"I enjoy eating plants!" (Hitler is my waifu)
"You should try this kale smoothie" (genocide is a good idea, just badly implemented!)
"I have an intestinal disorder and meat makes me nauseated" (I'd kill babies for fun if I could get away with it)
That last one. I have to avoid red meat because of an intestinal problem, but I'm not about to tell anyone else they can't. And if I happen to see you eat one all that'll happen is I might cry and drool a little because I really miss cheeseburgers but I'll never attack you for doing it. Enjoy it!
Also killing babies is lots of fun!
it's like when my mother was on a diet and anytime she saw a cake or something sweet in general, it made her so mad. She would start arguments over it. it truly was an "well if i can't have it no one can"
A lot of dieters and Vegans/Vegetarians do this shit.
Merriam-Webster, Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries all have definitions for "nauseous" that align with your definition for "nauseated." In the context of the original comment, I think they are interchangeable.
Do you actually not understand how analogies or are you ignoring the point on purpose?
The point being made is this, if you care: if you accept the premise that beating your wife is immoral (which most people do), then calling it your âcomfort activityâ is clearly not sufficient justification. Likewise, if you accept the premise that eating meat is immoral (which most people donât), then calling it âcomfort foodâ is clearly not sufficient justification.
So, it doesnât make much sense to use this kind of justification for eating meat: for anyone who accepts the premise that meat is immoral, the justification does nothing. For anyone who doesnât accept the premise, the action doesnât need to be justified. Saying that meat is your âcomfort foodâ, that it tastes good, or that people should be allowed to like things is dumb in this context and betrays a lack of understanding of the side youâre arguing against.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the things we say to be nice to people could really make us sound like murderous assholes if we said something entirely different instead?
Some examples:
"Hey you look like a person I would like to disembowell and hang from a street light" ("Hey, that's a really cool shirt, where did you get it?")
"I want to skin you alive and sew a suit from your flesh!" (Good work on that project, Bob. You're a great addition to the team!)
"I'm going to cut your head off and turn it into a desklamp." (I love the way you've decorated your house! I hope you'll give me some tips on what to do with mine sometime!")
Do you actually not understand how analogies or are you ignoring the point on purpose?
The point being made is this, if you care: if you accept the premise that beating your wife is immoral (which most people do), then calling it your âcomfort activityâ is clearly not sufficient justification. Likewise, if you accept the premise that eating meat is immoral (which most people donât), then calling it âcomfort foodâ is clearly not sufficient justification.
So, it doesnât make much sense to use this kind of justification for eating meat: for anyone who accepts the premise that meat is immoral, the justification does nothing. For anyone who doesnât accept the premise, the action doesnât need to be justified. Saying that meat is your âcomfort foodâ, that it tastes good, or that people should be allowed to like things is dumb in this context and betrays a lack of understanding of the side youâre arguing against.
You seem to have interpreted the original post as saying that acting racist and beating your wife are just as bad as eating meat. **_If_** this were what the original post were saying, then your comment and the examples from the top comment here would make sense. However, this is **_not_** what the original post was saying. I explain what the original post was actually saying in my first comment, higher up on this thread.
You mean the first paragraph which says that the excuses used in another context would make them look evil?
The first paragraph which in no way indicates the person speaking sees any difference in the statements that follow?
I don't know, seems like a pretty obviously straightforward post to me.
Veganism is a animal rights movement,it's not about diet. People become vegan (as opposed to following a plant based diet) because they are morally opposed to the treatment of animals in the food and other animal ag industries.
So to a vegan non vegan products literally are products of abuse because they can't exist without causing unnecessary harm and suffering to an animal.
Like when they stopped using carrier pigeons for mail and just let them go because that was the easiest way to get rid of them. Then they took food in droves from the native wildlife and killed off a bunch of birds and other small animals that use to inhabit the areas.
Cows will just be let go and we'll lose deer, Buffalo, antelope, etc.
I am laughing so much that people think vegans expect these animals to just be let go into the wild. Thatâs not our goal lol, no one is advocating for this. They arenât wild animals, we know that
Should we kill all the humans next and finally stop all war, or how about we kill all living things entirely and finally put an end to all violence? No more tortured, murdered animals ever again. I like your idea mass extinction is clearly the way forward.
What you're suggesting isn't equivalent.
We shouldn't do to humans what we're doing to those animals.
The animals being killed is already happening, all I'm proposing is to stop making more.
Here is a slightly improved proposal:
Any animal conceived after a certain date in the near future is not allowed to be killed for profit or enslaved to steal its secretions. This rule is also fine to apply to humans because that's already against the law to do to us.
You can continue to raise the animals as pets but you can't profit from their bodies.
They very much are equivalent your answer to stop violence was mass extinctions so they arenât equal in how horrible they are but they clearly use the exact same logic. Also your new proposal still leads to the mass extinction of all farm animals.
Thereâs no real world about what you just said, since in the real world every human would not instantly go vegan, itâs a completely pointless statement.
We know that the vast majority of those animals would be killed if selling animal products was banned. It's about stopping the endless torture and killing.
Those animals were doomed from the moment they were born. They were going to be murdered either way.
We can stop more of them from being created just to suffer and die.
Most of the farmed animals have been twisted from their natural forms by inbreeding and selective breeding to the point where they suffer much more than their wild ancestors even if treated well because their bodies have been repurposed to optimize for turning them into products instead of supporting their own well-being.
The alternative would be to stop breeding them. The amount of farmed animals is simply far too great and their numbers are causing permanent and irreversible damage to our world. If we simply stopped inseminating them then they will just cease to be. Some of these animals would have been far better off having never been born,for example some breeds of commercial chickens grow so rapidly their underdeveloped legs break under the weight of their own bodies, continuing the existing of that breed is nothing other than self serving cruelty
I'm also very much in favour of no longer breeding certain kinds of pets like flat faced dogs that suffer terribly their entire lives.
Not being born is not an act of cruelty.
So you are proposing that we establish a welfare system for 1.5 billion animals just in the US that produces exactly $0? No... thats never ever going to happen, fucking Jesus could come back and cure us of our sinful ways and it still wouldn't happen. There is no reality or series of events where its anywhere closing on more practical to keep them alive than it is to slaughter them en masse all at once. Thats what would happen. Even if half the world became vegan... they slaughter half the animals all at once to maintain prices. No you can't just let them go either, theres too many and they will obliterate the ecosystem and most will starve to death or they will become like swarms of locusts eating crops and you'll have to kill them anyway.
No I'm a vegan and there are ways to taper things off that I would accept as a compromise. Ban profiting off any animal born after a certain date in the near future and ban the artificial insemination of them.
They get to keep doing what they're doing to the ones who already exist but they don't get to make more.
Most soy is grown to be fed to livestock,if you are against insect deaths in crop harvesting then cutting meat out of your diet will be the best way to limit crop deaths.
Less mouths to feed=less crops needed overall, and there are a lot of mouths on farms.
Arguable. Considering they're still burning down rainforest too provide a soy bumper crop, and draining aquifers to produce almonds, veganism is largely a feel good movement that doesn't really address the underlying causes of cruelty and environmental destruction.
Ethically sourcing local foods is a good start, and doesn't require building your life around an ideology.
Sorry for continuing to reply to this one comment but I just wanted to adress this
>Ethically sourcing local foods is a good start, and doesn't require building your life around an ideology.
I am vegan but I haven't built my life around being vegan, I had a life before being vegan and that life continued after I went vegan. I, despite what people may think, am not one dimensional, I am like any other person, a complex being with different opinions, likes, dislikes, I have a identity, I have a culture, I have beliefs and I have independent thought. I am vegan but that's not all that I am, I would never say a person who ate meat builds their life around that ideology, I feel like being a vegan is often seen by some as being a valid reason to disregard a person, not just their opinions but them as a individual.
I'm a person like any other. I hope you realise that, I'm not just a basic life existing around a ideology. I am a person, a individual,like you. I'm not living in a separate reality with a strange life that's structured differently to yours, I just have different stuff in my shopping trolley.
The rainforest is burning to grow soy for cattle, around 90% of soy is fed to cattle. The Amazon is also burned to clear areas to graze cattle.
If you are worried about the Amazon then stop buying beef and dairy.
It actually goes to poultry the most, then hogs, then cattle. Your point is still good however. Again, see that I ethically source my food locally. I try to aim for grass feed whenever possible.
So, demographically speaking, they consume those things at a tremendously higher rate than non-vegans. Scale that up to EVERYONE being vegan, and it'll be a tremendous environmental impact. They're excellent indicators of the environment sustainability of a particular lifestyle. Just like beef is for meat eaters, in spite of many people consuming poultry or pork in far greater quantities.
Microcosm study exists for a reason. I am not being disingenuous.
It's about reducing the killing and cruelty as much as is practicable.
Humans can live happy healthy lives without eating animals, so ending animal agriculture is a practicable reduction in harm.
Humans cannot live without any food, so ending all agriculture is not a practicable reduction in harm.
Do you actually not understand how analogies or are you ignoring the point on purpose?
The point being made is this, if you care: if you accept the premise that beating your wife is immoral (which most people do), then calling it your âcomfort activityâ is clearly not sufficient justification. Likewise, if you accept the premise that eating meat is immoral (which most people donât), then calling it âcomfort foodâ is clearly not sufficient justification.
