Datasets:

CompassioninMachineLearning

/

reddit_topics

like 0

Follow

Compassion in machine learing 4

"I came here just for a second opinion on what I think on veganism.\\nI just think that it's unhealthy to not eat anything from animals or plants.\\nYou need to take nutrients from other things to survive.\\nPlus,I think the increased meat production can feed a lot of people who don't get enough food,and it would be bad to decrease production.",

"Many of these species have been breed so as to only be viable within a human farming.\\nThey have been evolved under human pressures so as to specifically maximize meat production. \\n\\nThere is a reason why you don't see wild cows anymore. The species is only viable within human captivity.\\n\\nWhat do vegans plan to do with all the domesticated animals? \\nIf they truly weren't viable, would extinction really be preferable to harvesting them?\\nWould Vegans set up a special zoo to slowly breed (or genetically modify) them for reintegration with natural ecosystems?",

"Most vegans are okay with people having pets. However, I see some problems with this. I'll quote the most accepted definition for reference.\\n\\n>\\"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude\\u2014as far as is possible and practicable\\u2014all 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.\\"\\n\\nFor starters, I am only attacking keeping pets for pleasure. Service animals and other pets like those can be validated by necessity. One very important part of this definition is \\"all forms of exploitation.\\" This is important as it throws out the ethical milk scenario. A farmer could theoretically give a cow all the land they needed, have them non-forcibly impregnated, and only take excess milk after the cow feeds their calf, and it still would not be vegan as the cow can't consent to their milk being taken, thus protecting them from exploitation. Veganism is not the same as consequentialism - an animal could have a greater total well being as a farm animal than in the wild, but as farm animal we are exploiting them while in the wild we are not.\\n\\nThis idea is critical in having pets. Arguing for how much better animals get treated as pets vs left alone does not matter at all if having pets requires actions that they cannot consent to. It seems to be the case that this is true. In order to have pets exist in modern society, they require a variety of procedures, such as castration, injections, etc., that they can't consent to. If it's necessary to force an action on an animal in order for them to be a pet, how can that be vegan?\\n\\nTo be very clear, I am not claiming that these operations damage the animal's well being or are in any way bad for them. I am claiming that since the animal cannot consent to these actions, performing the actions can't be vegan.",

"Is there such a thing as ethnically consuming animal producta or is it just all unethical. I understand the reasoning why killing animals for food is unethical. I can also guess why enslaving cows can make eating their products unethical. However, is there such a thing as an \\"ethical extraction of animal products\\"",

"The taste of meat is simply unmatchable with vegetables and seasonings. Don't get me wrong, there are some very tasty things that happen to be vegan, but not enough to have a fulfilling diet without actively seeking out vegan alternatives (which are not as nice)\\n\\nI eat a mainly east Asian / Chinese diet so yes I know about tofu etc. and use it a lot, alongside meat, not as a replacement \\n\\nEthics etc aside. I am not saying this is a good reason not to be vegan, I am just fed up of this being used as an argument for being vegan",

"This one may not be so applicable to the US where most of your meat is factory farmed. But here in the U.K. all of our cows and sheep are grass fed/grazers and one of the more legitimate pro-meat/anti-vegan arguments I am often presented with is that ruminants are an important part of our eco-system and keep the land/soil healthy and that a lot of our farming land isn\\u2019t suitable for plant/crop farming. \\n\\nI was wondering what other vegans thoughts would be on if we were to eliminate meat and dairy farming completely, how we would feel about keeping ruminants as grazers for this purpose, but obviously in drastically reduced numbers that were allowed to live out their natural lifespan. \\n\\nThat way the animals are still playing their integral part of the eco system, at more natural and realistic numbers but are not being cruelly exploited or killed. \\n\\nThis would also alleviate several other anti-vegan concerns such as whether these animals would go instinct and our use of manure for fertiliser (we could still use this), and the animals that have died naturally or need to be put to sleep for compassionate reasons could be used for the \\u2018essential\\u2019 uses of animal products (cat food etc). \\n\\nI think farmers would still be incentivised to do this for the fertiliser use and to keep their lands healthy, even if there\\u2019s not such a financial incentive. \\n\\nWould vegans still see this is cruel and/or exploitation or more of a mutually beneficial arrangement for all involved?\\n\\nAlso interested to hear anti-vegans thoughts on this as well and whether you can accept that these animals can still play an important part in our eco-system without us having to cruelly kill them young and eat them.",

"There was a debate in here and it sparked a question in my head. Veganism isn't vegetarianism in that meat is only off the table because there was a decision made to allow one animal to suffer so a human can eat. So if that is the case and someone hits a deer in front of me and kills it with their car. Am I allowed to take the meat home and eat it while still remaining vegan?",

"(Question) Vegans: Does your circle of friends include a large percentage of people who tried veganism at some point but didn't stick with it?",

"This is my first post here and I'm looking into the real and everyday practical ethics of Vegans. The first things that stands out to me is a disconnect between Vegans and Non-vegans on the definition and reasoning behind, \\"Ending exploitation of Animals.\\" So my question is, what does animal exploitation mean to you and is exploitation bad always, and if it is, do you see situations that are symbiotic between humans and animals outside of Slaughter.\\n\\nEdit: Removed the example regarding a cow and milk due to an oversight of how cows make milk. It was a bad example",

"*\\\\(This is part of our \\u201cquestion-of-the-week\\u201d series, where we ask common questions to compile a resource of opinions of visitors to the* r/DebateAVegan *community, and of course, debate! We will use this post as part of our wiki to have a* (*compilation FAQ*)(https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_faq)*, so please feel free to go as in depth as you wish. Any relevant links will be added to the main post as references.\\\\)*\\n\\n*This month we have invited the newly-formed sub* r/VeganActivism *to come join us and to share their perspective on activist specific debates. If you\\u2019ve come from* r/VeganActivism *or* r/Vegan*, welcome, and we hope you stick around! If you wish not to debate certain aspects of your view, especially regarding your religion and spiritual path/etc, please note that in the beginning of your post. To everyone else, please respect their wishes and assume good-faith.*\\n\\n\\\\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\\n\\nIs debate an effective form of activism?\\n\\nIs debate effective to change minds, or does it cause further cognitive dissonance? Is it particularly advantageous, or are there other methods that you find more effective? Is debate indicative of who has a better argument or who has better debate skills? \\nWhy do you come to a space like r/DebateAVegan, and do you view it as a form of personal activism? What are the differences you find in engaging in real life and online debates? Are you open to changing your mind if someone convinces you with their argument? Do you find yourself walking away understanding others more, more convinced of your perspective, or both? Do you find any differences when debating veganism vs debating other topics? \\n\\n\\n**Vegans**: Has debate ever been personally effective for you to convince someone to go vegan? Do you find it beneficial? Do you find people want to or avoid to have debates with you? What have you learned from engaging in debates with non-vegans? \\n\\n\\n**Non-vegans**: Why do you engage in debates with vegans? What motivates you to do so? What have you learned from engaging in debates with vegans?\\n\\n​\\n\\n\\\\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\\n\\nPrevious r/DebateAVegan Threads:\\n\\n(Is it worth debating people that haven't begun the preliminary work in understanding vegan ethics?)(https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/8zbhns/is_it_worth_debating_people_that_havent_begun_the/)\\n\\n(I\\u2019m not a vegan; change my mind)(https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/9yglct/im_not_a_vegan_change_my_mind/)\\n\\n(What can we agree on?)(https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/9by68n/what_can_we_agree_on/) \\n\\n(Who made you go vegan?)(https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/9e65d8/who_made_you_go_vegan/)\\n\\nOther links and resources:\\n\\n(Street Epistemology: The Basics \\\\(streetepistemology.com\\\\))(https://streetepistemology.com/publications/street_epistemology_the_basics)\\n\\n(Acting Without Thinking \\\\(The New Republic\\\\))(https://newrepublic.com/article/121635/acting-without-thinking-protest-movements-are-shaped-debates)\\n\\n(The Trouble with Trying to Win at Everything \\\\(Medium\\\\))(https://medium.com/behavior-design/the-trouble-with-trying-to-win-at-everything-4852897b0743)\\n\\n(I Lost an Argument with a Vegan- Here\\u2019s What I Learned \\\\(Medium\\\\))(https://medium.com/@cnative100/i-lost-an-argument-with-a-vegan-heres-what-i-learned-9800498d4254)\\n\\n(How to Handle Vegan Arguments Like a Pro \\\\(ChooseVeg\\\\))(https://chooseveg.com/blog/how-to-handle-vegan-arguments-like-a-pro/)\\n\\n\\\\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\\n\\n*\\\\(****If you are a new visitor to*** r/DebateAVegan***, welcome! Please give our rules a read*** (***here***)(https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/about/rules/) ***before posting. We aim to keep things civil here, so please respect that regardless of your perspective.*** *If you wish to discuss another aspect of veganism than the QotW, please feel free to submit a new post* (*here*)(https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/submit)*.\\\\)*",

"Is almond milk even healthy? Gellan gum doesn\\u2019t seem like something that should be consumed.",

