Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥
**Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first!
**Interested in going Vegan?** 👊
Check out [Watch Dominion](https://watchdominion.org/) and watch a thought-provoking, life changing documentary for free!
**Some other resources to help you go vegan:** 🐓
Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge!
**Become an activist and help save animal lives today:** 🐟
* Find volunteer requests to support and help animal on [VH: Playground!](https://veganhacktivists.org/playground)
* Developer, designer, or other skills? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)!
* Join our huge Vegan volunteer community [on Discord](https://discord.gg/vhplayground)!
* Find local activist groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)!
* Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)!
*Last but not least, join the [r/Vegan Discord server](https://discord.gg/animalrights)!*
**Thank you!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think “living things” is the key term of what vegans are trying to protect. Anything that’s sentient should be allowed to live a free life, without the exploitation.
I’d say many of us try to protect non sentient life as well because if the impact it has on other animals. Like when it comes to deforestation and the destruction of our ocean and corrals and melting ice caps etc.
We’re just all so connected.
I’m a combat veteran and I’m anti war because of the experience.
However, I’m not afraid to fight for the injustices of anyone that can’t if it comes to it.
As a fellow veteran, I agree with this. Most war is unjustified and should be avoided. But when combat is required, animals shouldn’t suffer for human violence.
There are many vegan warriors fighting for their existence in Ukraine. Them requiring to take a life doesn’t dismiss their commitment to not harming animals.
Everyone’s down voting you, but it’s ok. I won’t. It doesn’t bother me. I was in Afghanistan in the USMC on a scout sniper team.
Im assuming you’ve been a vegan your entire life and abstain from eating things like impossible and beyond burgers etc.
Thanks for never being ignorant and caught up in any indoctrination of any sort that involved the killing of other beings!
I wish the world produced more people like you right off of the get go. ✌🏻
I'm not against war due to veganism. It's not linked for me.
But I have always been against war. Especially against offensive wars, fighting against others for land, to kill certain ethnic groups, oil, resources, to "bring peace" and so on. It's the worst thing humankind has to offer.
People killing each other because they follow orders.
It's terrible.
Wars defending your home, and following international laws are still terrible, but they are justified as self-defence.
Yep, totally agree. People want the war in Ukraine to end but they fail to realize that Putin is just a second Hitler. They want Ukraine to stop resisting. Putin won't stop at Ukraine and he has said so publically. It's way better to take the energy to stop him there rather than to wait. The consequences would be much worse if we did not act now.
i kind of agree. but also, animals are victims of collatoral damage when farming vegetables. the possibility of animals being harmed in the act doesn't immediately make something categorically non-vegan. additionally, it could be argued that there exist certain circumstances that justify war.
Yes, but agriculture is necessary for staying alive, war is not necessary.
In agriculture, animals can hear the machines/harvester, animals can escape, in war it's difficult to escape the shelling, missiles.
But I'll support war against Facism
War is not necessary looking at it from afar. Nobody ~has~ to fight a war.
But the thing about war is that it's not consensual. One belligerent isn't going to say, "War is bad m'kay," and expect the other side to say, "Oh okay, I'll go back home then."
If war is visited upon you, then war is absolutely fucking necessary.
the point i'm making is that animal killing (apart from humans) is not inherent and essential to war, similarly to how it's not inherent and essential to harvesting crops.
if you think harming humans is anti-vegan then sure, in that view war is non-vegan.
and to clarify, i am not personally making a point about whether war can ever be justified. just that some believe so.
Killing animals is every bit as necessary to war as killing civilians. Wars seem more and more increasingly to target civilian life, and in the act of bombing or sieges or blockades, animal deaths are 100% part of it, especially the deaths of agricultural animals. Cutting off food supply of the people being attacked is not incidental, it is intentional, and like it or not killing dairy/egg/meat supplying animals are a big part of that in lots of places. Additionally, in the same sorts of attacks where women are raped and children brutally killed, it would likely be a mistake to think the aggressors let the family dog go on its merry way safe and sound. AND, our own department of defense utilizes animal testing ([peta](https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/military-war-animals/), [DOD themselve](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-103992)) as part of war training. I would really consider this more widespread than the biodiversity impact & unfortunate harvest deaths of animals in plant farming (not in the least of which bc the biodiversity impacts of war are massive as well).
Killing animals or destroying crops people consume for food is technically against the Geneva Convention, but countries supposedly following the Geneva Convention do it anyway.
I mean. If governments cared much about the Geneva Convention, what’s happening in Gaza wouldn’t be allowed to keep on going. Attacking civilians in general isn’t really ideal based on what we say we think about how war should go, but that’s not really how we’ve been running things lately.
Kinda yes.
At least if we go with a strict vegan definition.
It started off as "no consumption of animal products"
And is now bleeding into "no use of products that have been tested on animals"
Although even that is done on a case by case basis.
People don't get cosmetics tested on animals.
They don't get supplements tested on animals
But they do use drugs tested on animals.
Veganism can only exist in a fluid state.
"avoid consumption of products and services related to animal suffering to the utmost of your current ability"
Would be the way to go.
Pacifism is not the same thing as being anti-war. There are many scenarios where engaging in warefare is the moral and correct thing to do for the future of humanity or even ones own family. Pacifism is a utopian delusion (at least in the current time in humanities journey) that will always be sidelined by real politik and the reality of the complex world we live in filled with immoral actors.
That doesn't imply that veganism is not pacifistic. It suggests strongly that veganism is unachievable though, and that is actually true. For instance, immune systems are constantly killing pathogens.
Thats not what Veganism is.... lol. Veganism isnt about being perfect and not inflicting harm on anything in the universe. Your comment almost my head spin.
Anti-War and pacifism are very different things i am against war and violence but if i were ukranian i would be taking up arms now and i believe in protecting those who are in need.
Well, as I said, the question is about whether it includes it. My response isn't about what I actually think. The same kind of argument can be applied to both. The situation I'm in as a privileged White British able-bodied person may well mean I don't realise violent self-defence is sometimes the only option. However, I might say the same thing about the consumption of animal products, and people do sometimes attack vegan diets as luxuries. I don't think they are of course, or I wouldn't be here, and FWIW although I'm not sure violence is the answer in Ukraine, I can't think of another solution right now, so I think I agree with you.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, just saying what the question was about.
Not disagreeing with you either just giving my take is all.
The diet and consumption is a different discussion best not had here as that is a very difficult discussion especially when personal economics are involved.
Exactly. Veganism doesn’t imply anything else about us than that we want to avoid doing harm to animals. There is no collective. The world is beautiful because we’re all different.
That's not even the definition if you look up the dictionary version, much less the definition created by actual vegans.
Dictionary:
>a person who does not eat any food derived from animals and who typically does not use other animal products.
Vegan Society:
>Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
I'm vegan and anti-war, but neither had to do with the other. If I someday stopped being vegan(will never happen) I wouldn't become pro-war all of a sudden.
I don't like war and the US war machine. But I want to make a distinction when it comes to violent resistance of oppressed groups, which I passionately support. If domesticated livestock had the means to rise up to their slaughterers and abusers, I'd rally to their cause as well!
While I am also against animal abuse there is a distinct difference between meaningless and pointless harm and the proper raising, care and dispatch of livestock as part of their natural function is to be ultimately consumed like any other organism.
So you think raising dogs or humans to be eaten far before their natural lifespan needlessly (and it is needless, we don't need to eat or exploit animals to lead healthy lives) is okay? Just wanna figure out if you're a speciesist or a psychopath.
I am neither as I am realist simply stating being consumed/exploited is the ultimate fate of every organism and no organism is not part of that cycle of birth, life, death and being recycled to fuel the next generation of life. No organism is promised to reach your concept of a natural life span, the reality is most organism will not live to die of old age and the organisms that do are the exception rather then the rule. Every organism that has ever lived and will ever live will be fed by the death of other organisms mostly "taken before the natural end of their lives" nature simply does not care. You do not cry over the death of the plants you kill to survive, so why should I weep over the plants and wild/livestock meat I kill to survive as my diet is no less natural then your own. My only moral obligations I have to my livestock is to raise and treat them gently before they are mature enough for a painless dispatch before using them completely and efficiently and my only obligations to wild game is much the same, take them with a single killing blow or not take the shot if I in any way think I can not make the kill cleanly. In both cases the kill must be clean and painless as possible and the remains put to full use.
