Talk:Ethical omnivorism

Neutral?
Seems like the article was written specifically to point out how bad ethical omnivorism is. As in, maybe 75% of the article is calling it a stupid concept and a pie-in-the-sky idea. I'm not really sure if this article can be neutralized without reducing it to the first two sentences.

104.32.108.132 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on your reasoning you clearly do not understand what neutral means. If something is stupid by then the neutral thing is indeed to call it stupid and a "balanced" view would be heavily biased. For example regarding homeopathy it is neutral for the article to portray it as hogwash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.229.18.81 (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Implying that ethnical omnivorism is indeed "stupid", which is a personal opinion. Of course vegans would disagree with it. It's as if we cited – only! – the opinion of conservatives about the Labour Party, or socialists about the Tories. But vegans have no monopoly on ethical living (more precisely: attempts to live ethically), regardless of how much they might insist that their way is the only way. Vegans (or their thought leaders) and the international community of scientists are two completely different groups. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I do think the way the article is now though, there's no content about the other sides. So I'd like more of that in there, as someone curious about this subject! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Response?
This is a pretty small page. I think it would make sense for it to have inclusion of coverage of all angles, both in favor, and against, as well as those that are neutral. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)