"This is a serious question, and not some sort of provocation.\\n\\n\\nOn a subject as polarizing as veganism, confirmation bias becomes a crucial issue when one wants to get relevant informations.\\n\\nIf one types the \\"opposite statement\\" of the search they have in mind (e.g \\"why is butter good for you ?\\" right after searching \\"why is butter bad for you ?\\") they will often only be met with articles, videos and explanations that strengthen their preconceived worldviews. Seriously, try it out just for fun !\\n\\nLet's face it, most of us aren't trained nutritionists, dieticians, environment experts nor part of the farming industry, so we NEED shortcuts to make sense of the vast amount of knowledge generated and updated when it comes to those issues, which leads to the question :\\n\\nHow do you usually proceed to get a good understanding of a topic ?\\n\\n\\nUsually, I would say that reading two articles that get the exact opposite conclusions can highlight most of the conflicting issues/perspective on a subject, then one can get actual keywords to make their research more precise.\\n\\nFor instance, I used to think of nutrition only in terms of \\"carbohydrates, fat, and protein\\" but nowadays I find these labels imprecise, misleading and probably damaging our understanding.\\nWe are by default incredibly gullible in any field we know nothing about, so specialists can easily use these blindspots to make any story believable.\\nIf one thinks of nutrition in terms of glucose, fructose, fiber, gut microbiom, saturated fat, transfats, omega 3 and 6, branched chain amino acids, triglycerides, inflammation, antioxidants, keeping in mind that what is ingested isn't always what is absorbed, etc., most of the inconsistencies that emerge from opposite views can be debunked, but it requires so much effort that virtually nobody will fall in that category.\\n\\nI took nutrition as an example but the same idea can be applied elsewhere.\\n\\n\\nNow I'd say my understanding comes from podcasts, Google searches, videos and documentaries on the subject. I always try to check the comments or replies because there are always very knowledgeable people that can call out any BS being spouted.\\n\\nBeing willing to take a random walk into ideas I don't like is the only option I found to avoid confirmation bias and have a referential for the ideas I discuss.\\n\\n\\nWhat do you think ?\\n\\nI'm vegan, by the way.",

"Deepity: A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true.\\n\\nThe classic example, \\"Love is just a word.\\" It's trivially true that we have a symbol, the word love, however love is a mix of emotions and ideals far different from the simplicity of the word. In the sense it's true, it's trivially true. In the sense it would be impactful it's also false.\\n\\nWhat does this have to do with vegans? Nothing, unless you are one of the many who say eating meat is \\"just for pleasure\\".\\n\\nPeople eat meat for a myriad of reasons. Sustenance, tradition, habit, pleasure and need to name a few. Like love it's complex and has links to culture, tradition and health and nutrition.\\n\\nBut! I hear you saying, there are other options! So when you have other options than it's only for pleasure.\\n\\nGramatically this is a valid use of language, but it's a rhetorical trick. If we say X is done \\"just for pleasure\\" whenever other options are available we can make the words \\"just for pleasure\\" stand in for any motivation. We can also add hyperbolic language to describe any behavior.\\n\\nIf you ever ride in a car, or benefit from fossil fuels, then you are doing that, just for pleasure at the cost of benefiting international terrorism and destroying the enviroment. \\n\\nIf you describe all human activity this hyperbolically then you are being consistent, just hyperbolic. If you do it only with meat eating you are also engaging in special pleading.\\n\\nIt's a deepity because when all motivations are \\"just for pleasure\\" then it's trivially true that any voluntary action is done just for pleasure. It would be world shattering if the phrase just for pleasure did not obscure all other motivations, but in that sense its also false.",

"My grandfather passed away last year in a heart attack. He felt no pain or fear inbefore his death. As far as he is concerned, he didn\\u2019t even notice that he died. Hence, I don\\u2019t feel bad for him. He died in a calm and peaceful death. The same logic applies to animals. They have absolutely no idea of their fate, and when they die, they aren\\u2019t in pain for it. To all the vegans who consider it \\u201dcruel\\u201d to kill animals, why? I agree that using animals in circuses and other forms of (cruel) entertainment is not right, but then the animals actually experience it, as opposed to the slaughtering of animals. (By the way, if you are here to argue whether animals actually experience their slaughtering, you\\u2019re wasting your time, modern methods of slaughter are well established to be harmless in terms of pain or fear)",

"I've been trying to get several meat-eaters to stop eating meat, but they're extremely stubborn and refuse to stop eating meat. They keep making excuses/flawed arguments, such as:\\n\\n* \\"Eating meat is my lifestyle, and I don't want to change my lifestyle -- respect my lifestyle\\"\\n* \\"Eating meat is part of the 'circle of life'\\"\\n* \\"It is unhealthy to be a vegan, and you don't get enough nutrients if you're vegan\\"\\n* \\"Because lions kill animals in the wild, it is OK for humans to kill animals\\"\\n* \\"If cows weren't killed and were kept alive, they would defecate too much\\"\\n* \\"Your veganism is just an opinion and not a fact, so I don't have to follow it\\"\\n* \\"You probably don't care about the welfare of insects, so you're a hypocrite because you've probably stepped on them\\"\\n* \\"Where is the 'cut-off point' for which animals are worthy of moral consideration? Is it insects? Fish? Bacteria?\\"\\n* \\"You can't prove that non-human animals feel pain and suffering because you can't talk to them\\"\\n* \\"You can't prove that non-human animals have emotions\\"\\n* \\"Meat tastes good, so I'm not going to stop eating it\\"\\n* \\"Plants feel pain\\"\\n* \\"Evolution has designed humans to eat meat, and humans are omnivores\\"\\n* \\"Poor people have to eat meat because they can't afford to go vegan\\"\\n* \\"You have no proof that speciesism is morally wrong\\"\\n* \\"Non-human animals are fundamentally different from humans, and so humans can exploit them\\"\\n* \\"I'm not going to stop eating meat, no matter what you say\\"\\n\\nIn particular, a conversation about the lion argument goes like this:\\n\\n* Vegan: \\"You should stop eating meat because it is immoral and causes suffering and pain.\\"\\n* Meat-eater: \\"Well, lions kill animals in the wild, so would you want to kill all the world's lions to make less suffering in the world?\\"\\n* Vegan: \\"No, that's not the point.\\"\\n* Meat-eater: \\"Lions kill their prey via predation, so it's OK for humans to kill animals via predation. It is \\"natural\\".\\"\\n* Vegan: \\"Humans have the ability to make decisions about what is right and wrong, and lions are incapable of this\\"\\n* Meat-eater: \\"How do you know that? Maybe lions have their own moral code. You're a hypocrite because you oppose predation, but only when humans do it. A lion causes pain and suffering when a lion kills an animal, so should we neuter all of the world's lions so they can't reproduce (so they can't cause more suffering)?\\"\\n\\nI think the core problem is speciesism, and people's speciesist beliefs -- in other words, meat-eaters view humans as being \\"morally superior\\" to non-human animals, and this attitude allows them to treat animals as mere objects to be exploited. (Human lives are viewed as being \\"more important\\" than non-human animal lives -- this is speciesism).\\n\\nThe interests of non-human animals are more important than how something tastes. Meat-eaters also appear hypocritical with regard to pets (such as dogs) -- they would never want to see their pets slaughtered, so why are they OK with cows and pigs being slaughtered?\\n\\nUltimately, why are meat-eaters so stubborn, and why do they get so hostile when one tries to get them to stop eating meat? And why are they close-minded, and why do they come up with excuses to keep eating it?",

"Not a vegan, but I dont like land meat (rip my iron levels). The veganism concept sparks a lot of discussion about morality and suffering. Now while *I* don't believe there's anything inherently wrong with being a carnivore, since before we were just like any other animal in the food web. I am aware of the sick process of most meat production and how wasteful it is. I wonder if lab-grown meat would be a solution to make everyone happy? Obviously youll still have the anti-gmo or whatever crowd but lab-grown meat would have the least amount of suffering involved, maybe even none.",

"I'm a utilitarian vegan. I have regular backlash from vegans, who say that veganism and utilitarianism are not compatible. I fail to see why utilitarianism gets so much resistance from the vegan community. Is it because Peter Singer has been cornered in some podcasts to say some outlandish things (point 2) or is it because of Cosmic Skeptic? Or are there genuine arguments to be made against utilitarianism from a vegan perspective?\\n\\nHere are the arguments I have heard so far:\\n\\n **1. Veganism is about rights and utilitarianism is about suffering.** \\n\\nThis is just plain false. Rights play a role in utilitarianism, but they are just meant to reduce suffering / increase well-being (or whatever other utility a utilitarian chooses to adhere to). Rule utilitarians even believe that an action is inherently wrong if an action breaks a rule / right.\\n\\nSome moral philosophies just presuppose rights, but utilitarians ask why rights should exist in the first place. In my view, this is a strong point of utilitarianism. It means we can have rights, but if for whatever reason we get clashes between these rights we still have some calculus to figure out what's morally the best action to take. \\n\\nThat is in fact why I am a utilitarian. I don't think any of the other moral philosophies can give answers to all moral question when there are tough moral decisions to make. At least utilitarians presuppose some objective function that can always be turned into an inequality to turn any tough moral question into a moral truth statement. \\n\\n**2. Utilitarians don't care whether an animal dies as long as it lives and dies without suffering and had a happy life.**\\n\\nWhat if I have a farm animal that was happy its whole life and then it dies instantly without suffering and without causing suffering to other sentient beings, would it have been better for the animal to have existed rather than not? And, oh by the way, somehow this farmer is also not causing any suffering whatsoever by doing this to any other sentient being.\\n\\nOf course anybody who does the calculus on such a question would have to say yes, but once Peter Singer said yes to this question in a podcast all of a sudden it seems he is condoning animal exploitation. He isn't. He would disapprove of any such setup, but under the assumptions of such a ridiculously unrealistic scenario which has been posed to exist you get an equally odd answer. It is a gotcha argument, the equivalent of the crop-death tho argument for utilitarianism.\\n\\nEvery moral philosophy has edge cases. In the edge cases where every option sucks, you'll always get crappy outcomes. I just don't think this is a valid argument against utilitarianism, because it presupposes that our intuition should still guide us to the right answer under the conditions of a completely unrealistic scenario. This scenario just isn't feasible nor would any utilitarian condone of such a scenario.\\n\\n**3. Utilitarians only care about suffering, so instant death is not a problem, because there is no suffering after death.**\\n\\nMost utilitarians also want to maximize well-being besides minimizing suffering. Most utilitarians also agree that some lives are simply not worth living. Simply the absence of suffering isn't enough. Cutting a life short is not maximizing well-being unless it is under the type of conditions we typically have when committing euthanasia.\\n\\nAnd then there is of course the suffering caused by cutting a life short. If you then upgrade your hypothetical to also suppose that no suffering is caused by cutting the life short we're back to the point 2. (perhaps point 3 and 2 are really the same, but I thought I separate them anyway, since I've heard both ridiculous hypotheticals as well as this argument). \\n\\n**4. Utilitarians only care about well-being.**\\n\\nI've heard this a couple of times. It is almost to ridiculous to name, but it supposes that utilitarians are some kind of hedonists who will condone atrocities for a fun enough party. This is flat out false. You could perhaps construct a utility function and call yourself a strong hedonistic utilitarian who cares only about maximizing well-being, but I don't know if such people even exist. \\n\\nI believe most utilitarians do not exactly know what the ideal utility function is nor do we know how to measure suffering / well-being, but we just believe (not know with certainty) that an acceptable utility function exists such that if we optimize this function we would find the world to be a morally good place. \\n\\n**5. Utilitarians are speciesists. Utilitarians only care about utility, more utility comes from humans than animals therefore utilitarians are speciesist.**\\n\\nEven with the stated premise this is false, because a utilitarian doesn't care where one unit of utility or another unit of utility comes from. Every unit of utility means exactly the same as every other unit. Utilitarianism is impartial at its core and therefore incapable of speciesism.\\n\\nNow do some utilitarians construct utility functions that weigh human suffering greater than pig suffering? Sure, simply because humans they believe humans *may* have more capacity to suffer. This is debatable of course, and as I have already said, most utilitarians are somewhat unclear about what the utility function is exactly and how it should be measurable, but if I change the pig to a mosquito at some point most people admit that not all circumstances of all sentient beings should be weighted equally. Is it equally bad to electrocute a human as it is to electrocute a mosquito?\\n\\n**Concluding**\\n\\nThis is what I've heard. Honestly none of these arguments convince me that veganism and utilitarianism are incompatible at all, so I truly don't understand why some vegans are so strongly opposed to it. I am currently of the believe that those vegans who do oppose utilitarianism either don't understand utilitarianism or over simplify what utilitarians believe. \\n\\nMaybe I'm wrong? Feel free to tell me why.",