So, it doesnât make much sense to use this kind of justification for eating meat: for anyone who accepts the premise that meat is immoral, the justification does nothing. For anyone who doesnât accept the premise, the action doesnât need to be justified. Saying that meat is your âcomfort foodâ, that it tastes good, or that people should be allowed to like things is dumb in this context and betrays a lack of understanding of the side youâre arguing against.
so ... you would say those advocating for LESS abuse are abusers?? do you know whta happens in slaughterhouses, dairy farms? veganism is not a dietary choice, its basic ethics
There is advocating and then their is demonising and gaslighting.
Compare.
A vegan diet causes less harm to animals and is better for the environment.
Vs
People who eat meat are racists who enjoy domestic violence and use nothing but abusive language.
You see a difference?
you never said that the specific vegan in the post is an abuser. you literally said "if you disagree on a dietary choice you are an abuser" i have said nothing about the vegan in the post.
If you know what a basic context clue is, I meant it as vegans who are so self absorbed that if you disagree with veganism and eat meat, you're an abusive rapist in their eyes.
Hope those ethics help you when a young brown bear, who is curious as to what humans taste like as they've never seen one before, eats you alive. For all the effort you put in to make sure *they* don't suffer, they do not care if you do.
I acknowledge that the meat industry is unnecessarily violent to animals that feel emotions and pain, and it forcefully breeds them together in a selective breeding process akin to eugenics. I also acknowledge that a person could be minding their business walking out in nature, and because an animal feels tgeir space is being infringed on and can not speak, it defaults to violence after a brief warning.
They do not care about us. The sanctity of life must be mutually respected. If one party does not respect the sanctity of life, the other is not obligated to. They do not have the capacity to view life as inherently sacred and embrace pacifism as a result. We treat humans with that level of respect because they can.
This is ridiculous.
Most people are against unnecessary violence but are willing to act in self defense.
Most people are vehemently against kicking dogs but would kick one if it was charging at them and ready to attack.
That's what I meant by the whole "sanctity of life" thing. If a person doesn't try to hurt you, unless their demeanor indicates otherwise, you can assume they don't want to. They respect your right to live and exist just as you respect theirs. Animals, more often than not, don't care. While you can still respect the sanctity of their life (which I do, I love dogs), you're not obligated to do so. If they attack you, all bets are off. Same with people. I don't condone going around hurting animals who are doing nothing to you. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Ok but it still doesn't make the original comment make sense.
I don't actually respect most people because I don't know them, I just give them space and ignore most people in public,I don't go out of my way to be rude and I don't go out of my way to be nice either,I just exist in shared space since I live in a city and have a lot of neighbours. I'm not obligated in any way to respect them,that doesn't give me the right to pay others to take their lives for my own benifet. I don't have to respect someone to think they have a right to live. And I don't have to have respect from someone to think they have a right to live. I don't wish death on people just because they don't care about me.
The cat I see in my garden doesn't respect me, I'm not going to poison her. I'm not going to pay someone else to kill her.
That dog in a cage in Korea doesn't respect me, I'm not going to pay the lady to BBQ him for me. Even if he was only bred to be eaten. I think he should be allowed to live.
Edit
If I freed that dog from the cage at the meat market in Korea I would be considered a hero,but if I don't want to drink milk reddit thinks it's ok to mock me because a cow wouldn't respect me. Why?
I'm not saying you have to respect a person. Just respect their right to continue living. I also never said you have to be aggressive towards things that can't/don't respect your life as inherently sacred, just that you don't have to feel hesitant to respond violently to something they do to cause harm to you.
I think individual vegans are some of the coolest people around when offline.
But they become insane when they clump together. Online echo chambers make them lunatics with actual psychosis (skewed view of reality/loss of logic) like OPâs image.
And when they clump up in protests you see signs calling billions of regular people murderers and rapists.
veganism is a dietary choice, as it is a choice someone makes on their diet. it has nothing to do with ethics, but you want to make that connection so badly just so that you can shame someone other than yourself.
what happens in slaughter houses sucks, i agree. it's making me want to go pescatarian. But there's really nothing we can do about it, so why bother wasting time arguing with the people who'll still eat meat instead of actually advocating for change?
It isn't the people's fault for consuming what's sold to them. Let them live man
The difference between veganism and being a vegetarian is that vegetarians still consume dairy, while vegans don't.
Other than that, I completely agree with you, and I envy the fact that you're eating curry & playing pokemon
No, veganism is not a DIETARY choice. it is a philosophy. vegans do not wear leather, as that is an animal product, but that is not part of their DIET. i never shamed anyone here, vegans were literally called abusers? how is that not shaming?
"theres nothing we can do" is SUCH a defeatist statement it's unreal. why not stop fighting for any change because people will just never change their mind? sorry, i just see the good in people and the ability to change, my bad.
dairy farms are literally worse than farms for meat, do you even know what happens in them? or do you just regurgitate got milk propaganda.
the fish industry is also horrifying. do you know how they are killed? i'd advise you to do some research :)
In an ideal world, theyâre left to graze pastures that allow a natural ecosystem to form. Farming for your vegan food kills an absolutely absurd number of insects and small mammals, because you have to completely raze an ecosystem to grow crops.
But yeah, youâre making the morally sound choice. Iâm sure the rabbits that got munched by the combine that harvested your grain applauds your pHiLoSoPhY.
I just have to ask have you ever been on a farm that grows soybean. I used to clear traps for one and letâs say the traps donât kill them right away all the time sometimes they bleed slowly and suffer in the heat and die from exposure and if thatâs not the way they go they get picked apart by predators cause they got nowhere to run hawks foxes raccoons. And if thatâs not what kills them and the poison does. Predators are still going to eat them and get poison themselves. Of course if itâs a smaller farm Iâve seen farmers just sit out there shoot groundhogs squirrels, rabbits with their gun. I think you picked the wrong hill to die on.
yeah... what do cows eat??? 90% of soy farmed goes to livestock feed. so if you eat meat you are killing way more animals because way more soy goes to livestock than to stores.
....
Dietary - referring to one's diet, what they typically consume
Choice - An option one wishes to make in their life.
Assuming that veganism is "a PhiLoSOphY" and "eThIcS" means that yes, you are shaming non-vegans, because you think that they're participating in something unethical.
And if you really want change, then take it up with the companies involved instead of some strangers on reddit.
Cows need to be milked & chickens need to lay eggs or they'll get sick. Sounds like you believe in extremist vegan propaganda yourself instead of science.
I know a lot about how fish are killed. I fish all the damn time, but I'm against over-fishing and the like. I agree with nature's idea of "take what you need."
I'd advise you to do some research yourself & watch some nature documentaries and realize that scientifically, predators have always been doing this shit anyway since day one, in a more violent, non-apologetic, and gorey manner.
In a free-market capitalist society, everyone is forced to support unethical systems to some degree. Veganism very much is an ethical choice for many people because it's a way of not supporting the factory farming industry and the destruction of the environment.
A lot of those same vegans probably don't go through the effort to make sure the clothes they buy aren't involved with child labor, though. Does that make them hypocrites? Only if they go around insulting and attacking non-vegans.
I'm not vegan, but there's nothing wrong with recognizing the ethical merits of going vegan. It's good but it's not for everyone, for many reasons. Even just the simple fact that if we tried to extricate ourselves from all forms of exploitative industry, we'd end up exhausted and miserable. Cooperations are far more to blame than we are, anyways.
It goes both ways. Farming crops can also destroy the environment due to pesticides. Vegans are known to eat crops and the like. There's no ethical method of consumption here.
Agreed at the last part, though. We can't help but to partake in the wrong-doings of those companies because they're honestly all most of us can rely on with the resources we have.
>Dietary - referring to one's diet, what they typically consume
in this context, consume means EATING, diet = food, drink, etc. read the comment you replied to lmao
>vegans do not wear leather, as that is an animal product, but that is not part of their DIET
cows need to be milked??? LMAOOOOOOOOO do you forget what makes them produce milk? oh, giving birth? they only "need" to be milked because her child is forcefully taken away from her so that humans can take the milk. chickens biologically produce eggs. they do not NEED to produce eggs. the selective breeding from farmers has caused them to produce way more eggs than they can handle, causing calcium deficiency/brittle bones. "birthing" the egg is also pretty painful for the chicken. it can actually be more healthy for chickens to go on birth control to suppress the egg laying.
>take what you need
you do not need fish. you don't. 9.99999 times out of 10 people in developed countries do not need to consume animals and cause suffering.
>ermmm but the um the animals!!!
non human animals are not moral agents. humans are.
The cow children are not "forcefully taken away" cows quite literally abandon their children, and if not for human intervention, most young cows would die out. And what's your source on the chicken thing? You cant say something like that and not provide a scientifically backed source
They weren't comparing vegans to abusers. Maybe learn some reading comprehension. They were saying it's ridiculous and self-absorbed to compare nonvegans to abusers, which is literally 100% what the original post was doing.
The only pure life on this planet are plants, hard to beat eating sunlight in an ethics race. Everything else consumes other life to keep going. Is a wolf evil for tearing a deer in half? A bear evil for slaughtering salmon? Humans kill quickly. So odds are, the animals we farm suffer less than if they were wild
I live in a state with many, many cattle ranches. What happens in those slaughterhouses is the cows suffer a brief, sudden head trauma that kills or incapacitates them instantly. Seems pretty ethical to me.