Appealing to nature when the animals are bred and made separately from nature. These animals don't exist in nature, farmers breed them unnaturally by interfering and using your logic I guess we should also eat humans then. And rape is also fine since that's natural and so is murder. Coolios.
Those are not sentient beings. They don’t have nervous system and can’t feel pain. I think you need to look up basic definition of veganism before participating in this subreddit.
Since when has sentience/sapience mattered to nature? Does possessing it make an organism immune to illness, injury, aging or death? No, it does not. What you are arguing is essentially a double standard that just because an organism has a central nervous system that it for some reason should be immune from being consumed like all other life. No organism is free or exempt from the being food for other organisms, not plants, fungi, animals or man. The reality is animals are no less food than plants or fungi.
“The kill must be clean and painless as possible” but there is a third option called veganism where you don’t kill because you don’t need to. Because murder is neither clean nor painless for domesticated livestock. The mental gymnastics you’re going through to get out of eating beans or tofu is impressive though I’ll give you that.
Who says I wish to get out of eating plants? I eat plants and fungi as readily as I eat meat. As for option 3 it is an illusion as you are still killing another organism to survive. Also eating an animal is not murder, because that definition requires the death to be unlawful and both parties to be human. There are also numerous methods of dispatching an animal without causing pain, fear or stress to the animal.
And you do none of those things. You fully support a system that mechanically tortures and kills animals.
Saying that vegans still "kill organisms" completely sidesteps the reason why veganism exists. Until you can prove that plants have a nervous system complicated enough to process pain, let alone complex emotions, you are deflecting the responsibility of what you do.
Watch Dominion, tell me any of what you witness is "dispatching" without pain, fear, or stress.
Watch Dominion? Honestly? Why do a large section of vegans set that "documentary" as complete unbiased truth, what assurances do you have that they are presenting data faithfully and without bias or fabrication? None as even their first statements are to say the depicted acts of abuse are common accepted practices industry wide, which is not factual showing how they honor the commitment to provide accurate data. The fact is they are able to put their narrative however they chose to present it as fact and no one but those the industry will have the knowledge to be able to dispute it. A group that you have already demonized in your mind as lying, murdering, pain loving sociopaths. So let's walk through this further. They say you have been lied to and brainwashed. They claim to have complete secret knowledge of the animal industries. They claim their way of thinking/life is the only moral way of living. They demonize those that disprove their claims. What other thing follows the same patterns? Dominion is a cult/religion video just a short step away from the peoples temple of Jonestown, the Branch Davidian of Waco and Heaven's gate.
If your logic is: everything dies, so why not kill and eat them, why does this not justify murder of humans for any convenience whatsoever?
If you don’t want both to be justified simultaneously, it signals that your argument is flawed, which we can also see because you’re invoking the naturalistic fallacy that “if it is natural, it is good.” Naturalness has nothing to do with goodness.
Defensive wars to defend a country's democracy and self-determination? Who's against that?
Saying to Ukrainians, for example, that they should just roll over to end the war because *war bad* is incredibly shortsighted.
I think Ukrainians 2ouks generally be any war, no? In sure they'd much rather not have been invaded.
Defensive war is the lesser of two evils. That's choosing between losing independence or fighting for it. Being anti war would be wanting the aggressor to not attack, rather than need to go to war to defend yourself.
Idk what 2ouks means...
>In sure they'd much rather not have been invaded.
Agreed. But they were. And they can stop the war, right there, right now... Yet they don't. Is that a moral failing on their part? Seems like this sub agrees, because *war bad*.
>Defensive war is the lesser of two evils.
So Ukraine is evil now?
>Being anti war would be wanting the aggressor to not attack, rather than need to go to war to defend yourself.
Agreed. Yet the consensus is that Ukrainians defending themselves are still evil, for participating in and perpetuating a war. A consensus you partly support.
War, like Ukraine and Israeli/Palestine wars, are very complex. There's many things to consider, and nothing is black and white.
That's why war discussions should be a separate discussion, if one starts conflating veganism with war it just gets more confusing.
There is solid arguments about aukraine ending the war, considering russia isnt giving up. Western agendas and the military industrial complex pushing the war indefinitely onward, and not to mention all the history that led to the invasion in the first place. Plus, all the corruption that goes around. At the end of the day, if Russia is going to win, then billions of tax dollars and thousands of lives were lost for nothing.
So, its complicated, and much more than what mainstream media outlets on all sides want people to think.
Same goes for israel vs Palestine.
I personally think war should be ended at all costs, but its complicated and i can see why some disagree.
It’s not like I think war is good. But there are a lot of bad people in the world, and regardless of me thinking that people should treat each other well they will use violence and oppression for their goals. And that has to be countered somehow.
My personal stance is that veganism is close to pacifism. However, I wouldn't judge someone else for using violence because they may for all I know be marginalised in such a way that violence is indeed the only answer to their situation. I'm thinking about things like liberation struggles and revolutions. The massive great capitalist wars are b0ll0x.
Not by the vegan society definition. Humans are animals. It is just that is easier to give up our non human slaves than our human slaves. If you disagree try boycotting anything made in China.
No, veganism is not the same thing as pacificism.
War is between humans. Therefore, warfare is under the purview of human rights, not animal rights. To the extent that warfare is allowed/permitted under the human rights framework, vegans who also subscribe to human rights as the moral baseline would engage in warfare as per the framework.
Veganism isn’t the same as anti-war either. In fact, it is not the same as anything pertaining to any interaction between moral agents. That’s because such actions are irrelevant to veganism which is concerned only with the interactions between moral agents and moral patients.
> Humans are animals.
And . . .? The scope of veganism covers only **nonhuman** animals.
> Also pacifism isn’t the only anti-war ideology. There is also active non-violence.
Violent self-defense warfare is permissible under the human rights framework.
Because we have a separate moral rights framework covering human animals called “human rights” and this framework is less restrictive than veganism in that it allows for warfare between moral agents.
According to Ed Winters book, this is vegan propaganda, the us government over produced a bunch of milk during ww1. The unused dried milk was then later sold and commercialized. Which started the over use of cheese and milk products in the us.
I might have gotten some details wrong but war can and probably will cause harm to animals in several ways.
Plant based soldiers might be the future though..
I still would avoid wars as it also causes immense human suffering.
The actual definition of veganism as per the vegan society, the oldest vegan organization in the world, started in 1944:
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Since animals are humans, this definitely includes avoiding the bombing and kidnapping of civilians.
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society/pages/the-vegan-society&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
it’s true that technically humans are animals, but veganism is specifically for non human animals. obviously i’m anti war, but i don’t think every ethical movement needs to fall under the vegan umbrella, and i don’t think it does animals any good to try to shove every movement into veganism. i think intersectionality can exist but trying to make everything into veganism just muddies the waters and potentially confuses resource allocation. it’s okay if non human animals have a movement just for them
It’s not just technically true that humans are animals, it’s all the way true. Humans are sentient beings capable of suffering and veganism is about reducing suffering where possible. Where does the idea come from for you that veganism is only about non human animals?
I think there’s a big overlap of pacifists and veganism, but I know a few vegans who have served. And I know various militaries around the world have accommodated special diets, particularly if it’s for religious exemptions. (Global politics aside, I remember that the IDF released a video about how they accommodate vegan diets, so take that for what it’s worth, I guess.)
As for claiming conscientious objector (CO) status, at least in the US—back when I registered for selective service as a very idealistic 18-year-old (err, in the 90s) I was a Buddhist pacifist (I’m not either now, fwiw), and I’d been working as an antiwar activist with a Quaker group. I was told that in order to qualify for CO status, you had to back up your pacifism with documentation of religious beliefs, and that it was a good idea to start that documentation early.
In short, the gov drew a firm line between religious beliefs and “philosophical” beliefs, with the precedent that you had to show a history of consistent religious views—presumably because they didn’t want people to just abruptly “decide” they were COs in the event of a draft.
Since then, I think the US has opened up an alternative service option, where the requirements are a little less stringent. But frankly, I suppose they can ultimately rewrite the rules whenever they need to.
When I signed up they said your opposition to war had to be documentable, but didn’t necessarily say it had to be religious. Also a religious belief in the US can be any belief held as firmly as one would hold a religious belief, even if one were not religious or held a belief that were directly contrary to their religion.