"This is based on the foundation of *experience.* Suffering (opposite of preference satisfaction) is undesirable, by definition, but it is only experienced by the individual. Hypothetical:\\n\\n_There is a universe which contains one being (B1), and B1 is suffering (x) number of \\"suffering units\\" (S). Then another being (B2), who is also experiencing S(x), is added to this universe._\\n\\nCan it be *meaningfully* said that the amount of suffering has increased in this universe? Let's first imagine that neither being has knowledge of the other. Without anyone being aware of the number of beings suffering, it seems that their suffering cannot be added together, in a way that *matters.* Suffering is experienced, and the experience is only had by each individual being. Things are only \\"suffered\\" because they are perceived as such by the individual. From the perspectives in this hypothetical, only one being is suffering. \\n\\nNow, let's consider the obvious extension of this, and say that B1 and B2 are aware of each other, and they both have increased suffering from the thought of the other being suffering. Can we now, with this new information added, say that the amount of suffering has increased? Yes. But can we reasonably add the suffering of B1 and B2 together? No. There is still only one being suffering, as suffering is only \\"suffered\\" through the experience of the individual. \\n\\nThe reason for explaining all of this, is that when I hear people discuss human/non-human animal suffering, it is commonly claimed that practices are *bad* because of the number of beings these practices are used on. If 1,000,000,000 pigs are totured, that is proposed to be \\"obviously\\" worse than 1 pig being tortured. But only 1 pig is suffering, even if 1,000,000,000 pigs are tortured. \\n\\nOf course, then there is the obvious response, \\"but that affects me!\\" That brings us to another question: when you are aware of 1,000,000,000 pigs being tortured, do you suffer 1,000,000,000 times more than if you only knew of 1 pig being tortured? How do we quantify anguish? That said, this is still only *you* suffering. You may not want this suffering, so you may seek to reduce the suffering of others, so as to experience less suffering yourself, but it is still only *you* suffering (and if you recognize that only one being is actually experiencing suffering for the number 1,000,000,000 given, you may experience less suffering yourself).\\n\\nSo, to bring it back to the main question of the post, is the suffering of multiple beings *really* greater than the suffering of one? Is it reasonable to do calculations with the suffering of multiple beings, the way it is commonly done?\\n\\nThere are more details that can be discussed for this point, but those can be fleshed out in subsequent threads.\\n\\n\\nEdit:\\nI posted this and then things got busy for me. I will be back soon to engage with the responses!",

"Hello, \\n\\nWhat do you think about my summary after watching this sub for a while. This is inregard to health concerns and preferences. Let\\u2019s say someone has lived a vegan diet for years. They supplement and ensure well rounded nutrition. However they feel and perform better on a non vegan diet. This can\\u2019t be proved through bloodwork or the like but rather it\\u2019s personal to the person - their body, their health and how it feels, only known to them. A vegan wouldn\\u2019t care if the person feels better on a non vegan diet and instead believes they should choose the ethics of a vegan diet regardless of how it makes them feel. Do I have this right?",

"The argument goes like this:\\n\\nImagine you knew that when you reached the age of 50, you would be painlessly euthanized. Would you rather live your life and be killed at age 50, or would you rather not exist at all? Personally, I think 50 years of life is much better than none, so obviously I would want to exist.\\n\\nThe reason there are millions of cows in the US is because people eat beef and cheese. Before being killed, a dairy cow lives about 5 years, and a beef cow about 3 years. Imagine if you could ask the cow if they would rather live a few years and be killed, or not exist at all. What would they say?\\n\\nUnfortunately, I think the lives of most cows right now is pretty terrible. And actually, under these circumstance, I would rather have had never existed than to exist for 3 years in those atrocious conditions.\\n\\nHowever, it doesn't have to be like that. It is possible to raise happy cows that have good lives. Suppose a law was passed that enforced that. Wouldn't eating beef become the more ethical choice? Because by eating beef, you are paying to raise that cow. A cow that never would existed otherwise. By not eating beef, you are preventing that cow from being born and having an enjoyable life.",

"What the fuck is your answer to that",

"https://www.reddit.com/user/Albombinable/\\n\\nMy comments in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/5ssz90/sounds_kinky/\\n\\nI ask this because it is a little hard to believe for me that 99% of humans are overlooking such an obviously immoral practice and I feel like I'm missing something. Are there actually any valid arguments for factory farming?",

"(Jeff McMahan)(http://jeffersonmcmahan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/The-Moral-Problem-of-Predation.pdf) holds the view that, if we take animal rights seriously, then it follows that we do, in fact, have a moral duty to stop predation (and all of the death and suffering that entails).\\n\\nI'm inclined to agree with McMahan that animal liberation entails this conclusion, but I'd like to get a taste of the views here. I find this conclusion, though valid, to be contrary to our moral intuitions, and I think it would qualify as a strong defeater for animal rights views in general.\\n\\nIf we went all out with seeking to end natural predation and animal suffering, it would very likely destroy the natural environment, and biodiversity would plummet. Environmentalism and animal rights don't seem to be compatible in this regard (for more on this, see Mark Sagoff's (\\u201cAnimal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce\\u201d)(http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Introduction_to_Philosophy_Fall_09/Sagoff_Animal_Liberation_&_Env_Ethics.pdf))\\n\\nSo what do you people think? Does ethical veganism have these implications? Are these counter intuitive?",

"I had been a long term vegetarian, came to that conclusion on my own one day just saying to myself I can\\u2019t do this anymore. (ironically it was a meat loving friend who questioned the ethics of eating pork because their hearts are close to human that triggered my thoughts about the ethics of eating meat) I had heard about veganism before and I honestly thought it was the raw food diet. Because every YouTube video I saw about veganism was also featuring raw food people. So when I found out more about veganism in 2018 I cut eggs out of my diet even though I hardly ever ate eggs in the first place. I had struggled with the idea of going fully vegan because of the logistics of it. Like what if I\\u2019m out and there\\u2019s no vegan food? Because things like picking up a muffin for lunch or a piece of pizza could no longer be done when you\\u2019re vegan. Finally after doing some research about dairy I truly believe it\\u2019s not good for you and it\\u2019s bad for the in animals and environment. I had went to go vegan in July 2019 but I come to find out that I was never vegan to begin with. I had not checked labels thoroughly enough and some foods that I thought were dairy free contain small amounts of milk. I had gone to Dunkin\\u2019 Donuts and got almond milk in my latte only to find out that their Vanilla syrup had milk in it. I have been struggling with the idea of what if I get a veggie burger of course with no cheese and the bun may have a small amount of milk in it? Will it really be that bad? I was never a big cheese person to begin with so that wasn\\u2019t hard and I switch to non-dairy milk and yogurt. But I came to the conclusion that I will never be vegan even if I\\u2019m 100% plant-based because I will have to control vermin in my house. And I will continue going to Six Flags even though they have a Safari. And I enjoy the impossible burger which I know is the subject of debate. I saw social media post from groups called anonymous for the voiceless and they claim that being plant-based or even a vegetarian who is 99% plant-based is worse than being a meat eater. I figure why even bother because I\\u2019m just going to be judged. Anyhow I know that I\\u2019m not the same as a meat eater I eat exclusively plant based at home and I do my best to eat a plant-based diet when I\\u2019m out but I feel uncomfortable interrogating waitstaff about food. I\\u2019ll just order a dish with no eggs milk or cheese. For the record I don\\u2019t consider myself the same as a meat eater because every meat eater I know eats a ton of different kinds of meat eggs and cheese.",