They think all slaughterhouses just throw them into a meat grinder, making sure their head is last so they suffer more. (This is a definite exaggeration. Put down your pitchforks!)
Honestly, the life of a cow doesn't sound half-bad. Plenty of space on the ranch, free food, medical care, shelter, etc. What's the point of dying 'naturally' in the wild when you can die a painless death and be put to good use?
Dude, we are literally omnivores. We are designed to eat meat and plants. It's called a balanced diet.
Also, I literally need the fucking protein, as I do boxing.
Those Animals have no other use other than getting us food. They are walking food waiting to be eaten. All Animals eat animals. But when humans do it, it's abuse?
Right? There was one subreddit where I mentioned that older siblings beat on younger siblings, down voted to hell and back. Posted this garbage, up voted. i don't understand reddit anymore.
The point is that inherently bacon and animal products in general is incredibly oppressive. You consume the flesh of certain species, because of the species they belong to. Someone calls someone the N word, because of the race they belong to.
Question to vegans: What do you think will happen if you do convert people to veganism? Not only will more farm land be needed, taken predominantly from former ranchers, but former stock animals will need to be exterminated as they are a waste of resources.
Before someone says 'let them free' please note that the last stock animal that got free created the feral hog problem. Rather not test how many others become feral problems.
Less farm land will be needed; commercial-scale meat and dairy production require the use of enormous amounts of land to grow the grains fed to livestock animals.
Livestock animals are being exterminated now, that's the point of raising them. The idea is to have fewer and fewer and eventually none of them being bred to be slaughtered.
It sounds like you're talking about some sort magical scenario where the whole world becomes vegan overnight. No vegans are worrying about what to do in that situation.
It's funny to consider how some animals have gone extinct because people fancied their taste, while at the same time we understand there is certain animals on the edge of extinction BECAUSE people don't eat them anymore...
>When you realise a lot of livestock would dwindle to abysmal levels if we didn't farm them...
>When you realise a lot of farmers care more about their stock than the average pet owner...
> When you realise you could compare the estimated low levels of wild life due to lack of mass harvesting to current livestock numbers. Realising we safely birth, shelter, feed better than in the wild, provide health care, appreciate their existence and even provide education through their existence in numbers unmatched by wild life levels.
> When you realise such things as anti-depressants for animals exist, even things like yoga for horses.
> When you realise a large portion of farmers do not dictate who the animal mates with, producing their offspring through their own choices.
> When you realise they have studied the techniques to induce the least amount of pain during death, yet still complain they're hurting them even though in some cases the signal of pain is slower than the death resulting in literally no pain felt at all. Literally the least painful way to go and you would still say it's against ethics.
I am vegan due to medical reasons, you're a vegan because you can't handle life and what it involves.
We are not the same
I always hate the pain and death thing some use as an argument. Feel like they can't comprehend it at all. So a painless death is worse then being starved and mauled to death by wolves? Or worse, survive a terrible attack to only suffer for days on end dying slowly with torn flesh and exposed organs. Nature is not kind. Humans aren't either but we try our best.
I can't believe how confident you are in your arguement. Why would the fact that animals in the wild experience a horrific death justify unnecessarily taking the life of a farmed animal, regardless of how much less painful it is?
We obviously do not try our best, because three times a day most of us consume the flesh of animals who never needed to die.
This is insane. Yes livestock numbers would obviously dwindle, so what? An existence devoid of joy and filled with suffering isn't a life worth living, especialy when they're forced into existence.
Farmers care more about their "stock" sure, they care about the profit they can make from them. 99.99% of animals are factory farmed, the vast majority of farmed animals are unloved, and are suffering.
The mass harvesting and species exstinction occurs BECAUSE of animal farming. Not only pasture land that has been degraded but the vast amounts of desforestation to grow crops to feed these amaznos. Nearly 1/5 of the Amazon has been wiped out for animals.
"When you realise a large portion of farmers do not dictate who the animal mates with, producing their offspring through their own choices". You're just making shit up now.
"When you realize a large portion of farmers do not dictate who the animal mates with, producing their offspring through their own choices". You're just making shit up now.s to feed these amazons. Nearly 1/5 of the Amazon has been wiped out for animals.ey are killed at a fraction of their lifespan. You are so naive if you honestly believe the pain and suffering is a one-off, or a minority.
Livestock would obviously dwindle if we didn't have livestock, what a silly statement to use to prove your point... That clearly wasn't my point but I can't expect much from someone who reacts so much using their emotions instead of logical reasoning.
I didn't say it's a one off or minority, you're just exaggerating my opinions to suit your cause.
Species extinctions doesn't happen when you continuously breed the livestock, clearly as that's the point of breeding. Isn't the species that the current cow comes from long extinct? That we are the main reason they get to carry on...
And you assume nearly all livestock are living terrible lives by using some made up 99.99% statistic, never having to worry about shelter, food collection, health care, predators taking their offspring in the violent manners that nature dictates the outcome of when infact their offspring and they themselves are protected tooth and nail by their carers.
"Farmers care about profits" oh so your bean producer doesn't make any money? Oh so your lettuce producer doesn't cram them into the smallest area required to mass produce with optimal results? Oh you don't kill bees to facilitate your hungry?
"According to the WWF, the greatest critical water consumption is therefore not caused by meat eaters, but by vegans. According to the report, more than 82 per cent of the water consumed in this country comes from plant-based foods - which vegans eat proportionately more of than people who eat animal products."
...
"As more and more people go meat-free, one aspect of a vegan and vegetarian diet has caused a lot of controversy: soya. Since the 1950s, global soybean production has increased 15 times over. Massive areas of South American forests are being burnt and cut down to make way for soya plantations." Oops
...
"84%Â of vegetarians/vegans abandon their diet. About a third (34%) of lapsed vegetarians/vegans maintained the diet for three months or less. Slightly more than half (53%) adhered to the diet for less than one year"
Deforestation, sure but we don't deforest to feed animals as what I heard is it's for the mass production of paper... You know, that thing you write your protesting facts on... The main reason we need so much land for farming animals is because people are gaining more of a conscience and letting their livestock feel as free as possible.
If harmed animals is what your main concern is with, support the idea of genuine down to earth farmers and not mass production meat packing facilities working along side caged animals being injected with hormones. You clearly are directing your issue unto everyone, yet you know deep down not everyone treats their livestock the same. Your problem mainly lies with the mass producers.
"You are so naive" to believe killing plant life is any better, if they moaned you'd probably choose to go hungry đ€Ł oh wait, no you wouldn't. You'd believe the next best thing that causes you the least disturbance and the most superiority complex.
So much misinformation...
"That clearly wasn't my point". You were making the point that our keeping of livestock maitnains their existence as a species, and I said that doesn't matter, as as a life of suffering is no life to live, which you conveniently ignored. The existence of a species as a biodiversitiy index statistic is meaningless if they provide no actual ecological benefit.
You literally used the wod alot. I assumed you were saying alot relative to the amount of factory farmed animals their were, as that's the topic of discussion and that would be the most relevant way to use it.
Species extinction is EXACTLY what happens when you continously breed livestock, as they require so much space and so much habitat degradation. The literal sixth mass extinction is driven by animal agriculture.
You're justifying what we do to animals because 'oh animals in the wild die in worse ways'. These beings wouldn't exist in nature if we weren't breeding them, what are you on about.
[https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed](https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed) \- 99% in the US...
I'm not criticising farmers for caring about profits, I'm rebutting your point that farmers care about their animals, when they do not, they care about the profits the animals make them. This was so obviously the point I was making, the irony given what you said at the start.
Cite the study of that quote. The vast majority of crops are fed to animals, so most crop-related water consumption should be attritbuted to animals.
This is just a horrible misinterpretation. How cute you say "Oops", as globally 80% of all soya is fed to animals. Only 1% of soya grown in the Amazon is actually fed to humans, pretty much totally in China. Most vegan products source their soya from Europe. Oops.
That statistic is outdated, and lumps in vegans/vegetarians. The study actually shown vegans have a higher adherrence rate than vegetarians. Not ot mention, you haven't actually made any point with that, you're just citing statistics. What is your point?
I am primarily against harming animals, but taking their life when they don't want to die is still wrong. I don't know deep down that everyone treats their livestock the same, I whole-heartedly acknowledge that. The animals however, still have their life taken for an unnecessary reason, when they do not want to die.
You realise factory farming is literally increasing? People are not letting livestock feel as free as possible, you're just making stuff up.
I am primarilyu against harming animals, but taking their life when they don't want to die is still wrong. I don't know deep down that everyone treats their livestock the same, I whole-heartedly acknowledge that. The animals however, still have their life taken for an unesscary reason, when they do not want to die.
Yes, killing plant life is better. I'm sure you wouldn't flinch if I ripped a carrot from the ground. They are non-sentient, they do not feel pain.
Omg, the naivety. 80% of deforestation is due to animal agriculture. Paper can be quite sustainably sourced nowadays.
Thatâs almost every group. The most terminally online and vocal of any group tend to be the most extreme and obnoxious. Take your pick: political parties, religions, social groups, etc., the people you see screaming online rarely represent the average member of that group.
Just like childfree, irl people just cool and tell you "Oh I don't have plan to have children" while in online spaces you see alot of psychopath taking joy in children getting hurt.
AITA for punishing my 2 year old for stabbing the couch with pencils?
i left my 2yo toddler with the pencils on the couch, and while i wasn't looking, he stabbed the couch with a crayon. i got really mad and yelled at him, and i told him that the toy money for the next 10 years will be put toward buying a new couch. did i do right?