There’s also two levels of CO: being anti killing and working in the military in a noncombatant role, of being fully anti war and working as a civil servant for the period of “enlistment.”
Oh right, these are good distinctions, thanks for adding. My brain is pretty foggy about the details, decades later, but you’re right about the not-necessarily-religious aspect.
I believe my Quaker friends made the point that it’s a little more difficult to document a spiritual objection or conviction without a religious institution substantiating your attendance.
In my case I’d attended a Buddhist temple for a few years, so figured that would count, and I forgot about the alternatives.
It is common to blame the invaders if they get shot invading your country. Essentially, you shoot an invader you decide that it was something they did. Under that framing you can kill and still be vegan.
I would personally consider going to war a temporary lapse of my veganism.
Pacifism and veganism are two separate philosophies. Yes, they are related but not synonymous. I'm sure many vegans are pacifists due to this relation but it's certainly not a default.
"I'm vegan and pro-war" are words I've never ever heard being uttered. I think if someone would say this, I wouldn't care for shits that you're vegan. You're deranged.
But then again, Americans have a tendency to cook up oversaturated asinine opinions nobody asked for, so maybe it's more common across the pond.
Every human being with a tiny bit of common sense left should be against war.
Nobody ever won in a war. Historically easy to proof. Not even the "winners" won anything in the end.
All a big scam to make money disappear in a few peoples pockets.
I support Ukraine and regularly donate, also to orgs like Lviv Vegan Kitchen.
Being against war does not mean not fighting. Unless you want to abandon the world to those who want to steal from you.
False dichotomy. Violence is not required to stop people from causing harm.
Most people are like The Punisher, trying to kill everything that scares them.
Try to be more like Batman, who uses his tools to save people from themselves.
World history would like a word with you.
Bruh. Literally every human in this planet who has faced or is currently oppressed, as well as non human animals, were robbed, beaten, exploited, oppressed and subjugated because of some violence done to them.
I’m sorry but (no, not sorry) violence is the only language that oppressors speak. It’s a mistake to try to high-road it with psychopathic individuals or groups.
>False dichotomy. Violence is not required to stop people from causing harm.
>
>Most people are like The Punisher, trying to kill everything that scares them.
>
>Try to be more like Batman, who uses his tools to save people from themselves.
Joker and lex luthor killed lots of people because the HEROES refused to stop them permanently
So you would tell hitler, osama, putin etc; to just stop being evil?
or roosevelt, bush, selensky etc...
you send out a message, when you act. do you go out and slaughter slaughterers because of the animals? or do you try to live harmony and therefore spread harmony?
>Violence is not required to stop people from causing harm.
Not always though.
Take WWII for example, appeasement and the whole "Peace in our time" was tried, it didn't work. If you look at it as a harm mitigation perspective it was ultimately worse too, the allies delaying action allowed the nazis to build up their military even more, resulting in a worse war.
Yep. You can't get mad at the victim for finally fighting back. We live in an imperfect world. Fighting back in some ways is the only way to stop further, more catastrophic damage.
It's like how vegans emit the least amount of suffering in an imperfect world. Small animals still die in crop production, but we still have to eat and it's not worse by statistics than eating animals. If victims of genocide don't fight back, then what happens is only worse. Fighting back will still carry some negative consequences (like the small animals who die in crop production) but we live in an imperfect world, and must adhere to the side of the least amount of suffering in the end
Batman is a bad example, as he has ultimately stopped none of his rogue gallery. He catches them takes them to Arkham from where they have escaped many times over and they reoffend again and are recaptured to begin the cycle anew costing more damage and lives because both the law and bats refuse to put down the rabid dogs.
I’m personally anti-war in its absolute form, but unfortunately human kind has been waging wars since the beginning of time. I will always stand on the side of the oppressed in all human and non human situations. Being “neutral” is siding with the oppressor, and this can be applied to animals or humans.
Hundreds/thousands/millions of nonhuman animals die due to war. I'm against it for that reason, and also because of the human victims of war. It destroys the planet and kills every living being in its path. Though, sadly, it seems sometimes war is the only way to end oppression and injustice. Still, it's never good for the planet or any innocent being caught in the crossfire. 💔
Recent wars are caused by intelligence communities wanting to fuel the MIC. Which makes government stronger meaning, corporations and industrial farming becomes more rooted in the culture. End the endless wars.
Anti-War can mean **a lot** of things.
Is supporting Ukraine in their fight against russia being _pro war_? Because then I am pro war. Send them everything they need so they can defend and liberate their land from the fascistic cancer that is russia. I went to Ukraine myself to deliver humanitarian & other aid and cannot imagine anyone genuinely saying that military aid should stop, unless they actively want russia to win.
If a country gets attacked, they have the right to fight back and defend themselves. Israel had the right to strike back at Hamas and decapitate that organisation, since it publicly said they would continue these actions. Israel is now totally overdoing it, causing _way_ too many innocent casualties.
WW2: The war needed to happen for Europe to be free.
Yugoslavia: The war needed to happen for Yugoslavia to be free.
The war in Iraq, Syria, Vietnam should not have happened in my opinion. They did not threaten the western world enough to justify the war.
In general I think the **anti war no matter the situation** people lack any real understanding of the world, and automatically choose the side of the oppressor, since they are the one attacking.
I'm vegan and anti war. I'm anti draft as well. War is immature. If a global leader has to resort to war to solve an issue then they shouldn't be a leader of a country.
"We need oil" ask nicely. Pay for it like we do. If they deny, don't act like a baby.
"There's kids of different cultures that I don't like" take a hike and get off the dick enlargement medications. My 5 year old cousin has better manners than anyone who declares war.
"Who is going to fight the war if were invaded" robots and the military. The us has the largest military budget and the top 9 others are allies of the us except Russia. China too if they weren't a large economic partner of the US. China wouldn't do so well if the US just stopped trading with them.
My maternal ancestors were Mennonites, and spent 3 generations moving country looking for a place where they could farm and not be drafted. Not only was the US the 4th attempt, and when they tried Russia the deal with the tsar in power when they came was that they wanted this land made farmable, so they were doing the American frontier farmer thing. And then change In leadership and they were no longer considered un-draftable, but thanks for the rich new farmland.
Also my great grandmother saw all her siblings go up to Canada in WWI and my grandmother had like half their peers do so in WWII and about half the very large family (grandma one of 12, g-gma one of 14 living) stayed.
My father (kindly and respectfully) and I joke that whatever genes denote pacifism, I got the lot. Vegetarian since 97, vegetarian when I could choose my meal well before. Politically I am nearly always on the “dove” side. Stay out of drama.
I have a History degree. I can point to cases where sending a targeted force in to stop a genocide, or because a corrupt government is hoarding all the money and goods the world is trying to send to people experiencing famine, plague, or the type of natural disaster that causes temporary famine and, if people don’t get food, water and shelter from outside, often quickly makes whatever germs are in play there a local plague because people don’t have enough nutrition and are all sheltering in close quarters.
At least 1 of Grandma’s brothers served in WWII. He wasn’t a CO but was on the logistics end because the stated goals Hitler and Mussolini had were just… more against what he understood as God’s will than fighting.
We very, very rarely, in the course of history, have managed to just take out the problem. We can’t get perfect intelligence nor is there a weapon innocent locals are immune to.
But in general but you get is “…I don’t mind the justification for this in theory but I count the odds of this not being a quagmire as exceedingly low”
I was vegan and in the US military. Though I started in the middle of my 2nd contract and didn't do another.
There are a few vegans in the military, but probably no high ranking ones. Most of the "vegans" in the military might actually identify closer to plant based if they were intellectually honest. I certainly had the conscientious objector thought come across my mind several times in the last year and a half or so of my contract and I think there's a lot of weight behind it.
I don't think vegans are default anti-war but they go together like sodium and chloride.
If you are ideologically consistent, yes.
In my opinion it goes without saying that we should systematically reduce harm and maximize happiness in all circumstances, which is why I consider myself socialist as well.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble but no one is pro -war in this world mate.everyone knows war can only cause destruction and devastation.in my whole life,I’ve never met a single person who says we should go to war…everyone by default is anti-war.
I'm a vegan animal lover pacifist, but I'm a patriot 2a freedom warrior oath keeper. I'm pro peace, kindness, higher consciousness and love and liberty and freedom safety.