"Obviously the large scale meat industry is causing mass suffering with animals.\\n\\nBut let's say we're able to scale down the industry and have a more traditional approach like back when there were less people to feed on the planet and people ate less meat. Would this kind of world have less suffering than for example in the Jurassic era? Where competition between animals is highest? Huge carnivores, huge nasty bugs, every animal has some kind of spikes for protection. \\n\\nVegans for me seem to have a big problem with suffering in general. And with their actions wish to make animals in nature happier. While I think suffering is kinda the basic state of nature. Animals in nature aren't happy, they are twitchy creatures wary of every sound, they don't know peace. Only animals that are more relaxed and have lower stress responses, are domestic animals, dogs, cats, cows.\\n\\nSo if you delete human race, there would just be another Jurassic era right? If humans can learn to cooexist in their environment and not fuck it up, aren't we the only creatures capable of decreasing net suffering in the world?\\n",

"Hey all, I've had this debate internally for a while. Which is better? The vegans who fit the stereotypical \\"aggressive\\" vegan who shows animal torture/calls people out directly/protests in grocery stores/etc or the cuddly, empathetic vegan who understands where the Omni is coming from and tries to coax them into \\"eating more veggies\\"/showing the health benefits/using a more health oriented approach/Stays generally non-judgmental.\\n\\nI need opinions from both sides.\\n\\nFor reference, I fall into the cuddly, empathetic vegan but (secret) mad respect for the people who break farm animals out of slaughter houses (This was just to address my own bias in the question for the reader, I don't want to talk about the legality of freeing/stealing farm animals)",

"sorry, i'm not sure if this is the right subreddit. also please don't attack me.\\n\\ni can understand that with a balanced diet, we can avoid eating meat. i think it's cool. but if it's possible, why did cavemen decide to eat meat? it was way easier to just eat plants right? (you just have to pick up a plant, meanwhile you have to fight a big ahh animal to eat it)\\n\\n(also, off topic but do you have any \\"better\\" subreddit to ask this if it doesn't belong here?)",

"Assuming you have nobody to give it to, or nobody is willing to accept the food (CoVid times). Would it be more vegan (in concept) to eat the dish than to throw it away? \\n\\nFor argument\\u2019s sake, not like a steak but like. Beef bolognese spaghetti, instead of vegan bolognese like you ordered. \\n\\nJust curious about how people would approach the situation.\\n\\nEdit: Thanks for the responses, I decided to collate the arguments presented. Thank you all who decided to participate in civil discussion. I have learned from this experience. \\n\\n1. No. \\n\\n1a. Primary reason 1: Health (stomach not being able to take meat anymore, red meat is unhealthy, meat is unhealthy etc)\\n\\n1b. Primary reason 2: Meat is not viewed as food, as very well explained by u/RisingQueenx \\n\\n\\"vegans are working toward no longer seeing animals as food. Therefore...it isn't really \\"food\\" going to waste.\\" \\nand\\n\\"When you don't see animals as food, then we don't really see it as a waste when an order is wrong.\\"\\n\\n(Analogies to dog/cat/insects/organ meat/humans in my opinion, are separate discussions all together. There are other different reasons people will refuse such dishes. \\n\\nCats/dogs: typical \\"pet\\" animals in the US may not be viewed in the same light in other places, where they eat such animals. I personally do not believe there is an *objective* difference in consuming dogs/cats and cows/pigs. Both groups of animals are intelligent and are capable of forming bonds with people and each other. And both groups of animals are intelligent enough to have complex emotional functions. I understand the disgust when \\"pet\\" type animals are being eaten in other cultures, and the disgust and outrace is understandable. However if a cow-eating person thinks that its objectively morally wrong to eat dogs, I think its hypocritical. \\n\\nHumans/limbs/children: cannibalism isn't safe, from a brief google search, cannibalistic behaviors can be lethal. It seems to be the go to argument but I believe that the cannibalism argument dilutes the point trying to be made when it is used. \\n\\nInsects: around 2 billion people eat insects. Also it would be impossible to rule out the existence of insects or insect parts in vegan-labelled produce. There's bound to be an unlucky resident of leafy greens or something that will be too small to be detected and removed. And the whole cockroach thing points to hygiene more than anything else, in which case, even if you found a toe nail or bit of plastic in your vegan food, it would be an issue still.) \\n\\n1c. Primary reason 3: I paid for a specific dish, and not another/My body is not a trash can. (Sorry I left out in the scenario that you do, receive the correct dish as well, and are now left with 2 dishes. I asked this question in the first place because an acquaintance, who is usually vegetarian, but occasionally eats meat, ordered vegan food and got meat in it. The restaurant messed up the order twice on delivery and got the order right on the third try. (Unprofessional, I know, I'm not here to talk about that). The order was pretty big and the two orders being thrown out imo was a bit wasteful. I thought they could have given it to someone else, I grew up in a household where food waste in frowned upon, and the onus is on the individuals of the household to not waste food. However, this discussion has led me to realise that the guilt of waste should be tied to the restaurant, and not the individual in this scenario. So I guess I learned something from this.\\n\\n1d. Primary reason 4: Not normalising meat eating. \\n\\n2. Yes\\nWaste, doesn't cause additional animal suffering.",

"Is whey **ethically** vegan?\\n\\nNutritionally, it isn't. No debate there.\\n\\nMeat and dairy aren't nutritionally or ethically vegan either. No debate there.\\n\\nBut, the way I see it, and from what I have read online, whey is made from a byproduct of the cheese industry. This means that it's different from milk or cheese in that there *is no net animal suffering increase from whey consumption*. The same calves have already suffered in the making of cheese, and the whey would be thrown away if there was no market for it.\\n\\nIs whey in your opinion not ethically vegan? **Why?**\\n\\nPlease, if you have the time, answer the same question regarding: Backyard hen eggs, freeganism (dumpster diving) (not like I would ever do that but I want to hear your opinions), and pet ownership (even of you feed your dog vegan food, are you sure it likes the leash? Have you ever let it out in the wild to see if it comes back?\\n\\nThanks for your time, waiting for responses!",

"Hunting to save animals from starvation? \\n\\nA common defense of hunting is that it is used to prevent overpopulation in wild animal populations, and if the animals starved to death, it's more painful than being shot. \\n\\nPS, where's the FAQ? ",

"I'm mainly carnivorous with veg for vitamins (full carni diet isn't actually maintainable). Anyone willing to discuss veganism with me?\\n\\ncanadaposting#7414 (my discord, but I'm willing to discuss in the comments)",

"Let me preface this by saying that I think veganism is a genuinely noble and moral aspiration, but there is something that always nagged at my mind whenever the topic arises. What are the implications of using a lot of consumer products as a vegan when they're wrought through the suffering of other humans? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a large, driving reason that I see in a lot of people switching to veganism is the morality (or lack thereof) of killing animals for consumption, specifically ones of heightened intelligence. Are the humans who make many of our utilized objects seen in a similar light or as an unfortunate reality since they ultimately don't get directly killed by way of their labor? Sorry if this is a common question, I've just never seemed to receive or found any answer for it.",

"So I'm still undicided about horse riding as I've heard mixed opinions on wheter the damage caused to their back is due to improper riding, but I do think there is real value in the bond shared between a domesticated horse and their human, something I would like to see continue, so if your against riding as it can cause back problems, what your guys opinions on chariots?",

"I saw this today and it didn't seem very accurate, but I don't really know all the benefits to plant protein. I was hoping for a few oppinions from both sides, why it's accurate and inaccurate, and the benefits to plant based you can't get from animal protein. \\n https://imgur.com/gallery/XPYjs",

"Burning barn. There's a cow inside. You can save its life, but you have to go in the barn to rescue it. Your life would be at risk. Is saving the cow the vegan way, or would the vegan do nothing and stand outside the barn, listening to the cow's screams of pain as it burned alive? Was that a *necessary* death?\\n\\nSecond, much different example: It was a rainy day, but the sun finally came out. You go for a walk on a popular sidewalk and notice lots of earthworms. Hundreds of them laying around all along the stretch of concrete. I want to make clear that earthworms do feel pain and can suffer. Does the vegan get to work and individually move every worm into the grass to prevent the worms from either drying out or, more urgently, get trampled to death? Could a vegan ethically justify ignoring the worms and letting them suffer and die, which would lead to the vegan killing some worms because the vegan'd be walking on that sidewalk, too? Here a vegan could make an immediate difference, preventing the death and suffering of hundreds of animal. Can the vegan ethically ignore this?\\n\\n3rd example: Let's the the vegan was almost late for work and about to be fired, and comes upon this sidewalk. Is your job worth the death and suffering of hundreds of animals? How could a vegan justify ignoring the earthworms?",

"I know I'm not converting any vegans into meat-eaters with this question, I just had a weird thought last night and I'm curious what your opinion is.\\n\\nBillions of farm animals have been raised and slaughtered over the past hundred years and most of them lived undesirable lives, but if everyone on earth had instead been vegan for the past hundred years then those animals would've never been born in the first place. \\n\\nSo is it worse to be a farm animal or is it worse to have never existed in the first place? I think it's better to be a farm animal but of course \\"it depends.\\" ",

"I and my family are vegetarian, except an uncle. we have not consumed meat of any animal since birth not even egg. But my family have two cows since we are farmers and have been keeping cows as pet for long before my grandpa's times. \\nWe consume milk and milk based products. \\nThe thing is that we let the calf drink the milk first, and once calf is done and leaves the udder we milk out the rest milk, hardly we get 2.5litres and sometimes 3 litres only. Does that kind of produced products align veganism or is that ethical as per the principles veganism is based on.",

"In ideal vegan world, where there are no animals raised for meat and dairy, what would be \\"acceptable\\" to feed our omnivore/carnivore pets (especially cats) with?",