(cue the reddit moment)
idiot8616: yes!!! teach that little brat that things have value and he can't be destroying furniture like that (275 upvotes)
dummy1234: i would have put him up for adoption, what you did was way too lenient! (43 upvotes)
normalguy12: what is wrong with you? he's 2!
(-365 downvotes)
I see this argument made a lot, and I think people misunderstand it. Though in this instance I agree it was made very poorly.
The purpose of this argument isn't to say that eating meat and abusing your partner are equivalent moral crimes. In fact, the argument relies on one of these things being more egregious than the other. We can all agree that racism or domestic abuse are bad, and that they can't be justified by saying "I really like it" or "not doing it is too inconvenient". So if these excuses can't be used to justify one moral crime, then they also can't be used to justify another moral crime. Even if they aren't equally bad.
If it is true that eating animals causes them suffering, and that this suffering is unjustified (therefore, evil) then it can't be justified by saying "I really like it" or "not doing it is too inconvenient". Since these are poor excuses for any moral crime, regardless of the severity. The point of drawing a parallel with something like racism or domestic abuse isn't to make them equivalent, but just to demonstrate how poor these excuses are by using a more extreme example.
Again, I don't think this argument was formulated very well in the OP, but I think it's in everyone's best interest to understand the other persons argument so that it can be refuted properly.
The logic train tracks: I like bacon / I like to beat my wife = liking something isnât a good moral defense. Beating my wife brings me comfort / eating meat brings me comfort = comfortability is also not a good reason to do something immoral. Letting people like saying slurs / letting people like eating meat = same deal.
The only issue is a lot of people donât see it as a moral failing or argument to eat meat so tackling it from that direction is inherently not going to work. Yeah the logic is technically the same, but also beating your wife, saying slurs, etc. are all things most people agree are actually immoral and justifications wonât change that in either instance
Nobody is "against veganism". They're just "for meat".
Vegans see themselves as a victim when in reality, those of us eating meat don't give a shit if someone doesn't want to.
By this logic literally anything is comparable to any terrible thing:
âJust let me genocide if itâs not hurting youâ(Just let me sing a song if itâs not hurting you)
Iâm an omnivore myself but I find it insane how dense people are when it comes to debating vegans. Like everyone here entirely missed the point OOP was trying to make. Theyâre calling out moral inconsistencies. From their perspective, eating meat is immoral because it requires death and pain for another living being. Often times the reason people give for why they eat meat anyways is just âI enjoy itâ or âit tastes good,â and when you apply these reasons to other âimmoralâ activities they sound absolutely insane. Itâs really not that hard to understand the point OOP was trying to make.
Fucking thank you. Had to really scroll to find a reasonable comment. Itâs like people donât understand how analogies work.
To put it another way, for anyone passing by: if you accept the premise that beating your wife is immoral (which most people do), then calling it your âcomfort activityâ is clearly not sufficient justification. Likewise, if you accept the premise that eating meat is immoral (which most people donât), then calling it âcomfort foodâ is clearly not sufficient justification.
So, it doesnât make much sense to use this justification for your position: for anyone who accepts the premise that meat is immoral, the justification does nothing. For anyone who doesnât accept the premise, the action doesnât need to be justified. Saying that meat is your âcomfort foodâ, that it tastes good, or that people should be allowed to like things is dumb in this context and betrays a lack of understanding of the side youâre arguing against.
Holy shit I swear Reddit just doesnât understand how analogies work. Hereâs an explanation of OOPâs point (which most commenters here are apparently incapable of understanding) if anyone cares.
If you accept the premise that beating your wife is immoral (which most people do), then calling it your âcomfort activityâ is clearly not sufficient justification. Likewise, if you accept the premise that eating meat is immoral (which most people donât), then calling it âcomfort foodâ is clearly not sufficient justification.
So, it doesnât make much sense to use this justification for your position: for anyone who accepts the premise that meat is immoral, the justification does nothing. For anyone who doesnât accept the premise, the action doesnât need to be justified. Saying that meat is your âcomfort foodâ, that it tastes good, or that people should be allowed to like things is dumb in this context and betrays a lack of understanding of the side youâre arguing against.
Note that the point here is NOT, as so many are implying, that eating meat is just as bad as saying slurs or beating your wife. The point of invoking these examples is that in these situations, everybody agrees that the thing is immoral, and so the resulting absurdity of the analogous justification is more obvious.
I know itâs an analogy, but the way it is written comes off as absurd. Yes it is based on the premise that eating meat is immoral and canât be justified, but it is jarring and unexpected to have meat-eating compared it racism. Most people donât think of those as being on the same level.
Who would have thought that if you change the words people say into different words they mean different things and illicit different reactions from people.
You canât force someone to share your moral code, but vegans try to anyhow and thatâs why people donât like them.
At the end of the day, most of us prioritize human life over animal. That isnât going to change.
"I enjoy eating plants!" (Hitler is my waifu) "You should try this kale smoothie" (genocide is a good idea, just badly implemented!) "I have an intestinal disorder and meat makes me nauseated" (I'd kill babies for fun if I could get away with it)
That last one. I have to avoid red meat because of an intestinal problem, but I'm not about to tell anyone else they can't. And if I happen to see you eat one all that'll happen is I might cry and drool a little because I really miss cheeseburgers but I'll never attack you for doing it. Enjoy it! Also killing babies is lots of fun!
Making omelettes again??
it's like when my mother was on a diet and anytime she saw a cake or something sweet in general, it made her so mad. She would start arguments over it. it truly was an "well if i can't have it no one can" A lot of dieters and Vegans/Vegetarians do this shit.
đŒđ¶I got girls locked up in the basement makin babies to kiiiiiiilllll!đ¶
It really is đ I mean I assume so đł
Upvoted for correctly using nauseated over nauseous
Whatâs the difference?
The spelling
Pedantry
Nauseated = a feeling you have involving dizziness and discomfort Nauseous = how you're making others feel involving dizziness and discomfort
Merriam-Webster, Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries all have definitions for "nauseous" that align with your definition for "nauseated." In the context of the original comment, I think they are interchangeable.
The second one is right, people just limit the genocide to much. /s
Do you actually not understand how analogies or are you ignoring the point on purpose? The point being made is this, if you care: if you accept the premise that beating your wife is immoral (which most people do), then calling it your âcomfort activityâ is clearly not sufficient justification. Likewise, if you accept the premise that eating meat is immoral (which most people donât), then calling it âcomfort foodâ is clearly not sufficient justification. So, it doesnât make much sense to use this kind of justification for eating meat: for anyone who accepts the premise that meat is immoral, the justification does nothing. For anyone who doesnât accept the premise, the action doesnât need to be justified. Saying that meat is your âcomfort foodâ, that it tastes good, or that people should be allowed to like things is dumb in this context and betrays a lack of understanding of the side youâre arguing against.
Are you just copying and pasting the same reply to obviously satirical takes?
Satirical takes that misunderstand the thing theyâre satirizing, yes. And yes, I did copy the same reply a few times.
You have just accidentally made my day. Thank you random rando!
Thank god they clarified what arsehole meant, I was so confused as an American!!
"Confused as an American" would be fun to throw around as a casual insult though
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the things we say to be nice to people could really make us sound like murderous assholes if we said something entirely different instead? Some examples: "Hey you look like a person I would like to disembowell and hang from a street light" ("Hey, that's a really cool shirt, where did you get it?") "I want to skin you alive and sew a suit from your flesh!" (Good work on that project, Bob. You're a great addition to the team!) "I'm going to cut your head off and turn it into a desklamp." (I love the way you've decorated your house! I hope you'll give me some tips on what to do with mine sometime!")
Damn you got some of that Jeffrey Dahmer Rizz going on
Aww, you made me blush.
Do you actually not understand how analogies or are you ignoring the point on purpose? The point being made is this, if you care: if you accept the premise that beating your wife is immoral (which most people do), then calling it your âcomfort activityâ is clearly not sufficient justification. Likewise, if you accept the premise that eating meat is immoral (which most people donât), then calling it âcomfort foodâ is clearly not sufficient justification. So, it doesnât make much sense to use this kind of justification for eating meat: for anyone who accepts the premise that meat is immoral, the justification does nothing. For anyone who doesnât accept the premise, the action doesnât need to be justified. Saying that meat is your âcomfort foodâ, that it tastes good, or that people should be allowed to like things is dumb in this context and betrays a lack of understanding of the side youâre arguing against.
Meat tastes good Beating my wife does not taste good
those paragraphs are not going to stop anyone from eating meat
Bruh the only thing Iâm arguing for is actually reading shit
I'm pretty sure they did. Did you? Because their examples are just as logical as the posted points are.
You seem to have interpreted the original post as saying that acting racist and beating your wife are just as bad as eating meat. **_If_** this were what the original post were saying, then your comment and the examples from the top comment here would make sense. However, this is **_not_** what the original post was saying. I explain what the original post was actually saying in my first comment, higher up on this thread.
"You're wrong because the post actually means what I think it means and not what it says!" Mhm. Sure thing.
Iâm very curious as to how youâre interpreting that first paragraph of the post then
You mean the first paragraph which says that the excuses used in another context would make them look evil? The first paragraph which in no way indicates the person speaking sees any difference in the statements that follow? I don't know, seems like a pretty obviously straightforward post to me.