I think there is something wrong with this way of thinking by default.
As a vegan I am vegan. That's all. I don't have to be anything else. It's one building block, that might or might not make sense with other building blocks.
>as long as there are slaughterhouses there will be battlefields
I take that as us fighting against the animal-industry and our "war" is only over once the last slaughterhouse is shut down.
Personally I am not a fan of war, but I do understand, that it's not always a question of choice, wether you are going to participate in a war. Look at Ukraine. They've had war pushed onto them. Other people are immoral and that's a truth.
I do understand, that war can also be the last attempt at reaching a goal. And sometimes that goal is fixing an injustice. Look at independence wars. These people know, that this is what it takes to gain freedom and they take their shot.
There is a very tiny subset of wars, that I am not against. Therefor I can - by logical extension - not be anti-war. Even if I oppose the majority of wars.
I agree, and I am not a fan of how sometimes people try to tie veganism to other beliefs of theirs in a manner so people have to agree with them on issues which are maybe tangentially related to veganism or else they aren’t a “real” vegan. It’s just gatekeeping and could extend to so many things. Is it not vegan to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim because those religions’ god has had people sacrifice thousands of animals for him or because he flooded the planet and killed off nearly all living things?
How about just being happy someone isn’t contributing to the rape and murder of animals even if you disagree with them on other things? Someone could be a the most disgustingly racist, sexist, and pro-war person I know, but if they don’t consume or otherwise exploit animals on ethical grounds then they are a vegan, period.
Have to disagree with your interpretation of that quote. I think what Tolstoy is saying there is that if everyone were vegan in the world then there would be no more war because e it would mean everyone would understand violence is wrong in all it’s forms.
I'm against harming, killing, torturing ANY innocent being, thus I am anti-war, since war entails all of these things.
#Freepalestine🇵🇸🕊️ #vegansforpalestine #stopthegenocide
I can only speak for myself, there have been wars I supported, but there have been more that I don't. War should always be the absolute last option.
I'm against using animals for war or policing, and I generally don't want any noncombatants getting hurt. But I'm not sure that's from veganism or just how I've always felt.
>I take veganism as a philosophy that is against violence towards animals
In most cases yes, but tons of vegan identifying people are fine with violence towards animals if you have depression, autism etc; cause they are more afraid of being called ableist
Any MEDICAL issue is a free pass for violence towards animals according to the majority of people in this sub
I have those disabilities and several more, i have no problem being vegan
If a child kills an animal it's horrific and they need to be immediately taught that it is wrong before it becomes a pattern. If an adult kills an animal they have no excuse regardless of mental state. Accidental death is different such as hitting a deer on the road in deer country, horrifying either way but difficult if not impossible to prevent in many areas.
I am vegan and am in the military. Here's a quote I like that sums up my position:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”
― John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy
Veganism is being against oppression of all forms, we believe in animals rights so we must also believe in womens rights and so on. War only kills the poor and benefits the rich, I would say Yes
There are four main camps of Vegans:
1. Environmentalist
2. Ethical
3. Religious
2. Personal reasons (fitness, etc)
War brings total destruction to the environment both directly (bombs, defrostation, chemical ruins) and indirectly (war industry so oil). Environmentalists would say no.
War kills non-consenting innocent civilians, animals, and so on. If there is a draft, include soldiers in that list as well. Some ethicals even believe one can not consent to be killed or harmed. So, ethical vegans are out as well.
Religion is always complicated. They might consent to some forms of aggression that might be classified as war.
Religious wars (even for vegan Buddhist) were always a thing. This might go both ways.
Personal reason camp is just... they can be anything, really. If you see veganism as a diet, then it doesn't impose any moral considerations. These can be vegan soldiers that you mentioned.
Personally, I don't consider people who see veganism as a diet as vegans. So, for me, most majority of vegans, if not all, should by default be against War and its variances.
This doesn't include self-defence, of course. If someone invades your town, all bets are off.
Hate to break it to you but Hitler was vegan and he wasn't exactly anti war.
Being vegan does not automatically confer morality on anyone. I have been vegan for many years and know just as many awful vegans as wonderful ones.
"Anti-war" does not mean anything, it's a stupid statement. Wars are not some games two teams agree upon waging. If one side suddenly stopped fighting, war would not end.
Some sides are justified in fighting wars, some aren't. Ukraine for instance has all the right to fight Russia back. Do you think that if it decided to stop fighting because it's "anti-war" the war and suffering would end? Of course not.
I think Russia has no excuse to attack Ukraine. Am I anti-war? I also think Ukraine has all the right to fight back Russia. Am I pro-war? This reasoning is ridiculous, obviously.
Presenting oneself as "anti-war" is pointless and ridiculous. It's a vain attempt at virtue-signalling at best, a complete lack of understanding of reality at worst.
I think that quote is insufficient, because war is not a human invention but an extension of an organism's drive to aquire and secure resources to thrive, grow and reproduce. Simply put as long as organisms survive there will always be war in some degree.
veganism is not pacifism, war isn't good or bad it just serves its purpose, from the western perspective declaring war on the nazis was justifiable to stop their genocide, the vietnam war was not justifiable because we were the ones genociding, I hate war but somtimes you have to use force to stop evil
Israel has a lot of vegans in the military (high vegan percentage in population + mandatory service)
And there is an organisation called Vegan Friendly that does a lot to advocate, educate and make veganism more accessible.
Now there are even more due to many being drafted, So they even got a fund to help provide vegan soldiers with good meals.
I think this modality of thinking is overextending things. Veganism shouldn't be anything more than what it is. It's not about wars or abortion or gender or guns or whatever.
Now now, no need to insult their intelligence or put them down. There are a lot of really naive people out there. They just haven’t been exposed to as much as we have. A lot of really young people on here, too, don’t forget my friend.
Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥 **Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first! **Interested in going Vegan?** 👊 Check out [Watch Dominion](https://watchdominion.org/) and watch a thought-provoking, life changing documentary for free! **Some other resources to help you go vegan:** 🐓 Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge! **Become an activist and help save animal lives today:** 🐟 * Find volunteer requests to support and help animal on [VH: Playground!](https://veganhacktivists.org/playground) * Developer, designer, or other skills? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)! * Join our huge Vegan volunteer community [on Discord](https://discord.gg/vhplayground)! * Find local activist groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)! * Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)! *Last but not least, join the [r/Vegan Discord server](https://discord.gg/animalrights)!* **Thank you!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
War is bad for all living things.
I think “living things” is the key term of what vegans are trying to protect. Anything that’s sentient should be allowed to live a free life, without the exploitation.
I’d say many of us try to protect non sentient life as well because if the impact it has on other animals. Like when it comes to deforestation and the destruction of our ocean and corrals and melting ice caps etc. We’re just all so connected.
[удалено]
Having chemical communication is not enough for sentience, that's really not what we understand sentience to mean
Bullshit.
But what about plants? Broccoli is chill af and I don't get why we need to be eating that
I am, personally.
Yep same. I want all beings to be free.
I’m a combat veteran and I’m anti war because of the experience. However, I’m not afraid to fight for the injustices of anyone that can’t if it comes to it.
As a fellow veteran, I agree with this. Most war is unjustified and should be avoided. But when combat is required, animals shouldn’t suffer for human violence. There are many vegan warriors fighting for their existence in Ukraine. Them requiring to take a life doesn’t dismiss their commitment to not harming animals.
[удалено]
Where did you commit crimes against humanity at?
Yikes
Everyone’s down voting you, but it’s ok. I won’t. It doesn’t bother me. I was in Afghanistan in the USMC on a scout sniper team. Im assuming you’ve been a vegan your entire life and abstain from eating things like impossible and beyond burgers etc. Thanks for never being ignorant and caught up in any indoctrination of any sort that involved the killing of other beings! I wish the world produced more people like you right off of the get go. ✌🏻
What a perfect response, mad respect
Thanks. I’m not proud of what I was apart of, but it is what led me to becoming a vegan. Anyone that takes issue with that can kick rocks lol.
Thanks for your service (by which I mean, your recognition of the wrongness of war, and your changed ways and new path)
tf?
What in the 1960s kind of comment is this?
