if you use iwd instead of networkmanager like me. Plus they don't even support ipv6. So I was switching to mullvad vpn (which has great linux support and ipv6), and then for the price of just email tuta was cheaper and better on all the things I mentioned without any downsides (to me), so I switched.