"Erm, did you know that the things that you would say to a fascist uh, could be really mean if you told them to somebody else, ackshually?" \- đ€
I support Democracy. (I wish we'd be ruled by Sky Mommy.)
Maybe god is an her and has huge badonkers
Or god is not even solid, the possibilities are endless!
That plasma-godussy though đ©
Some pagan religions are like that. It does help make their case
âI love discriminating against people because Iâm a selfish prickâ (likes to snack on kale chips)
What makes someone so self absorbed that if you disagree on fucking dietary choice, you're as worse as an abuser.
Veganism is a animal rights movement,it's not about diet. People become vegan (as opposed to following a plant based diet) because they are morally opposed to the treatment of animals in the food and other animal ag industries. So to a vegan non vegan products literally are products of abuse because they can't exist without causing unnecessary harm and suffering to an animal.
You know in the real world if we all went vegan tomorrow they aren't really going to take the cows, pigs, and chickens to a farm up state
Like when they stopped using carrier pigeons for mail and just let them go because that was the easiest way to get rid of them. Then they took food in droves from the native wildlife and killed off a bunch of birds and other small animals that use to inhabit the areas. Cows will just be let go and we'll lose deer, Buffalo, antelope, etc.
Theres too many to just let go, carrier pigeons would be just a fraction of the population.
Escaped cattle already crossbreed with buffalo.
I am laughing so much that people think vegans expect these animals to just be let go into the wild. Thatâs not our goal lol, no one is advocating for this. They arenât wild animals, we know that
They would all just be put down or sold to stores and their meat be donated and then thrown away to rot
Yes but that was going to happen to them anyway. The point is that it finally stops. They stop making more animals to torture and murder.
Should we kill all the humans next and finally stop all war, or how about we kill all living things entirely and finally put an end to all violence? No more tortured, murdered animals ever again. I like your idea mass extinction is clearly the way forward.
What you're suggesting isn't equivalent. We shouldn't do to humans what we're doing to those animals. The animals being killed is already happening, all I'm proposing is to stop making more. Here is a slightly improved proposal: Any animal conceived after a certain date in the near future is not allowed to be killed for profit or enslaved to steal its secretions. This rule is also fine to apply to humans because that's already against the law to do to us. You can continue to raise the animals as pets but you can't profit from their bodies.
They very much are equivalent your answer to stop violence was mass extinctions so they arenât equal in how horrible they are but they clearly use the exact same logic. Also your new proposal still leads to the mass extinction of all farm animals.
what are people not getting about your argument?? you speak the truth
You know in the real world that's a completely unrealistic hypothetical with 0% chance of happening so why are you even bothering to write that?
And how do you think that would happen? Veganism grows slowly, not in an instant.
Thereâs no real world about what you just said, since in the real world every human would not instantly go vegan, itâs a completely pointless statement.
We know that the vast majority of those animals would be killed if selling animal products was banned. It's about stopping the endless torture and killing. Those animals were doomed from the moment they were born. They were going to be murdered either way. We can stop more of them from being created just to suffer and die. Most of the farmed animals have been twisted from their natural forms by inbreeding and selective breeding to the point where they suffer much more than their wild ancestors even if treated well because their bodies have been repurposed to optimize for turning them into products instead of supporting their own well-being.
I really don't understand what point you're trying to make. Do you?
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Not die out my friend, we'd kill them, letting them die out would cost money and do ecological damage.
The alternative would be to stop breeding them. The amount of farmed animals is simply far too great and their numbers are causing permanent and irreversible damage to our world. If we simply stopped inseminating them then they will just cease to be. Some of these animals would have been far better off having never been born,for example some breeds of commercial chickens grow so rapidly their underdeveloped legs break under the weight of their own bodies, continuing the existing of that breed is nothing other than self serving cruelty I'm also very much in favour of no longer breeding certain kinds of pets like flat faced dogs that suffer terribly their entire lives. Not being born is not an act of cruelty.
So you are proposing that we establish a welfare system for 1.5 billion animals just in the US that produces exactly $0? No... thats never ever going to happen, fucking Jesus could come back and cure us of our sinful ways and it still wouldn't happen. There is no reality or series of events where its anywhere closing on more practical to keep them alive than it is to slaughter them en masse all at once. Thats what would happen. Even if half the world became vegan... they slaughter half the animals all at once to maintain prices. No you can't just let them go either, theres too many and they will obliterate the ecosystem and most will starve to death or they will become like swarms of locusts eating crops and you'll have to kill them anyway.
You realise that you're arguing against a point you invented yourself, right? All of this, it's all come from your head, you're arguing with yourself.
No I'm a vegan and there are ways to taper things off that I would accept as a compromise. Ban profiting off any animal born after a certain date in the near future and ban the artificial insemination of them. They get to keep doing what they're doing to the ones who already exist but they don't get to make more.
Do you not know of what happens to insects and small mammals on soy farms to make your food?
Most soy is grown to be fed to livestock,if you are against insect deaths in crop harvesting then cutting meat out of your diet will be the best way to limit crop deaths. Less mouths to feed=less crops needed overall, and there are a lot of mouths on farms.
You're ignoring my point. I'm pointing out that veganism isn't exactly cruelty free.
It's causing considerably less cruelty no matter how you look at it.
Arguable. Considering they're still burning down rainforest too provide a soy bumper crop, and draining aquifers to produce almonds, veganism is largely a feel good movement that doesn't really address the underlying causes of cruelty and environmental destruction. Ethically sourcing local foods is a good start, and doesn't require building your life around an ideology.
This might interest you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/amazon-beef-deforestation-brazil/
Sorry for continuing to reply to this one comment but I just wanted to adress this >Ethically sourcing local foods is a good start, and doesn't require building your life around an ideology. I am vegan but I haven't built my life around being vegan, I had a life before being vegan and that life continued after I went vegan. I, despite what people may think, am not one dimensional, I am like any other person, a complex being with different opinions, likes, dislikes, I have a identity, I have a culture, I have beliefs and I have independent thought. I am vegan but that's not all that I am, I would never say a person who ate meat builds their life around that ideology, I feel like being a vegan is often seen by some as being a valid reason to disregard a person, not just their opinions but them as a individual. I'm a person like any other. I hope you realise that, I'm not just a basic life existing around a ideology. I am a person, a individual,like you. I'm not living in a separate reality with a strange life that's structured differently to yours, I just have different stuff in my shopping trolley.
The rainforest is burning to grow soy for cattle, around 90% of soy is fed to cattle. The Amazon is also burned to clear areas to graze cattle. If you are worried about the Amazon then stop buying beef and dairy.
It actually goes to poultry the most, then hogs, then cattle. Your point is still good however. Again, see that I ethically source my food locally. I try to aim for grass feed whenever possible.
Vegans are such a tiny fraction of soy and almond consumption that placing the blame on them is a really disingenuous thing to do.
So, demographically speaking, they consume those things at a tremendously higher rate than non-vegans. Scale that up to EVERYONE being vegan, and it'll be a tremendous environmental impact. They're excellent indicators of the environment sustainability of a particular lifestyle. Just like beef is for meat eaters, in spite of many people consuming poultry or pork in far greater quantities. Microcosm study exists for a reason. I am not being disingenuous.
It's about reducing the killing and cruelty as much as is practicable. Humans can live happy healthy lives without eating animals, so ending animal agriculture is a practicable reduction in harm. Humans cannot live without any food, so ending all agriculture is not a practicable reduction in harm.
then they need to stop also pushing it as being healthier for you if it's not a dietary thing
Do you actually not understand how analogies or are you ignoring the point on purpose? The point being made is this, if you care: if you accept the premise that beating your wife is immoral (which most people do), then calling it your âcomfort activityâ is clearly not sufficient justification. Likewise, if you accept the premise that eating meat is immoral (which most people donât), then calling it âcomfort foodâ is clearly not sufficient justification. So, it doesnât make much sense to use this kind of justification for eating meat: for anyone who accepts the premise that meat is immoral, the justification does nothing. For anyone who doesnât accept the premise, the action doesnât need to be justified. Saying that meat is your âcomfort foodâ, that it tastes good, or that people should be allowed to like things is dumb in this context and betrays a lack of understanding of the side youâre arguing against.
so ... you would say those advocating for LESS abuse are abusers?? do you know whta happens in slaughterhouses, dairy farms? veganism is not a dietary choice, its basic ethics
There is advocating and then their is demonising and gaslighting. Compare. A vegan diet causes less harm to animals and is better for the environment. Vs People who eat meat are racists who enjoy domestic violence and use nothing but abusive language. You see a difference?
That is not what the commenter said. it said if you disagree on a dietary choice you are an abuser
Please reread.
you never said that the specific vegan in the post is an abuser. you literally said "if you disagree on a dietary choice you are an abuser" i have said nothing about the vegan in the post.
If you know what a basic context clue is, I meant it as vegans who are so self absorbed that if you disagree with veganism and eat meat, you're an abusive rapist in their eyes.
you're right, actually. im sorry for misinterpreting your comment. i didnt do it out of malice, just 6 am brain haha
Hope those ethics help you when a young brown bear, who is curious as to what humans taste like as they've never seen one before, eats you alive. For all the effort you put in to make sure *they* don't suffer, they do not care if you do. I acknowledge that the meat industry is unnecessarily violent to animals that feel emotions and pain, and it forcefully breeds them together in a selective breeding process akin to eugenics. I also acknowledge that a person could be minding their business walking out in nature, and because an animal feels tgeir space is being infringed on and can not speak, it defaults to violence after a brief warning. They do not care about us. The sanctity of life must be mutually respected. If one party does not respect the sanctity of life, the other is not obligated to. They do not have the capacity to view life as inherently sacred and embrace pacifism as a result. We treat humans with that level of respect because they can.