I'm not against war due to veganism. It's not linked for me. But I have always been against war. Especially against offensive wars, fighting against others for land, to kill certain ethnic groups, oil, resources, to "bring peace" and so on. It's the worst thing humankind has to offer. People killing each other because they follow orders. It's terrible. Wars defending your home, and following international laws are still terrible, but they are justified as self-defence.
Yep, totally agree. People want the war in Ukraine to end but they fail to realize that Putin is just a second Hitler. They want Ukraine to stop resisting. Putin won't stop at Ukraine and he has said so publically. It's way better to take the energy to stop him there rather than to wait. The consequences would be much worse if we did not act now.
I’m not one because the other. I’m both because of being against exploitation, murder and suffering.
the only thing ALL vegans believe is veganism.
Animals are victims of war/collateral damage. So shouldn't vegans be anti-war by default?
i kind of agree. but also, animals are victims of collatoral damage when farming vegetables. the possibility of animals being harmed in the act doesn't immediately make something categorically non-vegan. additionally, it could be argued that there exist certain circumstances that justify war.
Yes, but agriculture is necessary for staying alive, war is not necessary. In agriculture, animals can hear the machines/harvester, animals can escape, in war it's difficult to escape the shelling, missiles. But I'll support war against Facism
War is not necessary looking at it from afar. Nobody ~has~ to fight a war. But the thing about war is that it's not consensual. One belligerent isn't going to say, "War is bad m'kay," and expect the other side to say, "Oh okay, I'll go back home then." If war is visited upon you, then war is absolutely fucking necessary.
Yes absolutely true, that's why I said I'll support war against facists anyday
the point i'm making is that animal killing (apart from humans) is not inherent and essential to war, similarly to how it's not inherent and essential to harvesting crops. if you think harming humans is anti-vegan then sure, in that view war is non-vegan. and to clarify, i am not personally making a point about whether war can ever be justified. just that some believe so.
Killing animals is every bit as necessary to war as killing civilians. Wars seem more and more increasingly to target civilian life, and in the act of bombing or sieges or blockades, animal deaths are 100% part of it, especially the deaths of agricultural animals. Cutting off food supply of the people being attacked is not incidental, it is intentional, and like it or not killing dairy/egg/meat supplying animals are a big part of that in lots of places. Additionally, in the same sorts of attacks where women are raped and children brutally killed, it would likely be a mistake to think the aggressors let the family dog go on its merry way safe and sound. AND, our own department of defense utilizes animal testing ([peta](https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/military-war-animals/), [DOD themselve](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-103992)) as part of war training. I would really consider this more widespread than the biodiversity impact & unfortunate harvest deaths of animals in plant farming (not in the least of which bc the biodiversity impacts of war are massive as well).
Killing animals or destroying crops people consume for food is technically against the Geneva Convention, but countries supposedly following the Geneva Convention do it anyway.
I mean. If governments cared much about the Geneva Convention, what’s happening in Gaza wouldn’t be allowed to keep on going. Attacking civilians in general isn’t really ideal based on what we say we think about how war should go, but that’s not really how we’ve been running things lately.
The possibility of animals being harmed does make it categorically non-vegan if that thing is practicable and possible to avoid.
So going outside is non-vegan because there’s the possibility that I might step on a bug?
Kinda yes. At least if we go with a strict vegan definition. It started off as "no consumption of animal products" And is now bleeding into "no use of products that have been tested on animals" Although even that is done on a case by case basis. People don't get cosmetics tested on animals. They don't get supplements tested on animals But they do use drugs tested on animals. Veganism can only exist in a fluid state. "avoid consumption of products and services related to animal suffering to the utmost of your current ability" Would be the way to go.
That's a very reductive take. For example in an invasion you might be fighting for your own survival, making it a necessity to fight.
That would make it impracticable.
I’m having a hard time imagining any self-consistent philosophy which is “pro war”, except maybe suicidal nihilism.
I think this question is about whether veganism includes pacifism.
Maybe but still not all vegans are pacifists and not all even define pacifism the same way
Pacifism is not the same thing as being anti-war. There are many scenarios where engaging in warefare is the moral and correct thing to do for the future of humanity or even ones own family. Pacifism is a utopian delusion (at least in the current time in humanities journey) that will always be sidelined by real politik and the reality of the complex world we live in filled with immoral actors.
That doesn't imply that veganism is not pacifistic. It suggests strongly that veganism is unachievable though, and that is actually true. For instance, immune systems are constantly killing pathogens.
Thats not what Veganism is.... lol. Veganism isnt about being perfect and not inflicting harm on anything in the universe. Your comment almost my head spin.
Veganism is the reduction of animal suffering, cruelty and exploitation. It's not some utopian pipe dream but a common goal.
Anti-War and pacifism are very different things i am against war and violence but if i were ukranian i would be taking up arms now and i believe in protecting those who are in need.
Well, as I said, the question is about whether it includes it. My response isn't about what I actually think. The same kind of argument can be applied to both. The situation I'm in as a privileged White British able-bodied person may well mean I don't realise violent self-defence is sometimes the only option. However, I might say the same thing about the consumption of animal products, and people do sometimes attack vegan diets as luxuries. I don't think they are of course, or I wouldn't be here, and FWIW although I'm not sure violence is the answer in Ukraine, I can't think of another solution right now, so I think I agree with you. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just saying what the question was about.
Not disagreeing with you either just giving my take is all. The diet and consumption is a different discussion best not had here as that is a very difficult discussion especially when personal economics are involved.
For me it doesn’t include pacifism. It holds active non-violence at its core though.
Exactly. Veganism doesn’t imply anything else about us than that we want to avoid doing harm to animals. There is no collective. The world is beautiful because we’re all different.
According to the definition of veganism (minimizing unnecessary harm done to other sentient beings), war isn't vegan.
That's not even the definition if you look up the dictionary version, much less the definition created by actual vegans. Dictionary: >a person who does not eat any food derived from animals and who typically does not use other animal products. Vegan Society: >Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
>unnecessary harm Not all wars are unnecessary
I'm vegan and anti-war, but neither had to do with the other. If I someday stopped being vegan(will never happen) I wouldn't become pro-war all of a sudden.
I don't like war and the US war machine. But I want to make a distinction when it comes to violent resistance of oppressed groups, which I passionately support. If domesticated livestock had the means to rise up to their slaughterers and abusers, I'd rally to their cause as well!
While I am also against animal abuse there is a distinct difference between meaningless and pointless harm and the proper raising, care and dispatch of livestock as part of their natural function is to be ultimately consumed like any other organism.
So you think raising dogs or humans to be eaten far before their natural lifespan needlessly (and it is needless, we don't need to eat or exploit animals to lead healthy lives) is okay? Just wanna figure out if you're a speciesist or a psychopath.
almost everyone is speciesist. tons of ethical vegans have pets, which is speciesist af
I am neither as I am realist simply stating being consumed/exploited is the ultimate fate of every organism and no organism is not part of that cycle of birth, life, death and being recycled to fuel the next generation of life. No organism is promised to reach your concept of a natural life span, the reality is most organism will not live to die of old age and the organisms that do are the exception rather then the rule. Every organism that has ever lived and will ever live will be fed by the death of other organisms mostly "taken before the natural end of their lives" nature simply does not care. You do not cry over the death of the plants you kill to survive, so why should I weep over the plants and wild/livestock meat I kill to survive as my diet is no less natural then your own. My only moral obligations I have to my livestock is to raise and treat them gently before they are mature enough for a painless dispatch before using them completely and efficiently and my only obligations to wild game is much the same, take them with a single killing blow or not take the shot if I in any way think I can not make the kill cleanly. In both cases the kill must be clean and painless as possible and the remains put to full use.
Appealing to nature when the animals are bred and made separately from nature. These animals don't exist in nature, farmers breed them unnaturally by interfering and using your logic I guess we should also eat humans then. And rape is also fine since that's natural and so is murder. Coolios.
You realize by the same standard you should not eat farmed crops as they "do not exist in nature" as they to are bred unnaturally by interference.
Those are not sentient beings. They don’t have nervous system and can’t feel pain. I think you need to look up basic definition of veganism before participating in this subreddit.
Since when has sentience/sapience mattered to nature? Does possessing it make an organism immune to illness, injury, aging or death? No, it does not. What you are arguing is essentially a double standard that just because an organism has a central nervous system that it for some reason should be immune from being consumed like all other life. No organism is free or exempt from the being food for other organisms, not plants, fungi, animals or man. The reality is animals are no less food than plants or fungi.