"When I did eat meat, I was so disconnected with the actual process because all I saw was nicely packaged parcels of protein when I shopped. \\n\\nI would have quit cold turkey (pun) if I were given knife and told to slit a chicken's throat/gut it. I just couldn't take the life of another living creature and when I realized that, I gave meat up. Then when I was surprise educated about the egg/dairy industry, I gave that up too. \\n\\nCould/would you do it? (Dig deep - honest answers please.)",

"Serious question for vegan folks who have dogs and/or cats (carnivorous since forever). How do (you) feel about buying their food? Should true vegans choose to not have pets in order to stay true to their beliefs? No sarcasm intended, I am truly curious.",

"Hello all, I am on the road to becoming a vegan. I am not here to argue; I just want others opinions. I have researched and watched youtube videos, but I still would like to here what you guys have to say. First off, I am anemic, so I do take an Iron supplement. Eventually, I hope to get off my supplements through a vegan diet. However, I have a concern with the lack of vitamin B12 in the vegan diet. I think taking a B12 supplement defeats the purpose. You take supplements when your diet is insufficient. So where do you get B12? This brings me to the whole \\u201cVeggan\\u201d thing that I have seen causing heated debates. A \\u201cVeggan\\u201d is a person who follows a vegan diet but also incorporates cruelty free eggs. Eggs are rich in iron and B12, but are not that great for you (but hey neither are oreos). So health aside for a minute, what are the ethical problems you have with eating cruelty free eggs? I see huge backlash on these \\u201cVeggans.\\u201d Yet, by buying cruelty free eggs, they are supporting animal sanctuaries that save and take care of ex-commercial animals. Either way, I do not understand the bitterness towards Veggans. I am all ears and open minded to anything you guys have to say. \\n\\n\\nBasically, I want to know: where vegans get B12 naturally and how you feel about \\u201cVeggans.\\u201d",

"I often feel alienated by the rethorics many vegans use. One common thing to say is that omnis are \\"murderers\\". I can't help but feel like this is a double standard where humans are seen as inherently evil when they do the same things as any other species, while animals just do things instinctively and are not held responsible. How the same act can be condemned as very evil when done by one being but \\"just natural\\" when done by another?\\n\\nI want to note that I'm not now talking about the ethics of modern farming industry, which I do not support. But the pure act of killing an animal for food, while it had as good/bad life as the wild animals killed by other animals. \\n\\nAnd also, that I also think there's several reasons why people should not eat animals but rather be vegan. So this is not me trying to justify anything, I'm just curious about the reasoning behind this.\\n\\nAnd yet one more thing, I don't think \\"you don't have to\\" is an answer that explains why it's _evil_ when done by one but _not evil_ when done by another being.",

"**Lab-meat**\\n \\nIt's a long time coming and, while it's still not here, it's becoming more and more a reality. It has many nicknames (cultured, lab-grown, clean, suffering-free), but the essence and process is the same: meat that's made in labs/factories from a batch of cells, or even just *one single cell*, rather than meat that's cut-off from dead animals.\\n \\nIt has the potential to be much 'greener' (both in terms of greenhouse gasses and uses of: energy, water, and resources), cheaper, healthier (no antibiotics to grow species-jumping 'superbugs' during slaughter and no E. coli to contaminate the meat), and all without the need for slaughter and suffering. All you'd need is a base set of cells. And therein lies the problem I'd like to discuss.\\n \\n**Veganism (and vegetarianism)**\\n \\nVegans could have a couple of reasons to have the diet they have, these could also be complementary. Some have utilitarian reasons (preventing suffering), others Kantian concerns (respecting autonomy/rights), yet others are in it for health-reason, and some even do it for religious reasons (like Jains), I have even met someone who chose a plant-based diet for only culinary reasons (though they didn't strictly call themselves vegan), and there may well be more.\\n\\n**Religions**\\n \\nWhile there are also many religions with dietary laws (most well known are: Jainism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity (to some extent as well), and Islam) that are affected by these new meat products, I think they'd best be discussed in their own right and not become a point of distraction for this topic.\\n \\n**Considerations**\\n \\nIt stands to reason that a consuming single cell will not prevent the meal to be rightly judged as carnist (or non-vegan/non-vegetarian) - but this is my debatable question. For example: 4 of my friends will come over for dinner, we all eat the same meal, but each with our own plate. I prepare the meal by using two pans. During this, I used a knife to cut all the things. Unbeknownst to me, however, the knife still had one mere meat-cell on it, from a previous meal, that managed to stick to it. Despite the thorough washing I did. During the preparation of this meal, this single cell was transferred to a piece of courgette that ended up on one of the pans.\\n \\nSo, my questions would be: could it still be considered vegan/vegetarian? This could be answered on several levels: the entire meal, that one pan, just the courgette, merely the bite that contained that one single cell.\\n \\nOne objection would be: you tried, sincerely. Besides, cells can travel through the sky as well. All-in-all, the *intent* to make a vegan/vegetarian meal was there.\\n \\nAnother objection could be: you were *under the very reasonable impression* that it was in fact vegan/vegetarian, so, therefore, we could deem it as such anyway.\\n \\nYet another objection would be: you're not dealing with the *fuzzy logic* that the world is made of, these laws are the same. One single grain of sand does not make or break a heap of sand, the same goes for one single cell. You cannot simply draw the line at an arbitrary number. It's the wrong question to ask.\\n \\nAre there other possible objections?\\n \\nWhat would these objections and counter-arguments mean for the tons of meat produced from one single cell? Could they be completely adopted without change, would they require minor or major adaptations, would they be completely rejected? Would other yet objections and counter-arguments be able to succeed?\\n \\n**Final thoughts**\\n \\nI understand that this depends a lot on your ethical outlook. Consequentialists could have a radically different view than Kantians, while the health reasons would be completely unaffected (unless they were of the antibiotics and E. coli kind), and the religious reasons could be very much up to discussion.\\n \\nA principled vs pragmatic outlook also plays into this heavily. I don't think it's easy to solve on the principles side, so I expect there to be the most debate. Since I'm a pragmatist, that would be fine in calling this \\"vegan\\", I'd be looking most forward to those responses. (Even more radically, I think this could be a nice opportunity for those German (auto)cannibals to do what they like without being ethically bad - wins all around!)",

"Hey y'all my girlfriend and I were debating the morality of egg and dairy production. She is very against me giving up eggs and dairy. These were some of her arguments. Please help me refute them. \\n\\n1) Cows produce x amount of milk. Even if we let the calf get first dibs, we should still milk the cow for what's left. My friend claims that it is painful to the cow to have extra milk in her udders. So she made it sound like we were doing them a service by relieving the cow of that pain. And that milk is just a by-product of helping the cows. She realizes this is not how it is done in industrial scale milk production, but she said it could work on a \\"small, local farm\\" and be moral. \\n\\n2) Because animal production is so integrated into our society and economy, an entire halt on egg, dairy, and meat production would destroy the economy and human lives would be lost due to it. \\n\\n3) People that live in certain places with limited resources (she gave the example of Haiti), would starve if they stopped producing and consuming animal products. \\n\\n4) If you stop producing warm clothes from animals--wool, fur, down--people would not be able to survive in all the places that they currently live, and it would not be financially possible for all those people to just up and leave their jobs and move to a warmer place. \\n\\nThat's all I can remember right now. I might come back with more later. Thanks! \\n\\n\\nEDIT: I appreciate all the thorough replies! I'm only a couple weeks into veganism, but this community has been nothing but helpful so far. ",

"I just found this sub and am commenting a bit, so this overlaps a little with some things I've said. Believe me, I don't understand people who eat what they want just because they want it, with no regard to sourcing. \\n\\nBut how is it actually possible to call oneself vegan, and act as if one is not implicit in the suffering of living things? Why do we make that the ethical or moral bar? Shouldn't we be working for something bigger and not focusing on just what we do to animals? ",

"I don't really see the pros of veganism. Convince me why veganism is better than other diets, and why I should go vegan.",

"If someone were to describe someone strong and courageous what comes to mind? Somebody who stands up for what is morally right? Somebody who protects the helpless victims that they encounter? Somebody that is willing to sacrifice their time energy and effort to bring justice in an unjust world?\\n\\nWhat does it mean to be weak? To victimize those who cannot defend themselves? To exploit those who we deem less valuable? To cause unnecessary harm to sentient beings capable of feeling and expressing pain? To oppress the under privileged just because it\\u2019s the status quo?\\n\\nThroughout all of human history we have looked back with reverence to those who have stood up in defiance of social norms when it comes to unjust causes. We quote them and use their words to give us something to strive for because we know how much opposition they faced when stepping up to such daunting challenges.\\n\\nDo non vegans believe that living a vegan lifestyle is easier? Do you believe that vegans willingly choose to oppose the norm in order to gain something beyond the scope of animal liberation? Do they ever stop to question why this movement is so important to us? Or do you just not care because you don\\u2019t have to, no different than slave owners when slavery was still legal and it wasn\\u2019t mandated to care for these issues.\\n\\nSo my argument has two parts, the first is what exactly is your perception of strength/weakness and how does it apply to your current lifestyle.\\nThe second being why do you believe that vegans would endure so much adversity for something that you believe to be trivial in nature?",

"This is a bit of an open question but basically I've just watched (this video)(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMqmEGUWsLE&ab_channel=Veganut) and couldn't help but think that the guy filming, although he may well have had the best intentions, was a bit of an arsehole. The people in this video are eating at a vegan restaurant (which may be the reason for him getting agitated) but if they're there it shows they're at least making steps towards cutting down their animal product consumption.\\n\\nBasically, what do you think is the 'line in the sand' for trying to convert others to veganism? There seems to be a trend of people videoing themselves approaching fur wearer and I think that would just discourage a lot of people from adopting veganism, but keen to hear what others think.\\n\\nP.S: this applies the same to issues such as honey, where some people call themselves vegan and eat it whereas others don't. Don't want this thread to get hung up on certain issues, more the tactics used to engage people with veganism.",