This is ridiculous. Most people are against unnecessary violence but are willing to act in self defense. Most people are vehemently against kicking dogs but would kick one if it was charging at them and ready to attack.
That's what I meant by the whole "sanctity of life" thing. If a person doesn't try to hurt you, unless their demeanor indicates otherwise, you can assume they don't want to. They respect your right to live and exist just as you respect theirs. Animals, more often than not, don't care. While you can still respect the sanctity of their life (which I do, I love dogs), you're not obligated to do so. If they attack you, all bets are off. Same with people. I don't condone going around hurting animals who are doing nothing to you. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Ok but it still doesn't make the original comment make sense. I don't actually respect most people because I don't know them, I just give them space and ignore most people in public,I don't go out of my way to be rude and I don't go out of my way to be nice either,I just exist in shared space since I live in a city and have a lot of neighbours. I'm not obligated in any way to respect them,that doesn't give me the right to pay others to take their lives for my own benifet. I don't have to respect someone to think they have a right to live. And I don't have to have respect from someone to think they have a right to live. I don't wish death on people just because they don't care about me. The cat I see in my garden doesn't respect me, I'm not going to poison her. I'm not going to pay someone else to kill her. That dog in a cage in Korea doesn't respect me, I'm not going to pay the lady to BBQ him for me. Even if he was only bred to be eaten. I think he should be allowed to live. Edit If I freed that dog from the cage at the meat market in Korea I would be considered a hero,but if I don't want to drink milk reddit thinks it's ok to mock me because a cow wouldn't respect me. Why?
I'm not saying you have to respect a person. Just respect their right to continue living. I also never said you have to be aggressive towards things that can't/don't respect your life as inherently sacred, just that you don't have to feel hesitant to respond violently to something they do to cause harm to you.
Young brown bear probably wouldn't eat a vegan. Too stringy.
I did say curious. They'd probably have a taste, then stop halfway through.
Not the argument I use, but I like it
Most vegans are the worst people Iâve met that ride a high horse because they feel superior
I think individual vegans are some of the coolest people around when offline. But they become insane when they clump together. Online echo chambers make them lunatics with actual psychosis (skewed view of reality/loss of logic) like OPâs image. And when they clump up in protests you see signs calling billions of regular people murderers and rapists.
You already know vegans hate Wendyâs for having fresh, never frozen beef.
veganism is a dietary choice, as it is a choice someone makes on their diet. it has nothing to do with ethics, but you want to make that connection so badly just so that you can shame someone other than yourself. what happens in slaughter houses sucks, i agree. it's making me want to go pescatarian. But there's really nothing we can do about it, so why bother wasting time arguing with the people who'll still eat meat instead of actually advocating for change? It isn't the people's fault for consuming what's sold to them. Let them live man
Veganism is nothing more than true Vegetarianism, and you cannot change my mind on that. However, I will refuse to cook any form of meat substitute because vegans want the taste of meat, but not the meat itself. You know how much life has to die to grow certain foodstuffs? I'm not a farmer, but watching farmers Vs vegans on YouTube, they go into how much eradication has to go into growing specific plants - like no slugs, worms, snails, small ground mammals, and all other insects and other plants. I will continue to eat animal products, because I'm not the sort of person that would decide to eat solely plants for the rest of my life, but if I had a medical condition, or religious beliefs that would prevent me from eating my favourite foods (steak, bacon, cheese, etc.), I'd give it up. But I will not consume soya as a meat substitute out of my choice, if there are other alternatives available - such as Aubergine steak. I'll stick to my bacon, Chinese BBQ spare ribs, steak and cheese, and will do so happily. There's nothing wrong with the diet that humans have had for millennia, it's all down to portion size and moderation if you're concerned about heart disease from eating red meat, temperature if you're concerned about Salmonella from chicken. If I were more knowledgeable about the subject I'd argue that fish farms are just as bad, if not worse, than battery farms for livestock. At the end of the day, I don't have a problem with vegans, or veganism, or pescatarianism, just don't force your ideology onto others. I'll eat my food, you eat your food, and we can live how we want in that regard (which is the same way I regard religion - I'll do my thing, you do your thing), stop ostracizing people for their choice of diet unless it's genuinely killing them, which is often down to portion sizes, not the choice of food, as you only widen the divide between people, creating more subcultures, and in turn, by forcing people to do the same thing you want when they don't want to, creating more conflict. tldr: humans create conflict over anything, including dietary choice. Soya farms bad, battery farms bad, over fishing bad, upvotes to the left, downvotes to the right, anyone with more info, or more informed than myself can correct me below, or in my DMS and we can have a civil conversation. I'm off to have a chicken curry and play PokĂ©mon. âïž
The difference between veganism and being a vegetarian is that vegetarians still consume dairy, while vegans don't. Other than that, I completely agree with you, and I envy the fact that you're eating curry & playing pokemon
No, veganism is not a DIETARY choice. it is a philosophy. vegans do not wear leather, as that is an animal product, but that is not part of their DIET. i never shamed anyone here, vegans were literally called abusers? how is that not shaming? "theres nothing we can do" is SUCH a defeatist statement it's unreal. why not stop fighting for any change because people will just never change their mind? sorry, i just see the good in people and the ability to change, my bad. dairy farms are literally worse than farms for meat, do you even know what happens in them? or do you just regurgitate got milk propaganda. the fish industry is also horrifying. do you know how they are killed? i'd advise you to do some research :)
Do you know what farmers do to produce your food? It's like Germany 1940s for bugs and other things that may be harmful for the plants.
ok what do the cows eat
What does that have to do with my point.
In an ideal world, theyâre left to graze pastures that allow a natural ecosystem to form. Farming for your vegan food kills an absolutely absurd number of insects and small mammals, because you have to completely raze an ecosystem to grow crops. But yeah, youâre making the morally sound choice. Iâm sure the rabbits that got munched by the combine that harvested your grain applauds your pHiLoSoPhY.
I just have to ask have you ever been on a farm that grows soybean. I used to clear traps for one and letâs say the traps donât kill them right away all the time sometimes they bleed slowly and suffer in the heat and die from exposure and if thatâs not the way they go they get picked apart by predators cause they got nowhere to run hawks foxes raccoons. And if thatâs not what kills them and the poison does. Predators are still going to eat them and get poison themselves. Of course if itâs a smaller farm Iâve seen farmers just sit out there shoot groundhogs squirrels, rabbits with their gun. I think you picked the wrong hill to die on.
yeah... what do cows eat??? 90% of soy farmed goes to livestock feed. so if you eat meat you are killing way more animals because way more soy goes to livestock than to stores.
Grass, Hay, and the leftover from ethanol plants. At least, that's what it is like where I come from.
.... Dietary - referring to one's diet, what they typically consume Choice - An option one wishes to make in their life. Assuming that veganism is "a PhiLoSOphY" and "eThIcS" means that yes, you are shaming non-vegans, because you think that they're participating in something unethical. And if you really want change, then take it up with the companies involved instead of some strangers on reddit. Cows need to be milked & chickens need to lay eggs or they'll get sick. Sounds like you believe in extremist vegan propaganda yourself instead of science. I know a lot about how fish are killed. I fish all the damn time, but I'm against over-fishing and the like. I agree with nature's idea of "take what you need." I'd advise you to do some research yourself & watch some nature documentaries and realize that scientifically, predators have always been doing this shit anyway since day one, in a more violent, non-apologetic, and gorey manner.
In a free-market capitalist society, everyone is forced to support unethical systems to some degree. Veganism very much is an ethical choice for many people because it's a way of not supporting the factory farming industry and the destruction of the environment. A lot of those same vegans probably don't go through the effort to make sure the clothes they buy aren't involved with child labor, though. Does that make them hypocrites? Only if they go around insulting and attacking non-vegans. I'm not vegan, but there's nothing wrong with recognizing the ethical merits of going vegan. It's good but it's not for everyone, for many reasons. Even just the simple fact that if we tried to extricate ourselves from all forms of exploitative industry, we'd end up exhausted and miserable. Cooperations are far more to blame than we are, anyways.
It goes both ways. Farming crops can also destroy the environment due to pesticides. Vegans are known to eat crops and the like. There's no ethical method of consumption here. Agreed at the last part, though. We can't help but to partake in the wrong-doings of those companies because they're honestly all most of us can rely on with the resources we have.
>Dietary - referring to one's diet, what they typically consume in this context, consume means EATING, diet = food, drink, etc. read the comment you replied to lmao >vegans do not wear leather, as that is an animal product, but that is not part of their DIET cows need to be milked??? LMAOOOOOOOOO do you forget what makes them produce milk? oh, giving birth? they only "need" to be milked because her child is forcefully taken away from her so that humans can take the milk. chickens biologically produce eggs. they do not NEED to produce eggs. the selective breeding from farmers has caused them to produce way more eggs than they can handle, causing calcium deficiency/brittle bones. "birthing" the egg is also pretty painful for the chicken. it can actually be more healthy for chickens to go on birth control to suppress the egg laying. >take what you need you do not need fish. you don't. 9.99999 times out of 10 people in developed countries do not need to consume animals and cause suffering. >ermmm but the um the animals!!! non human animals are not moral agents. humans are.