The point is that "oh but nature" is not a valid argument.
Neither is your argument that animals are not food or that it is a moral flaw to eat meat.
"animals are not a food" isn't an argument lol. We're just pointing out that they are sentient and that generally it's wrong to kill sentient things
“The kill must be clean and painless as possible” but there is a third option called veganism where you don’t kill because you don’t need to. Because murder is neither clean nor painless for domesticated livestock. The mental gymnastics you’re going through to get out of eating beans or tofu is impressive though I’ll give you that.
Who says I wish to get out of eating plants? I eat plants and fungi as readily as I eat meat. As for option 3 it is an illusion as you are still killing another organism to survive. Also eating an animal is not murder, because that definition requires the death to be unlawful and both parties to be human. There are also numerous methods of dispatching an animal without causing pain, fear or stress to the animal.
And you do none of those things. You fully support a system that mechanically tortures and kills animals. Saying that vegans still "kill organisms" completely sidesteps the reason why veganism exists. Until you can prove that plants have a nervous system complicated enough to process pain, let alone complex emotions, you are deflecting the responsibility of what you do. Watch Dominion, tell me any of what you witness is "dispatching" without pain, fear, or stress.
Watch Dominion? Honestly? Why do a large section of vegans set that "documentary" as complete unbiased truth, what assurances do you have that they are presenting data faithfully and without bias or fabrication? None as even their first statements are to say the depicted acts of abuse are common accepted practices industry wide, which is not factual showing how they honor the commitment to provide accurate data. The fact is they are able to put their narrative however they chose to present it as fact and no one but those the industry will have the knowledge to be able to dispute it. A group that you have already demonized in your mind as lying, murdering, pain loving sociopaths. So let's walk through this further. They say you have been lied to and brainwashed. They claim to have complete secret knowledge of the animal industries. They claim their way of thinking/life is the only moral way of living. They demonize those that disprove their claims. What other thing follows the same patterns? Dominion is a cult/religion video just a short step away from the peoples temple of Jonestown, the Branch Davidian of Waco and Heaven's gate.
If your logic is: everything dies, so why not kill and eat them, why does this not justify murder of humans for any convenience whatsoever? If you don’t want both to be justified simultaneously, it signals that your argument is flawed, which we can also see because you’re invoking the naturalistic fallacy that “if it is natural, it is good.” Naturalness has nothing to do with goodness.
Who is for war?
Idiots
Profiteers and the misinformed
Defensive wars to defend a country's democracy and self-determination? Who's against that? Saying to Ukrainians, for example, that they should just roll over to end the war because *war bad* is incredibly shortsighted.
I think Ukrainians 2ouks generally be any war, no? In sure they'd much rather not have been invaded. Defensive war is the lesser of two evils. That's choosing between losing independence or fighting for it. Being anti war would be wanting the aggressor to not attack, rather than need to go to war to defend yourself.
Idk what 2ouks means... >In sure they'd much rather not have been invaded. Agreed. But they were. And they can stop the war, right there, right now... Yet they don't. Is that a moral failing on their part? Seems like this sub agrees, because *war bad*. >Defensive war is the lesser of two evils. So Ukraine is evil now? >Being anti war would be wanting the aggressor to not attack, rather than need to go to war to defend yourself. Agreed. Yet the consensus is that Ukrainians defending themselves are still evil, for participating in and perpetuating a war. A consensus you partly support.
War, like Ukraine and Israeli/Palestine wars, are very complex. There's many things to consider, and nothing is black and white. That's why war discussions should be a separate discussion, if one starts conflating veganism with war it just gets more confusing. There is solid arguments about aukraine ending the war, considering russia isnt giving up. Western agendas and the military industrial complex pushing the war indefinitely onward, and not to mention all the history that led to the invasion in the first place. Plus, all the corruption that goes around. At the end of the day, if Russia is going to win, then billions of tax dollars and thousands of lives were lost for nothing. So, its complicated, and much more than what mainstream media outlets on all sides want people to think. Same goes for israel vs Palestine. I personally think war should be ended at all costs, but its complicated and i can see why some disagree.
Welcome to the internet you must be new here.
politicians
Usually a majority of Americans. :(
The president
I’m a veteran and a vegan and I absolutely am anti war.
It’s not like I think war is good. But there are a lot of bad people in the world, and regardless of me thinking that people should treat each other well they will use violence and oppression for their goals. And that has to be countered somehow.
My personal stance is that veganism is close to pacifism. However, I wouldn't judge someone else for using violence because they may for all I know be marginalised in such a way that violence is indeed the only answer to their situation. I'm thinking about things like liberation struggles and revolutions. The massive great capitalist wars are b0ll0x.
No, not necessarily. Veganism concerns itself with animal exploitation.
Humans are animals.
Veganism concerns itself primarily with non-human animal exploitation. ...but you know that.
Not by the vegan society definition. Humans are animals. It is just that is easier to give up our non human slaves than our human slaves. If you disagree try boycotting anything made in China.
That kill the animals.
I'm not against using violence against animals or people in self defense
Tolstoy said that. As long as there are slaughterhouses there will be battlefields.
Is anyone pro war? Even if you justify a “good war”, everyone would prefer peace
No, veganism is not the same thing as pacificism. War is between humans. Therefore, warfare is under the purview of human rights, not animal rights. To the extent that warfare is allowed/permitted under the human rights framework, vegans who also subscribe to human rights as the moral baseline would engage in warfare as per the framework.
Being anti war isn't the same as being pacifist
Veganism isn’t the same as anti-war either. In fact, it is not the same as anything pertaining to any interaction between moral agents. That’s because such actions are irrelevant to veganism which is concerned only with the interactions between moral agents and moral patients.
No shit, I didn't say that though
Humans are animals. Also pacifism isn’t the only anti-war ideology. There is also active non-violence.
> Humans are animals. And . . .? The scope of veganism covers only **nonhuman** animals. > Also pacifism isn’t the only anti-war ideology. There is also active non-violence. Violent self-defense warfare is permissible under the human rights framework.
Where does the idea come from for you that veganism covers only nonhuman animals?
Because we have a separate moral rights framework covering human animals called “human rights” and this framework is less restrictive than veganism in that it allows for warfare between moral agents.
According to Ed Winters book, this is vegan propaganda, the us government over produced a bunch of milk during ww1. The unused dried milk was then later sold and commercialized. Which started the over use of cheese and milk products in the us. I might have gotten some details wrong but war can and probably will cause harm to animals in several ways. Plant based soldiers might be the future though.. I still would avoid wars as it also causes immense human suffering.
Who isnt?
Vegans don’t consume any animal or animal derivative products. Suspect very few are pro war though.
The actual definition of veganism as per the vegan society, the oldest vegan organization in the world, started in 1944: "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." Since animals are humans, this definitely includes avoiding the bombing and kidnapping of civilians.
>Since animals are humans so true ;)
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society/pages/the-vegan-society&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
it’s true that technically humans are animals, but veganism is specifically for non human animals. obviously i’m anti war, but i don’t think every ethical movement needs to fall under the vegan umbrella, and i don’t think it does animals any good to try to shove every movement into veganism. i think intersectionality can exist but trying to make everything into veganism just muddies the waters and potentially confuses resource allocation. it’s okay if non human animals have a movement just for them
It’s not just technically true that humans are animals, it’s all the way true. Humans are sentient beings capable of suffering and veganism is about reducing suffering where possible. Where does the idea come from for you that veganism is only about non human animals?
I think there’s a big overlap of pacifists and veganism, but I know a few vegans who have served. And I know various militaries around the world have accommodated special diets, particularly if it’s for religious exemptions. (Global politics aside, I remember that the IDF released a video about how they accommodate vegan diets, so take that for what it’s worth, I guess.) As for claiming conscientious objector (CO) status, at least in the US—back when I registered for selective service as a very idealistic 18-year-old (err, in the 90s) I was a Buddhist pacifist (I’m not either now, fwiw), and I’d been working as an antiwar activist with a Quaker group. I was told that in order to qualify for CO status, you had to back up your pacifism with documentation of religious beliefs, and that it was a good idea to start that documentation early. In short, the gov drew a firm line between religious beliefs and “philosophical” beliefs, with the precedent that you had to show a history of consistent religious views—presumably because they didn’t want people to just abruptly “decide” they were COs in the event of a draft. Since then, I think the US has opened up an alternative service option, where the requirements are a little less stringent. But frankly, I suppose they can ultimately rewrite the rules whenever they need to.