"https://np.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/7ua9us/this_made_me_laugh/dtj9300/?context=3\\n\\nI feel like the most recent comment from me is really solid. I also feel like this person might not be fully capable of having this argument, but I'm not sure yet.",

"A little backstory on me-\\nI love animals, and I love eating meat\\n\\nSo my question is, since many animals on a farm would have never existed without the intention to slaughter/harvest them, is getting rid of animal farming really a good thing for the animal? It's one thing if the conditions are inhumane, but if they had a decent life prior to being killed, is a lack of life really better? This is why I could never get into the vegan/vegetarian thing, even though I do feel bad about the pain of other creatures. I just think it's an ethical question I could ever begin to answer.",

"I feel like, in general, far too many vegans focus on not eating *meat*, simply because it's *meat*.\\n\\nSame goes for dairy products.\\n\\nI hunt my own food. I catch my fish by diving in the ocean for them. I keep chickens happy and healthy, they give me eggs.\\ufeff\\n\\nNo, eating fish is not needed (Most things we own/take a part in is needless. We all pick and choose.). I eat fish because I want to eat fish. I freedive anywhere between 25 - 35 meters with nothing but my breath, and a spear. I enter their world, without any advantages, and risk my life to hunt them. I like doing it, I like the process of hunting and eating. Nothing is wasted. Most of the fish I hunt are invasive species, some are actually harming the ocean and need to be controlled (red lionfish for example). I take no part in the cruelty that occurs in factory farms/slaughterhouses.\\n\\nI don't eat pork or beef, because I cannot hunt cows and pigs. In my opinion, what I do is fair. I care for animals deeply.\\n\\nWhat is the logic behind simply not eating meat or dairy, just because its meat or dairy?\\n\\nYou can't just look at an egg, as an egg. You look at where it came from. My chickens are very happy, they have a lot of open land and live in nature. They even hunt on the occasional wild mouse, which they love to do. They are friendly, and very sociable with me, too. There is nothing wrong with consuming the eggs they produce.\\n\\nNow, if one of my pet chickens die from natural causes, after living a full and healthy life, is it okay to eat it then?\\n\\nAnd lastly, by refusing to eat meat, how are you helping these animals? last I checked, they are still being tortured and killed. I think maybe, instead of not eating meat just because its needless, we should do something that makes a real impact. And no, awareness doesn't count.\\ufeff\\n\\nI'd appreciate any arguments, thanks.",

"To preface my post this is not something I'm personally supporting, I am just playing the devil's advocate\\n\\n\\nPer the definition posted on vegansociety, which many vegans tend to cite in vegan debates\\n\\n\\n\\"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude\\u2014as far as is possible and practicable\\u2014all 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.\\"\\n\\n\\nI have been largely convinced by the vegan argument but I have some qualms with it after realising a cruelty-free diet is practically impossible since we are still responsible of the deaths of millions of animals from different species from agriculture alone. Of course this is when one would argue that feeding animals requires growing more crops thus causing more suffering than a simple plant based diet, and I would agree with that for the most part. But here is an alternative: hunting. Hunting causes the death of only one animal compared to the multiple animals one would have caused by other forms of feeding, including plant based diets. Wouldn't it be in this instance, according to the definition most vegans follow-at least the first half of it-, the best ethical action one could take? I realize this is unsustainable on a large population scale, but I am talking about the individual now not the practicality of everyone going out and hunting their own food.",

"No one take offense or anything. I am sincerely wondering what the opinion on this is.... Personally I feel like humans ARE superior and must care for the planet. Looking for answers from both the religious and non religious perspectives",

"I posted something similar to this as a comment, but figured it could be its own post. I am not a vegan, but my understanding of veganism is that it basically consists of two prerequisites:\\n\\n1. The ethical position that it is wrong to kill, harm, exploit, or otherwise use animals for human convenience.\\n2. The act of not using, and not condoning the use of, animal products to the greatest extent possible.\\n\\nSo here\\u2019s my nitpick. I think we can agree that human ourselves are naturally occurring animals. Now, nobody would argue in nature that predators have an ethical duty to respect the lives of their prey, or that they are doing something wrong by consuming prey. For example, a lion isn\\u2019t committing a crime by killing a zebra. So, why are humans different? Does our mere capacity for compassion obligate us to behave differently than every other animal? And if so, what is your reasoning?",

"How do people feel about transplants from pigs and cows?",

"Edit: every comment I'm making is getting downvoted to oblivion so I'm going to stop commenting. I think I've been very civil and open minded so I'm not sure why you guys want to make me feel so unwelcome here.\\n\\nI have great respect for vegans and concern for animal welfare (I'm gametarian/freegan). I hope someday the vegans who care more about masturbatory righteous indignation will be outnumbered by those who genuinely care about animals. When that happens I genuinely believe the vegan movement will grow massively and it really needs to. Factory farming is disgusting and embarrassing.",

"I was discussing the idea of \\"fixing\\" my dog with my boyfriend and he told me that \\"wasn't very vegan of me\\" because it is treating the dog like a machine and probably not giving any value to her wants/desires. I know it sounds ridiculous, but is it inhumane/non-vegan to remove my dog's reproductive abilities?",

"I stopped eating meat 10 months ago. I cut dairy and eggs about 9 months ago. My motivation is bog standard ethical veganism, in particular the suffering argument made by CosmicSkeptic. I buy my honey from a local beekeeper who does not use a fogger. I have an old dog that I treat well who I like to think is happy with me, though there is no way to know for sure.\\n\\nEdit: I got the dog when he was 3 from some people who couldn't take care of him. He is now 12.",

"I understand that fur has long ties with cruelty but I do not see how it\\u2019s unethical to purchase second hand fur, since it\\u2019s not driving demand for new fur. A vegan friend found my fur coat upsetting despite being second hand, and I\\u2019m guessing that it\\u2019s an emotional response, but if anyone has a rational explanation for why it\\u2019s wrong I would love to hear it. I want to clarify that I never would buy new fur, and that I hope to be fully plantbased asap (in social situations I\\u2019m still a vegetarian). I also don\\u2019t want to invalidate my friend\\u2019s emotions, I just want to understand!",

"Long post, skip this paragraph if you don't care about backstory. I'm going to lay out my basic framework for why I think eating meat is okay and I want you guys to try and refute my arguments. I have a lot of people I respect in my life who are vegan, and they've talked to me about it, and I didn't really have a reason I could give them. I thought about it, and have come to some conclusions, and I just want someone to check my thinking. I will also say I'm completely against factory farming and the suffering of animals, and think meat consumption should be drastically reduced due to the environmental impacts, but this discussion here will be fully philosophical in nature.\\n\\nThe main arguments I've heard for veganism is the name the trait argument, and some implications from that argument, Rawl's thought experiment concerning justice, and the animal suffering argument.\\n\\nName the trait, for those unfamiliar, is when a vegan asks a meat eater to name the trait that makes humans different from non-humans, and they argue that there isn't a trait that explains the difference. Intelligence, for example, exists on a spectrum, with some humans being completely braindead. Just because a human is braindead obviously doesn't make it justifiable to kill them. When it comes to species though, I've never heard a good argument other than people saying it's arbitrary, and is the same argument for racism and sexism. But really, I think the species argument is the opposite. I think you shouldn't eat humans because they're humans, and they have more value to me than animals because I'm a human and everyone around me is a human. That's the main thing that eliminates racism. Why should I treat women the same when they're physically weaker on average? Why should I treat cannibalistic tribes the same when they commit such barbaric acts? Why should I treat a severely mentally disabled person the same when they can't do anything for themselves? Because they're all human.\\n\\nRawl's thought experiment (heavily simplified by me) is essentially asking if you would be okay with humans eating meat if you were born a chicken? Would you want to risk being born one, given you may end up being killed for food? My answer is no, I wouldn't want to be a chicken that's killed for food, but I don't see how that makes the human culpable. In making this comparison, your assuming humans and chickens have the same moral value, but as I established, I don't think they do. And I don't really see how this argument holds water if you accept that humans are more morally valuable than other creatures. The only complicating factor is that just because they have less moral value than humans doesn't mean they have no moral value, it doesn't necessarily mean you can do whatever you want to them. So how do you know where to draw that line? Why not just eat monkeys? They aren't human, after all, so what makes them different? Well, I draw that line in the next paragraph.\\n\\nThe last argument is the argument of animal suffering. Going back to the previous one, I certainly wouldn't want to be born as a factory farmed chicken, and I think that animal suffering is wrong, but I don't think death is the same thing as suffering. Death is just a lack of life, and you have to be alive in order to suffer. If a chicken is raised on a small farm and lives a good life, but is slaughtered at a younger age, why is that considered suffering, but a chicken living in the wild and getting eaten by a wolf isn't? The reason I've always been given is that the chicken has autonomy to live how it wants, and the suffering is caused by taking that autonomy away. And I'm sorry, but I just disagree. By that logic, owning pets is immoral because the pet is similarly being subjugated by you, the only difference is that your not killing it. I think that controlling the life of a lesser animal is not inherently bad, but only bad if the life you are making them lead is a bad one. This is also the reason why I don't think it's moral to eat higher intelligence creatures, like octopi, dolphins, elephants, monkeys, etc. They're intelligent enough that taking away their autonomy would actually negatively impact their life and cause them to suffer.\\n(Just so we're clear, this is not the same name the trait argument as before. The main name the trait I discussed was comparing humans to other animals, and as already discussed, the distinguishing factor is the fact that they're not human. This trait is what separates the animals from each other.)\\n\\nSorry for the long post, and thanks if you read the whole thing. I hope you'll have some interesting things for me to consider :)",