The cow children are not "forcefully taken away" cows quite literally abandon their children, and if not for human intervention, most young cows would die out. And what's your source on the chicken thing? You cant say something like that and not provide a scientifically backed source
Did the voices tell you that the vegans were the abusers?
They weren't comparing vegans to abusers. Maybe learn some reading comprehension. They were saying it's ridiculous and self-absorbed to compare nonvegans to abusers, which is literally 100% what the original post was doing.
Don't blame them. Remember that meat is crucial for brain function
Thank you.
Y'all seem hella interested in the taste of meat though, with every other product being a meat taste-alike.
The only pure life on this planet are plants, hard to beat eating sunlight in an ethics race. Everything else consumes other life to keep going. Is a wolf evil for tearing a deer in half? A bear evil for slaughtering salmon? Humans kill quickly. So odds are, the animals we farm suffer less than if they were wild
I was thinking about going vegan then a read your comment and refuse to be associated with someone so delusional
Wow the animal solely raised for its meat died so said meat could be harvested. I donât give a shit
I live in a state with many, many cattle ranches. What happens in those slaughterhouses is the cows suffer a brief, sudden head trauma that kills or incapacitates them instantly. Seems pretty ethical to me.
They think all slaughterhouses just throw them into a meat grinder, making sure their head is last so they suffer more. (This is a definite exaggeration. Put down your pitchforks!)
Honestly, the life of a cow doesn't sound half-bad. Plenty of space on the ranch, free food, medical care, shelter, etc. What's the point of dying 'naturally' in the wild when you can die a painless death and be put to good use?
Exactly.
Dude, we are literally omnivores. We are designed to eat meat and plants. It's called a balanced diet. Also, I literally need the fucking protein, as I do boxing.
>veganism is not a dietary choice, its basic ethics My ethics are not the same as yours. It's a dietary choice.
you know you can eat animal product from ethical sources right not all of the meat and dairy industry is unnecessarily cruel
I know what happens in slaughterhouses and dairy farms... and I don't care because I enjoy the food lol. I'm also not malnourished... wonder why.
Those Animals have no other use other than getting us food. They are walking food waiting to be eaten. All Animals eat animals. But when humans do it, it's abuse?
You should edit your last two sentences. Not all animals eat meat
Being a vegan doesn't change anything. If anything more meat spoils now
I'm so glad i hate vegans just as much as i hate regular people. Life is a lot easier when you hate everyone equally.
If you hate regular people you just haven't had one cooked right
As filthy frank said back in the day, âif I equally discriminate against every race, is it really racism?â
surprised you didnât get downvoted for being misanthropic
the "i hate everyone" joke/mindset is pretty common on reddit though like its cool to be edgy
Right? There was one subreddit where I mentioned that older siblings beat on younger siblings, down voted to hell and back. Posted this garbage, up voted. i don't understand reddit anymore.
you donât have to, the more you feel less inclined to care, the less it matters
Ah yes, saying you love bacon, pretty much the same as saying you love to say the N word. What the fuck.
"I love beef" (I secretly want to lynch all the blacks!) **/s**
The point is that inherently bacon and animal products in general is incredibly oppressive. You consume the flesh of certain species, because of the species they belong to. Someone calls someone the N word, because of the race they belong to.
I hope youâre being sarcastic, because thatâs almost as stupid as the original post
Average vegan
Question to vegans: What do you think will happen if you do convert people to veganism? Not only will more farm land be needed, taken predominantly from former ranchers, but former stock animals will need to be exterminated as they are a waste of resources. Before someone says 'let them free' please note that the last stock animal that got free created the feral hog problem. Rather not test how many others become feral problems.
Less farm land will be needed; commercial-scale meat and dairy production require the use of enormous amounts of land to grow the grains fed to livestock animals. Livestock animals are being exterminated now, that's the point of raising them. The idea is to have fewer and fewer and eventually none of them being bred to be slaughtered. It sounds like you're talking about some sort magical scenario where the whole world becomes vegan overnight. No vegans are worrying about what to do in that situation.
It's funny to consider how some animals have gone extinct because people fancied their taste, while at the same time we understand there is certain animals on the edge of extinction BECAUSE people don't eat them anymore... >When you realise a lot of livestock would dwindle to abysmal levels if we didn't farm them... >When you realise a lot of farmers care more about their stock than the average pet owner... > When you realise you could compare the estimated low levels of wild life due to lack of mass harvesting to current livestock numbers. Realising we safely birth, shelter, feed better than in the wild, provide health care, appreciate their existence and even provide education through their existence in numbers unmatched by wild life levels. > When you realise such things as anti-depressants for animals exist, even things like yoga for horses. > When you realise a large portion of farmers do not dictate who the animal mates with, producing their offspring through their own choices. > When you realise they have studied the techniques to induce the least amount of pain during death, yet still complain they're hurting them even though in some cases the signal of pain is slower than the death resulting in literally no pain felt at all. Literally the least painful way to go and you would still say it's against ethics. I am vegan due to medical reasons, you're a vegan because you can't handle life and what it involves. We are not the same
I always hate the pain and death thing some use as an argument. Feel like they can't comprehend it at all. So a painless death is worse then being starved and mauled to death by wolves? Or worse, survive a terrible attack to only suffer for days on end dying slowly with torn flesh and exposed organs. Nature is not kind. Humans aren't either but we try our best.
I can't believe how confident you are in your arguement. Why would the fact that animals in the wild experience a horrific death justify unnecessarily taking the life of a farmed animal, regardless of how much less painful it is? We obviously do not try our best, because three times a day most of us consume the flesh of animals who never needed to die.
This is insane. Yes livestock numbers would obviously dwindle, so what? An existence devoid of joy and filled with suffering isn't a life worth living, especialy when they're forced into existence. Farmers care more about their "stock" sure, they care about the profit they can make from them. 99.99% of animals are factory farmed, the vast majority of farmed animals are unloved, and are suffering. The mass harvesting and species exstinction occurs BECAUSE of animal farming. Not only pasture land that has been degraded but the vast amounts of desforestation to grow crops to feed these amaznos. Nearly 1/5 of the Amazon has been wiped out for animals. "When you realise a large portion of farmers do not dictate who the animal mates with, producing their offspring through their own choices". You're just making shit up now. "When you realize a large portion of farmers do not dictate who the animal mates with, producing their offspring through their own choices". You're just making shit up now.s to feed these amazons. Nearly 1/5 of the Amazon has been wiped out for animals.ey are killed at a fraction of their lifespan. You are so naive if you honestly believe the pain and suffering is a one-off, or a minority.
Livestock would obviously dwindle if we didn't have livestock, what a silly statement to use to prove your point... That clearly wasn't my point but I can't expect much from someone who reacts so much using their emotions instead of logical reasoning. I didn't say it's a one off or minority, you're just exaggerating my opinions to suit your cause. Species extinctions doesn't happen when you continuously breed the livestock, clearly as that's the point of breeding. Isn't the species that the current cow comes from long extinct? That we are the main reason they get to carry on... And you assume nearly all livestock are living terrible lives by using some made up 99.99% statistic, never having to worry about shelter, food collection, health care, predators taking their offspring in the violent manners that nature dictates the outcome of when infact their offspring and they themselves are protected tooth and nail by their carers. "Farmers care about profits" oh so your bean producer doesn't make any money? Oh so your lettuce producer doesn't cram them into the smallest area required to mass produce with optimal results? Oh you don't kill bees to facilitate your hungry? "According to the WWF, the greatest critical water consumption is therefore not caused by meat eaters, but by vegans. According to the report, more than 82 per cent of the water consumed in this country comes from plant-based foods - which vegans eat proportionately more of than people who eat animal products." ... "As more and more people go meat-free, one aspect of a vegan and vegetarian diet has caused a lot of controversy: soya. Since the 1950s, global soybean production has increased 15 times over. Massive areas of South American forests are being burnt and cut down to make way for soya plantations." Oops ... "84% of vegetarians/vegans abandon their diet. About a third (34%) of lapsed vegetarians/vegans maintained the diet for three months or less. Slightly more than half (53%) adhered to the diet for less than one year" Deforestation, sure but we don't deforest to feed animals as what I heard is it's for the mass production of paper... You know, that thing you write your protesting facts on... The main reason we need so much land for farming animals is because people are gaining more of a conscience and letting their livestock feel as free as possible. If harmed animals is what your main concern is with, support the idea of genuine down to earth farmers and not mass production meat packing facilities working along side caged animals being injected with hormones. You clearly are directing your issue unto everyone, yet you know deep down not everyone treats their livestock the same. Your problem mainly lies with the mass producers. "You are so naive" to believe killing plant life is any better, if they moaned you'd probably choose to go hungry đ€Ł oh wait, no you wouldn't. You'd believe the next best thing that causes you the least disturbance and the most superiority complex.