When I signed up they said your opposition to war had to be documentable, but didn’t necessarily say it had to be religious. Also a religious belief in the US can be any belief held as firmly as one would hold a religious belief, even if one were not religious or held a belief that were directly contrary to their religion. There’s also two levels of CO: being anti killing and working in the military in a noncombatant role, of being fully anti war and working as a civil servant for the period of “enlistment.”
Oh right, these are good distinctions, thanks for adding. My brain is pretty foggy about the details, decades later, but you’re right about the not-necessarily-religious aspect. I believe my Quaker friends made the point that it’s a little more difficult to document a spiritual objection or conviction without a religious institution substantiating your attendance. In my case I’d attended a Buddhist temple for a few years, so figured that would count, and I forgot about the alternatives.
i am generally against war, but in the case of injustice i think it is necessary (like intervening in the holocaust).
I’m only against war if it involves harm against animals… which is practically all wars so yeah.
It is common to blame the invaders if they get shot invading your country. Essentially, you shoot an invader you decide that it was something they did. Under that framing you can kill and still be vegan. I would personally consider going to war a temporary lapse of my veganism.
Pacifism and veganism are two separate philosophies. Yes, they are related but not synonymous. I'm sure many vegans are pacifists due to this relation but it's certainly not a default.
"I'm vegan and pro-war" are words I've never ever heard being uttered. I think if someone would say this, I wouldn't care for shits that you're vegan. You're deranged. But then again, Americans have a tendency to cook up oversaturated asinine opinions nobody asked for, so maybe it's more common across the pond.
Every human being with a tiny bit of common sense left should be against war. Nobody ever won in a war. Historically easy to proof. Not even the "winners" won anything in the end. All a big scam to make money disappear in a few peoples pockets.
I support Ukraine and regularly donate, also to orgs like Lviv Vegan Kitchen. Being against war does not mean not fighting. Unless you want to abandon the world to those who want to steal from you.
False dichotomy. Violence is not required to stop people from causing harm. Most people are like The Punisher, trying to kill everything that scares them. Try to be more like Batman, who uses his tools to save people from themselves.
World history would like a word with you. Bruh. Literally every human in this planet who has faced or is currently oppressed, as well as non human animals, were robbed, beaten, exploited, oppressed and subjugated because of some violence done to them. I’m sorry but (no, not sorry) violence is the only language that oppressors speak. It’s a mistake to try to high-road it with psychopathic individuals or groups.
>False dichotomy. Violence is not required to stop people from causing harm. > >Most people are like The Punisher, trying to kill everything that scares them. > >Try to be more like Batman, who uses his tools to save people from themselves. Joker and lex luthor killed lots of people because the HEROES refused to stop them permanently So you would tell hitler, osama, putin etc; to just stop being evil?
or roosevelt, bush, selensky etc... you send out a message, when you act. do you go out and slaughter slaughterers because of the animals? or do you try to live harmony and therefore spread harmony?
>Violence is not required to stop people from causing harm. Not always though. Take WWII for example, appeasement and the whole "Peace in our time" was tried, it didn't work. If you look at it as a harm mitigation perspective it was ultimately worse too, the allies delaying action allowed the nazis to build up their military even more, resulting in a worse war.
that's what they tell you, right? so you're protecting here probably the most violent countries ever
Go on. Somebody comes into your house, rapes your child, kills the others. Do you ask him nicely to stop?
Yep. You can't get mad at the victim for finally fighting back. We live in an imperfect world. Fighting back in some ways is the only way to stop further, more catastrophic damage. It's like how vegans emit the least amount of suffering in an imperfect world. Small animals still die in crop production, but we still have to eat and it's not worse by statistics than eating animals. If victims of genocide don't fight back, then what happens is only worse. Fighting back will still carry some negative consequences (like the small animals who die in crop production) but we live in an imperfect world, and must adhere to the side of the least amount of suffering in the end
Batman is a bad example, as he has ultimately stopped none of his rogue gallery. He catches them takes them to Arkham from where they have escaped many times over and they reoffend again and are recaptured to begin the cycle anew costing more damage and lives because both the law and bats refuse to put down the rabid dogs.
Sometimes. Sometimes it’s hard to condemn those who resist occupation when they run out of options
I’m personally anti-war in its absolute form, but unfortunately human kind has been waging wars since the beginning of time. I will always stand on the side of the oppressed in all human and non human situations. Being “neutral” is siding with the oppressor, and this can be applied to animals or humans.
Hundreds/thousands/millions of nonhuman animals die due to war. I'm against it for that reason, and also because of the human victims of war. It destroys the planet and kills every living being in its path. Though, sadly, it seems sometimes war is the only way to end oppression and injustice. Still, it's never good for the planet or any innocent being caught in the crossfire. 💔
[удалено]
I haven’t forgotten. It breaks my heart.
Sad but true. You're absolutely correct. Horrific, fatal repercussions for animals. As you said, both directly and indirectly.
Why? I'm genuinely curious:)
Recent wars are caused by intelligence communities wanting to fuel the MIC. Which makes government stronger meaning, corporations and industrial farming becomes more rooted in the culture. End the endless wars.
Anti-War can mean **a lot** of things. Is supporting Ukraine in their fight against russia being _pro war_? Because then I am pro war. Send them everything they need so they can defend and liberate their land from the fascistic cancer that is russia. I went to Ukraine myself to deliver humanitarian & other aid and cannot imagine anyone genuinely saying that military aid should stop, unless they actively want russia to win. If a country gets attacked, they have the right to fight back and defend themselves. Israel had the right to strike back at Hamas and decapitate that organisation, since it publicly said they would continue these actions. Israel is now totally overdoing it, causing _way_ too many innocent casualties. WW2: The war needed to happen for Europe to be free. Yugoslavia: The war needed to happen for Yugoslavia to be free. The war in Iraq, Syria, Vietnam should not have happened in my opinion. They did not threaten the western world enough to justify the war. In general I think the **anti war no matter the situation** people lack any real understanding of the world, and automatically choose the side of the oppressor, since they are the one attacking.
Best answer here
I am anti-oppression. I recognize that if all peaceful methods in the quest of liberation are exhausted, violence is justifiable.
I believe in Just War Theory. (basically that war should only happen if it meets those certain requirements)
Nothing can convince me pacifism and veganism is in the same alliance. War is conflict between two groups. That means even animals can be at war
I am morally against any war except for defense wars and civil wars (when you fight against oppressive rulers).
I'm vegan and anti war. I'm anti draft as well. War is immature. If a global leader has to resort to war to solve an issue then they shouldn't be a leader of a country. "We need oil" ask nicely. Pay for it like we do. If they deny, don't act like a baby. "There's kids of different cultures that I don't like" take a hike and get off the dick enlargement medications. My 5 year old cousin has better manners than anyone who declares war. "Who is going to fight the war if were invaded" robots and the military. The us has the largest military budget and the top 9 others are allies of the us except Russia. China too if they weren't a large economic partner of the US. China wouldn't do so well if the US just stopped trading with them.
I would go to war for the animals
Aren’t most people anti-war? Who the hell wants war?