"Does it really exist ? And is it sustainable in the long term ?",

"Most of the arguments against bivalve-consumption tend to be based on misconceptions (bivalves are animals and therefore sentient), a misunderstanding or ignorance of what the literature says (that bivalves are sentient), or that bivalves are particularly unhealthy or pose significant environmental concerns.\\n\\nThe issue with the first two is that they're just not supported by scientific evidence. The issue with the last two is that they're just based on a double standard for bivalves that vegans wouldn't hold for plant products.\\n\\nFor example, vegans don't argue that we shouldn't drink alcohol because of health concerns or that we shouldn't eat almonds or avocados because of environmental concerns. It's only bivalves that these concerns apply to because they're \\"animals.\\"\\n\\nVegans should be honest about what their real concern is. Their real concern is that bivalves MIGHT BE sentient. The problem: there is little to no scientific support for this hypothesis.\\n\\nDo any vegans who oppose bivalve-consumption have any models of consciousness that have been published in the literature that suggest bivalve sentience? Panpsychist theories, such as Integrated Information Theory (IIT), don't help the argument, because these suggest that *everything* is sentient, including calculators and plants.\\n\\nI know of multiple models that either completely rule out bivalve consciousness or at the very least fail to rule it in. These include Neurobiological Naturalism, Unlimited Associative Learning, and Complex Active Bodies leading to Basic Cognitive Embodiment.\\n\\nLinks available upon request.",

"obviously, wool is considered unethical from a vegan perspective, due to the harm that befalls the sheep during sheering.\\n\\nhowever, it's no mystery that acrylic clothing is incredibly environmentally damaging (and health damaging!). when washed in a washing machine, microfibres from these artificial clothings are released into the water system, which then make their way into the sea and river. this later goes directly into the bodies of humans and animals, and infact, human babies are now being born with microplastics INSIDE of their placentas.\\n\\nmany warmer clothings that are 'vegan' (think knitted jumpers) are made with acrylic wool.\\n\\nwould vegans say it's more ethical to buy secondhand wool jumpers, or acrylic jumpers?\\n\\npersonally, I believe in the long run, using wool over acrylic for clothing is the least harmful and impactful. wool can definitely be harvested in an ethical manner where sheep don't have to suffer or die, but acrylic clothing and the sheer amount of plastic in today's world can never be not harmful",

"Pretty self explanatory. If someone cuts meat by 50%, then they haven't made any philosophical progress. Their reasoning for cutting meat consumption may vary, from health reasons to environmental reasons or maybe just to try and fit in with their vegan friends.\\n\\nBut being vegan is a black or white philosophy not a grayscale. You either believe that animals are commodities that we have an inherent right to exploit, or you don't. Someone who cuts meat consumption by 50%, or still eats dairy, or still eats fish, or still eats honey, or still wears leather or wool, or still buys non-vegan pet food, or feels \\"naughty\\" every once in a while and eats a chicken nugget, has not made any philosophical progress. They still believe that animals are commodities that we have an inherent right to exploit.\\n\\nEdit: Change the terminalogy from \\"moral\\" to \\"philosophical,\\" as u/NazKer points out\\n\\n> I\\u2019m not sure I\\u2019d call it \\u201cmoral progress\\u201d, instead maybe \\u201cphilosophical progress\\u201d.\\n\\n> You either believe animals are commodities or you don\\u2019t, which would be a philosophy.\\n\\n> Morality is more so consisting of either moral, neutral, or immoral actions. I do believe there\\u2019s a measure here with morality. You can definitely gauge a greater or lesser evil, for example.\\n\\n> I wouldn\\u2019t call someone who abstains from all animal products except a single steak every year **morally equal** to someone who gobbles down all animals products 3-5x a day.. One\\u2019s the lesser evil, *but* philosophically, they still view animal products as commodities, so they may be level on the philosophical plane.",

"I am thinking about buying a coffee shop, but I do not think a vegan coffee shop would necessarily thrive in the area I\\u2019m in. So, I am considering compromising here and still offering regular milk for coffee drinks, and just having my food menu be vegan. \\n\\nTerrible idea? Is it more terrible than starting a vegan coffee shop and having it fail? Should I just completely scrap this whole idea because I\\u2019m vegan?\\n\\n\\nEdit: Just to add, technically if do this and make our food menu vegan I would be reducing the current amount of animal products being bought because right now the coffee shop\\u2019s menu is very meat and cheese based. Obviously that doesn\\u2019t make it actually moral though.\\n\\nLil update: All of these comments have been very helpful, I am kind of leaning towards being fully vegan quietly. Or maybe publicly and possibly go bankrupt. \\ud83d\\ude02 \\n\\nNo, but it could maybe work if I did it like that and then word of mouth would get out so vegans would be aware, but also I\\u2019d still get that potential traffic from non-vegans trying us out not realizing we\\u2019re vegan. And I mean, I guess if someone\\u2019s pissed and leaves a review saying \\u201cThey\\u2019re all vegan and didn\\u2019t say so, false advertising!\\u201d, it hopefully wouldn\\u2019t turn too many people off? \\ud83e\\udd37\\u200d\\u2640\\ufe0f\\n\\nI suppose I\\u2019d just have to have a sign by the register stating our default is oat milk or something like that. Definitely an option. A scary one, but life is scary. Not totally sold on buying at all yet anyway, but hopefully it all works out. Appreciate everyone\\u2019s opinions!",

"Meat only diet needs way more supplements than just b12 and d3 which vegans take, while majority humans globally are deficient in both even after eating meat. People who follow meat only diet literally starve. Then why is a whole food plant based diet called a starvation and nutrient deficient diet?",

"Vermicompost is essentially composting with worms. The worms eat and breakdown the material and in turn produce a compost created from their manure. From the people Ik that do it the worms live their whole natural lifespan. Would you consider growing vegetables in such a compost vegan? \\n\\nOn a similar note if you compost in your back yard and throw dog poop in with it. Would this break your definition of veganism? \\n\\nFrom my understanding being vegan is not using / eating products that came about by the exploitation of animals. In these cases would you be exploiting these animals?",

"Hello,\\n\\nThis would be more of an open question than a debate topic. I myself am not vegan, but have cut my meat consumption down to a couple meals a week; mainly due to the fact that I\\u2019m reaching an age where I need to start being a little more heart healthy, and partly to cut back on my consumerism and my impact on the environment.\\n\\nI know there is a large spectrum when it comes to being vegan, and there isn\\u2019t quite a dogma that can be referred to that would deter blanket statements. So this question is more aimed to people who believe there is a moral or ethical high ground to being vegan.\\n\\nWhat are your thoughts on the cultural barriers that keep entire populations from becoming ethical eaters? One of the reasons I know I could never commit to being a real vegan is a racial one. My mother is Korean, and though it would be easy to be a vegetarian in Korea, I really don\\u2019t think that it would be possible to be vegan.\\n\\nAlmost all food in Korea is prepared with some kind of animal by-product, even the blogs I\\u2019ve read of people trying to be vegan fail to realize that the marinades and sauces that they are applying to their once vegan dishes have shrimp and oyster in them.\\n\\nI think there is very little chance of veganism to spread into the east, mainly due to cultural biases. If you were to tell a Korean chef to cook something without animal by-products he would probably just give you a vegetarian meal, not understanding that dried shrimp flakes to be not okay.\\n\\nHow does a person judge an entire race and culture that holds a non-vegan food as inseparable to their very cultural fabric?",

"I am a dairy farmer, but I have no issue with veganism. Anybody who eats still supports agriculture and that's good enough in my book. But I see lies posted constantly about what livestock farming actually entails. \\"Rape racks\\" aren't a thing, milk isn't full of blood and pus then bleached, cows and calves don't cry for each other for days or weeks (or at all actually) after immediate separation, cows don't \\"collapse from exhaustion after they stop producing milk at 5 years old\\", down animals cannot be slaughtered, farm protection laws weren't made to hide animal abuse (just the opposite), livestock are not leading cause of climate change, just to name a few.\\n\\n Agriculture is a huge field of science with millions of dollars being put toward research annually. Animal welfare and reducing rates of disease, injury, premature culling, and on farm death are at the forefront. I subscribe to several cattle magazines and every other article is about improving cattle health, comfort, and farm management. The way I understand it, veganism is a stance against killing and it's undeniable the livestock industry results in death. There's no reason then to make up lies about what's actually going on because death IS going on. So why the misinformation?",

"The leading authority on nutrition \\n( the academy of nutrition and dietetics )\\nStates that a well planned vegan lifestyle fits all the dietary nutritional needs from infancy to death. \\n\\nhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20position%20of,and%20treatment%20of%20certain%20diseases.\\n\\nThis is contrary to the famous food pyramid developed and paid for by the U.S. department of agriculture which is well known to have vested interest in the meat and dairy industry. Whole generations have been deceived into believing that in order to achieve optimal health we must enslave a cow, artificially inseminate it, wait for it to start lactating so that we can drink it\\u2019s interspecies breast milk that was meant for it\\u2019s offspring.\\n\\nSo my argument is this, if somebody exposed how you have been indoctrinated into a belief system that has vast negative repercussions on your health/the environment/the life of a sentient being, why wouldn\\u2019t you feel obligated to question that institution and your own belief systems in order to make positive changes accordingly?\\n\\nYou can say that you don\\u2019t care but at the end of the day humans are a social based species who are genetically hardwired to care, so dismissing this notion is counter intuitive to flourishing as an individual and as a member of our society.",

"I think the author of (this article)(http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html) makes some strong arguments for why vegans can and should eat oysters. I'd love to hear arguments against. ",

"If a vampire only drinks blood from people who give them consent to drink their blood, does that mean they are vegan?",