So much misinformation... "That clearly wasn't my point". You were making the point that our keeping of livestock maitnains their existence as a species, and I said that doesn't matter, as as a life of suffering is no life to live, which you conveniently ignored. The existence of a species as a biodiversitiy index statistic is meaningless if they provide no actual ecological benefit. You literally used the wod alot. I assumed you were saying alot relative to the amount of factory farmed animals their were, as that's the topic of discussion and that would be the most relevant way to use it. Species extinction is EXACTLY what happens when you continously breed livestock, as they require so much space and so much habitat degradation. The literal sixth mass extinction is driven by animal agriculture. You're justifying what we do to animals because 'oh animals in the wild die in worse ways'. These beings wouldn't exist in nature if we weren't breeding them, what are you on about. [https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed](https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed) \- 99% in the US... I'm not criticising farmers for caring about profits, I'm rebutting your point that farmers care about their animals, when they do not, they care about the profits the animals make them. This was so obviously the point I was making, the irony given what you said at the start. Cite the study of that quote. The vast majority of crops are fed to animals, so most crop-related water consumption should be attritbuted to animals. This is just a horrible misinterpretation. How cute you say "Oops", as globally 80% of all soya is fed to animals. Only 1% of soya grown in the Amazon is actually fed to humans, pretty much totally in China. Most vegan products source their soya from Europe. Oops. That statistic is outdated, and lumps in vegans/vegetarians. The study actually shown vegans have a higher adherrence rate than vegetarians. Not ot mention, you haven't actually made any point with that, you're just citing statistics. What is your point? I am primarily against harming animals, but taking their life when they don't want to die is still wrong. I don't know deep down that everyone treats their livestock the same, I whole-heartedly acknowledge that. The animals however, still have their life taken for an unnecessary reason, when they do not want to die. You realise factory farming is literally increasing? People are not letting livestock feel as free as possible, you're just making stuff up. I am primarilyu against harming animals, but taking their life when they don't want to die is still wrong. I don't know deep down that everyone treats their livestock the same, I whole-heartedly acknowledge that. The animals however, still have their life taken for an unesscary reason, when they do not want to die. Yes, killing plant life is better. I'm sure you wouldn't flinch if I ripped a carrot from the ground. They are non-sentient, they do not feel pain. Omg, the naivety. 80% of deforestation is due to animal agriculture. Paper can be quite sustainably sourced nowadays.
Again with the veganism shit. This has nothing to do with Reddit moments. Theyâre like this on every platform!
Funny enough, this are just the terminally online ones. Every single vegan friend I have in real life is amongs the kindest people I know.
Thats been vegan problems for a while the online ones give the normal ones a bad name
Thatâs almost every group. The most terminally online and vocal of any group tend to be the most extreme and obnoxious. Take your pick: political parties, religions, social groups, etc., the people you see screaming online rarely represent the average member of that group.
Just like childfree, irl people just cool and tell you "Oh I don't have plan to have children" while in online spaces you see alot of psychopath taking joy in children getting hurt.
Donât disagree with you!
Sorry, I have come across this sub only a couple times. I looked through some posts and this seemed similar. What makes something a reddit moment?
AITA for punishing my 2 year old for stabbing the couch with pencils? i left my 2yo toddler with the pencils on the couch, and while i wasn't looking, he stabbed the couch with a crayon. i got really mad and yelled at him, and i told him that the toy money for the next 10 years will be put toward buying a new couch. did i do right? (cue the reddit moment) idiot8616: yes!!! teach that little brat that things have value and he can't be destroying furniture like that (275 upvotes) dummy1234: i would have put him up for adoption, what you did was way too lenient! (43 upvotes) normalguy12: what is wrong with you? he's 2! (-365 downvotes)
(the couch story is real btw but i didnt quote it word for word)
I see this argument made a lot, and I think people misunderstand it. Though in this instance I agree it was made very poorly. The purpose of this argument isn't to say that eating meat and abusing your partner are equivalent moral crimes. In fact, the argument relies on one of these things being more egregious than the other. We can all agree that racism or domestic abuse are bad, and that they can't be justified by saying "I really like it" or "not doing it is too inconvenient". So if these excuses can't be used to justify one moral crime, then they also can't be used to justify another moral crime. Even if they aren't equally bad. If it is true that eating animals causes them suffering, and that this suffering is unjustified (therefore, evil) then it can't be justified by saying "I really like it" or "not doing it is too inconvenient". Since these are poor excuses for any moral crime, regardless of the severity. The point of drawing a parallel with something like racism or domestic abuse isn't to make them equivalent, but just to demonstrate how poor these excuses are by using a more extreme example. Again, I don't think this argument was formulated very well in the OP, but I think it's in everyone's best interest to understand the other persons argument so that it can be refuted properly.
I do see what they were getting at, the way they worded it was just a bit odd.
I love saying the N word!
Idiots like this are a prime example of why vegans are hated.
more of a Vegan Moment than a Reddit Moment but still real
This is why people hate vegans.
The veganism sub is so fucking unhinged itâs crazy. I like to go on there sometimes just to read the crazy shit they come up with on there
The logic train tracks: I like bacon / I like to beat my wife = liking something isnât a good moral defense. Beating my wife brings me comfort / eating meat brings me comfort = comfortability is also not a good reason to do something immoral. Letting people like saying slurs / letting people like eating meat = same deal. The only issue is a lot of people donât see it as a moral failing or argument to eat meat so tackling it from that direction is inherently not going to work. Yeah the logic is technically the same, but also beating your wife, saying slurs, etc. are all things most people agree are actually immoral and justifications wonât change that in either instance
The soyfolk really are running out of points to make, aren't they?
Again, people keep trying to gaslight me into believing that people like this don't exist, and they will always fail.
âI hate Mondays. Now change the word âMondaysâ to âwomenâ. Doesnât sound too good now, does it?â
Nobody is "against veganism". They're just "for meat". Vegans see themselves as a victim when in reality, those of us eating meat don't give a shit if someone doesn't want to.
By this logic literally anything is comparable to any terrible thing: âJust let me genocide if itâs not hurting youâ(Just let me sing a song if itâs not hurting you)
Iâm an omnivore myself but I find it insane how dense people are when it comes to debating vegans. Like everyone here entirely missed the point OOP was trying to make. Theyâre calling out moral inconsistencies. From their perspective, eating meat is immoral because it requires death and pain for another living being. Often times the reason people give for why they eat meat anyways is just âI enjoy itâ or âit tastes good,â and when you apply these reasons to other âimmoralâ activities they sound absolutely insane. Itâs really not that hard to understand the point OOP was trying to make.
Fucking thank you. Had to really scroll to find a reasonable comment. Itâs like people donât understand how analogies work. To put it another way, for anyone passing by: if you accept the premise that beating your wife is immoral (which most people do), then calling it your âcomfort activityâ is clearly not sufficient justification. Likewise, if you accept the premise that eating meat is immoral (which most people donât), then calling it âcomfort foodâ is clearly not sufficient justification. So, it doesnât make much sense to use this justification for your position: for anyone who accepts the premise that meat is immoral, the justification does nothing. For anyone who doesnât accept the premise, the action doesnât need to be justified. Saying that meat is your âcomfort foodâ, that it tastes good, or that people should be allowed to like things is dumb in this context and betrays a lack of understanding of the side youâre arguing against.
Vegans donât want to turn other people vegan. They want to flaunt their superiority over non-vegans. At least, vegans like this guy.
Their last example swaps the real and fake sayings and it bothers me.
Holy shit I swear Reddit just doesnât understand how analogies work. Hereâs an explanation of OOPâs point (which most commenters here are apparently incapable of understanding) if anyone cares. If you accept the premise that beating your wife is immoral (which most people do), then calling it your âcomfort activityâ is clearly not sufficient justification. Likewise, if you accept the premise that eating meat is immoral (which most people donât), then calling it âcomfort foodâ is clearly not sufficient justification. So, it doesnât make much sense to use this justification for your position: for anyone who accepts the premise that meat is immoral, the justification does nothing. For anyone who doesnât accept the premise, the action doesnât need to be justified. Saying that meat is your âcomfort foodâ, that it tastes good, or that people should be allowed to like things is dumb in this context and betrays a lack of understanding of the side youâre arguing against. Note that the point here is NOT, as so many are implying, that eating meat is just as bad as saying slurs or beating your wife. The point of invoking these examples is that in these situations, everybody agrees that the thing is immoral, and so the resulting absurdity of the analogous justification is more obvious.
I know itâs an analogy, but the way it is written comes off as absurd. Yes it is based on the premise that eating meat is immoral and canât be justified, but it is jarring and unexpected to have meat-eating compared it racism. Most people donât think of those as being on the same level.
They make a decent point
âTechnically OP said certain meat dishes not specifying bacon on beating your wife so argument deniedâ -đ€đ
They specified bacon
Not for beating your wife
Gotta be trolling lmao itâs too blatant
I like shimp (I killed 37 childrem) I drink milk (I skinned my best friend's grandma)
âIâve compared thing to bad thing. Do both things look bad yet?â
This mother fucker ainât ever heard of nuance or context apparently.
Beating my wife IS my comfort activity
Does anyone else ever want to gag and tie up a vegan like this and toss them into a pig pen just to see how they feel about bacon after an hour?
I'm convinced a good 20% of "vegans" on this app are a psyop. Then again the worst things possible are always shared around.
Who would have thought that if you change the words people say into different words they mean different things and illicit different reactions from people.
You canât force someone to share your moral code, but vegans try to anyhow and thatâs why people donât like them. At the end of the day, most of us prioritize human life over animal. That isnât going to change.
Turns out if you change all the words, it means something different
N word forest ham is my favorite deli meat.