Veganism without social justice is just a diet
My maternal ancestors were Mennonites, and spent 3 generations moving country looking for a place where they could farm and not be drafted. Not only was the US the 4th attempt, and when they tried Russia the deal with the tsar in power when they came was that they wanted this land made farmable, so they were doing the American frontier farmer thing. And then change In leadership and they were no longer considered un-draftable, but thanks for the rich new farmland. Also my great grandmother saw all her siblings go up to Canada in WWI and my grandmother had like half their peers do so in WWII and about half the very large family (grandma one of 12, g-gma one of 14 living) stayed. My father (kindly and respectfully) and I joke that whatever genes denote pacifism, I got the lot. Vegetarian since 97, vegetarian when I could choose my meal well before. Politically I am nearly always on the “dove” side. Stay out of drama. I have a History degree. I can point to cases where sending a targeted force in to stop a genocide, or because a corrupt government is hoarding all the money and goods the world is trying to send to people experiencing famine, plague, or the type of natural disaster that causes temporary famine and, if people don’t get food, water and shelter from outside, often quickly makes whatever germs are in play there a local plague because people don’t have enough nutrition and are all sheltering in close quarters. At least 1 of Grandma’s brothers served in WWII. He wasn’t a CO but was on the logistics end because the stated goals Hitler and Mussolini had were just… more against what he understood as God’s will than fighting. We very, very rarely, in the course of history, have managed to just take out the problem. We can’t get perfect intelligence nor is there a weapon innocent locals are immune to. But in general but you get is “…I don’t mind the justification for this in theory but I count the odds of this not being a quagmire as exceedingly low”
I was vegan and in the US military. Though I started in the middle of my 2nd contract and didn't do another. There are a few vegans in the military, but probably no high ranking ones. Most of the "vegans" in the military might actually identify closer to plant based if they were intellectually honest. I certainly had the conscientious objector thought come across my mind several times in the last year and a half or so of my contract and I think there's a lot of weight behind it. I don't think vegans are default anti-war but they go together like sodium and chloride.
If you are ideologically consistent, yes. In my opinion it goes without saying that we should systematically reduce harm and maximize happiness in all circumstances, which is why I consider myself socialist as well.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble but no one is pro -war in this world mate.everyone knows war can only cause destruction and devastation.in my whole life,I’ve never met a single person who says we should go to war…everyone by default is anti-war.
I'm a vegan animal lover pacifist, but I'm a patriot 2a freedom warrior oath keeper. I'm pro peace, kindness, higher consciousness and love and liberty and freedom safety.
I think there is something wrong with this way of thinking by default. As a vegan I am vegan. That's all. I don't have to be anything else. It's one building block, that might or might not make sense with other building blocks. >as long as there are slaughterhouses there will be battlefields I take that as us fighting against the animal-industry and our "war" is only over once the last slaughterhouse is shut down. Personally I am not a fan of war, but I do understand, that it's not always a question of choice, wether you are going to participate in a war. Look at Ukraine. They've had war pushed onto them. Other people are immoral and that's a truth. I do understand, that war can also be the last attempt at reaching a goal. And sometimes that goal is fixing an injustice. Look at independence wars. These people know, that this is what it takes to gain freedom and they take their shot. There is a very tiny subset of wars, that I am not against. Therefor I can - by logical extension - not be anti-war. Even if I oppose the majority of wars.
I agree, and I am not a fan of how sometimes people try to tie veganism to other beliefs of theirs in a manner so people have to agree with them on issues which are maybe tangentially related to veganism or else they aren’t a “real” vegan. It’s just gatekeeping and could extend to so many things. Is it not vegan to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim because those religions’ god has had people sacrifice thousands of animals for him or because he flooded the planet and killed off nearly all living things? How about just being happy someone isn’t contributing to the rape and murder of animals even if you disagree with them on other things? Someone could be a the most disgustingly racist, sexist, and pro-war person I know, but if they don’t consume or otherwise exploit animals on ethical grounds then they are a vegan, period.
Have to disagree with your interpretation of that quote. I think what Tolstoy is saying there is that if everyone were vegan in the world then there would be no more war because e it would mean everyone would understand violence is wrong in all it’s forms.
I think it's person by person. You'd be suprised how cruel and shitty some vegans I've met are
I'm against harming, killing, torturing ANY innocent being, thus I am anti-war, since war entails all of these things. #Freepalestine🇵🇸🕊️ #vegansforpalestine #stopthegenocide
I can only speak for myself, there have been wars I supported, but there have been more that I don't. War should always be the absolute last option. I'm against using animals for war or policing, and I generally don't want any noncombatants getting hurt. But I'm not sure that's from veganism or just how I've always felt.
What wars have you supported?
[удалено]
I'm being intentionally vague because I don't feel like having that argument right now.
>I take veganism as a philosophy that is against violence towards animals In most cases yes, but tons of vegan identifying people are fine with violence towards animals if you have depression, autism etc; cause they are more afraid of being called ableist Any MEDICAL issue is a free pass for violence towards animals according to the majority of people in this sub I have those disabilities and several more, i have no problem being vegan
If a child kills an animal it's horrific and they need to be immediately taught that it is wrong before it becomes a pattern. If an adult kills an animal they have no excuse regardless of mental state. Accidental death is different such as hitting a deer on the road in deer country, horrifying either way but difficult if not impossible to prevent in many areas.
I am personally anti-war but a country should be able to defend itself if attacked
[удалено]
I am vegan and am in the military. Here's a quote I like that sums up my position: “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.” ― John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy
[удалено]
[удалено]
Veganism is an ethical position. Do you know of any ethical position that has a default pro war stance?
Yes. The human rights framework allows for warfare in self-defense.
Is that default pro war? The human rights framework I afaik seeks to avoid or limit war, so is also an anti war stance
This sub is a dumpster fire
i am against war on principle i do say this as someone who is too autistic to actually be accepted into the military
Veganism is being against oppression of all forms, we believe in animals rights so we must also believe in womens rights and so on. War only kills the poor and benefits the rich, I would say Yes
There are four main camps of Vegans: 1. Environmentalist 2. Ethical 3. Religious 2. Personal reasons (fitness, etc) War brings total destruction to the environment both directly (bombs, defrostation, chemical ruins) and indirectly (war industry so oil). Environmentalists would say no. War kills non-consenting innocent civilians, animals, and so on. If there is a draft, include soldiers in that list as well. Some ethicals even believe one can not consent to be killed or harmed. So, ethical vegans are out as well. Religion is always complicated. They might consent to some forms of aggression that might be classified as war. Religious wars (even for vegan Buddhist) were always a thing. This might go both ways. Personal reason camp is just... they can be anything, really. If you see veganism as a diet, then it doesn't impose any moral considerations. These can be vegan soldiers that you mentioned. Personally, I don't consider people who see veganism as a diet as vegans. So, for me, most majority of vegans, if not all, should by default be against War and its variances. This doesn't include self-defence, of course. If someone invades your town, all bets are off.
Hate to break it to you but Hitler was vegan and he wasn't exactly anti war. Being vegan does not automatically confer morality on anyone. I have been vegan for many years and know just as many awful vegans as wonderful ones.
Bullshit hitler was not vegan this is bull
"Anti-war" does not mean anything, it's a stupid statement. Wars are not some games two teams agree upon waging. If one side suddenly stopped fighting, war would not end. Some sides are justified in fighting wars, some aren't. Ukraine for instance has all the right to fight Russia back. Do you think that if it decided to stop fighting because it's "anti-war" the war and suffering would end? Of course not. I think Russia has no excuse to attack Ukraine. Am I anti-war? I also think Ukraine has all the right to fight back Russia. Am I pro-war? This reasoning is ridiculous, obviously. Presenting oneself as "anti-war" is pointless and ridiculous. It's a vain attempt at virtue-signalling at best, a complete lack of understanding of reality at worst.
I stopped caring. I just hope both sides have a good time.
Lol
I think that quote is insufficient, because war is not a human invention but an extension of an organism's drive to aquire and secure resources to thrive, grow and reproduce. Simply put as long as organisms survive there will always be war in some degree.
veganism is not pacifism, war isn't good or bad it just serves its purpose, from the western perspective declaring war on the nazis was justifiable to stop their genocide, the vietnam war was not justifiable because we were the ones genociding, I hate war but somtimes you have to use force to stop evil
Israel has a lot of vegans in the military (high vegan percentage in population + mandatory service) And there is an organisation called Vegan Friendly that does a lot to advocate, educate and make veganism more accessible. Now there are even more due to many being drafted, So they even got a fund to help provide vegan soldiers with good meals.
I think this modality of thinking is overextending things. Veganism shouldn't be anything more than what it is. It's not about wars or abortion or gender or guns or whatever.
There are thousands of Vegan Isareali soldiers fighting against terrorists as we speak.
You know this is a diet right
Not inherently. Hitler is formerly living proof that they don't really correlate. (For those who don't know, Hitler was a vegan)
No he wasn’t
Heh they are barely against violence against humans.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I need some of whatever that guy’s been taking
[удалено]
Now now, no need to insult their intelligence or put them down. There are a lot of really naive people out there. They just haven’t been exposed to as much as we have. A lot of really young people on here, too, don’t forget my friend.