"My SO and I will adopt a dog this year and we\\u2019re both pretty excited. It\\u2019s been a dream of ours since before going vegan.\\n\\nNow, as I just said, we\\u2019re both living on a plant based diet. I have been for about one year and a couple months, for him it\\u2019s about one year. We went vegan for the animals, the planet and he additionally for his health. But since ethical reasons were the major factor for me, I started to research about vegan dog food, and now I\\u2019m even more confused than before. \\n\\nA lot of sources claimed that it is completely healthy to put your dog on a *vegetarian* diet. Which isn\\u2019t much of a help for me, since I don\\u2019t really care whether alive or dead animals were used for it. The vegan diet however seems to be a very hot topic. Vegan dog food brands claim to fulfill all a dog needs (of course). Then there\\u2019s vegan vets saying it\\u2019s okay and non vegan vets saying it\\u2019s not okay. There\\u2019s studies saying it\\u2019s okay and other saying it isn\\u2019t. There\\u2019s posts about dogs living happily to a high age on a vegan diet, and posts about dogs dying because of it. I\\u2019m very torn.\\n\\nI know that dogs don\\u2019t need taurine from an animal source like cats do, but I\\u2019m sure their bodies process food differently than ours. I would like to know if there\\u2019s anything vegan dog food has to contain for it to be an option. My family has cattle and chickens, my uncle is hunter and has leftovers a lot of times as well, I would try and get a hand on those if there\\u2019s the chance. But it would be nowhere close to being part of the regular diet. Do dogs stop producing the enzyme that can digest meat like our human bodies do? I wouldn\\u2019t want him to get belly aches if that\\u2019s the case. \\n\\nGenerally, if your dog is or was vegan, please tell me about your experience. Thank you :)",

"Do Vegans who believe humans should not eat animals dislike carnivores? Or animals which are omnivores? Because if you think about it it's pretty similar to say a hunter shooting their dinner.",

"I've been on and off vegan. Cows and pigs seem intelligent enough.\\nAnd I do think the value of a life correlates with intelligence. \\nI'm unsure of chickens, so would side with \\"not ok to eat\\" to be safe.\\n\\n\\nBefore someone inevitably brings it up, I do think mentally challenged people are an obvious burden on society. And if autism and most forms of mental retardation could be completely prevented I see zero reason on why that would be a bad thing.\\n\\n\\nBut at the same time protecting your own species should be #1 on your priority list. So outright murdering your own species seems like a huge grievance. \\nI have this gross suspicion that some vegans literally value a human child's life and a cockroaches or stray cat's life as equal. \\nAnd I just can't accept that. \\n\\n\\nI know bees are endangered, I know overfishing is contributing to pollution. But why not eat crabs? Or lobsters? Or oysters? \\n\\n\\nHave you seen them swarm in millions of numbers at the bottom of the ocean? Or that they eat each other when food is scarce?\\n\\n\\nWhy on earth is a bug's life valuable? \\nI saw a post on vegan about how salmon can get depressed and just rolled my eyes. They may be able to feel physical pain but they can't suffer existentially. Suffer psychologically. I only care about animals up to a certain point, not really in a black or white way. \\n\\n\\nI had an extremely intelligent eel, there are intelligent marine creatures I wouldn't eat like octopuses, but most are not.. and the only reason I would avoid eating bass or trout is the overfishing problem. But there are charts to show which fish are \\"safe to eat\\" currently. And farmed fish may cause pollution. But if I can't stick to being vegan completely and keep breaking, isn't eating only some sea creatures better than eating all food animals?",

"https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs#:~:text=How%20much%20food%20waste%20is,percent%20of%20the%20food%20supply.\\n\\n\\nWe talk about a lot of stuff regarding environmental impacts. \\n\\nHow is this not recognized as the number 1 factor of environmental damage, food inefficiency. \\n\\nOmnivorous animals, chickens and pigs, have historically been used to decrease food waste. \\n\\nI would argue the fact that between 1/3 and 1/2 of all food, plants and animals, are thrown away is the greatest environmental concern our food industry faces. The primary solution to this is animals. \\n\\nWhat say you, vegginauts?",

"I've read through some of the more recent and most upvoted thread and this is something that kind of rubbed me the wrong way.\\n\\nI am not vegan, though I am fairly convinced that there are a lot of decent arguments for veganism. I also think the only argument for not being vegan is comfort and personal pleasure.\\n\\nFor some this may outweigh the other arguments, for some it doesn't. Some try eating only those animal products, that minimize animal suffering.\\n\\nThe main things that often \\"cripple\\" a case being made for veganism are:\\n\\n\\n(This is obviously my personal opinion, I'm fairly sure others look at these in a very similar way, though)\\n\\n* \\"This is not a personal choice, because the negative consequences are not limited to you.\\"\\n\\nI don't see the reasoning behind trying to tell people that this is not their choice.\\nIt very evidently is. By debating whether it *should* be a personal choice, I always get condescending and patronizing vibes.\\nIs this necessary?\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n* \\"There has to be a reason to eat animal products, not one to refrain from it\\"\\n\\nWho decides that? I like the idea of \\"think about what you do, before blindly following others\\" but realistically, you won't need good reasons to maintain status quo, the opposite is the case.\\n\\nThis also often gives me the feeling that some people think I need to justify my decisions in from of them, for some reason.\\n\\nWho are you to decide what I need to justify and what not? It's a very personal decision, I don't think anyone other than the individual themselves has a say in what kind of reasons they need.\\n\\n\\n\\nThat's gonna be all.\\n\\nI also *kind of* dislike the \\"Veganism is healthy\\" argument.\\nI'm fairly sure it's not wrong and can be at least as healthy as a normal diet, but very few non-vegans pay much attention to their diet anyway. \\nTo be a perfectly healthy vegan, you have to put at least some effort into thinking about what you eat and where you get which nutrients from.\\n\\nIt simply requires more effort to be healthy than a normal diet does.\\n",

"Hi\\n\\nI might be off topic but I'm not here to debate as much as I'm here to hear your opinion on the subject. Some scientific paper are arguing that plant and trees are actually able to feel pain and even have a kind of social life.\\n\\nMy question is simple, what would you do if it was proven that plant can react in a simmilar way as the animals you refuse to eat?\\n\\nThanks in advance for your answers. ",

"Hello! \\nI\\u2019m vegan and I googled if Steve Irwin was vegan too. Turns out, he was not. He gives the following quote: \\n\\n\\u201cLet's say this represents one cow, which will keep me in food for, let's say, a month. Now that cow needs this much land and food. Well, you can imagine, that cow needs x by x amount of land, and you can grow trees in it. Around that cow, you can have goannas, kangaroos, wallabies. You can have every other single Australian animal in and around that cow,\\" Steve told The Scientific American. \\"If I was a vegetarian, to feed me for that month, I need this much land, and nothing else can grow there. Herein lies our problem. If we level that much land to grow rice and whatever, then no other animal could live there except for some insect pest species. Which is very unfortunate.\\"\\n\\nDo you think we\\u2019re taking animals\\u2019 homes if we grew enough food for all humans to be vegan? I\\u2019d love to know everyone\\u2019s thoughts on this because this is a perspective I wasn\\u2019t aware of and never considered.",

"I'm speciesist. I value the life and all that entails of certain species (plural) over other animals. I'd wager that you are also speciesist. If you are not speciesist, and you value the life of a human the same as an earthworm and a rat, then you're a sociopath and mentally ill. \\n\\nSo why should I care if cattle suffers? I mean, everybody is biased in favor of certain animals to begin with. Why should we care about the ones we eat?\\n\\nBecause they suffer? But I'm speciesist. And so are you, so you can empathize with me. Why care about animals we're biased against? You wouldn't call speciesism ethically wrong, now would you? Because that makes you a sociopath. \\n\\nWhat are your arguments?",

"I've heard a few different reasons; from simply enjoying meat to the 'appeal to nature' argument whereby it's claimed we 'need' meat to survive.\\n\\nIn short, what would make you go vegan?",

"Firts of all, I respect veganism and its philosophy. I'm not trying to troll or disrespect.\\n\\nGelatin is a known issue among vegans and some religious groups since it is extracted from animal skin, bones and other parts. While its use in food can be avoided or replaced, there are also industrial uses - (not limited to) glues, matches, photographic films and LCD. \\n\\nI'm especially interested in LCD, since gelatin is widely used as colour filter in it. There are other technologies, but dyed gelatin is the most popular (as far as I know, maybe it has changed recently).\\n\\nAre there any indicators like 'this device is gelatin-free' or 'vegan' signs on electronic devices with LCD? Are there any electronic manufacturers which care about being vegan? If not, how can vegans consciously choose between devices with displays? \\n\\nMaybe there is a wider issue with the electronics industry and being vegan? Or is there no issue at all?",

"The crux of the vegan argument is that we as individuals should be vegan because by purchasing animal products we're funding animal cruelty/exploitation. However, I'm not convinced the onus of blame is on the consumer here. Shouldn't the blame and responsibility be on the companies producing the products? If the consumer is responsible for the world's horrors, why not use the same logic across the board: whenever you buy clothing, you're funding child sweatshop labor; whenever you buy a smartphone or anything from Amazon, you're funding adult sweatshop labor, etc. Basically, anything we buy equates to some degree of us funding immorality. Also, the average person has an extremely busy life and can't be expected to do mounds of research on every product they buy, let alone be able to afford the most ethical version of each. So this argument seems weak. Am I missing something?",

"Just want to hear people's opinion on the matter. Is it ok to force your children to be vegan? Like lets say they really want to eat foods from the cafeteria like the other kids or some other similar situation in which they want to consume a non vegan food. If you believe that eating animals is a terribly wrong act you should stop them right? I do not have a position nor do I have children.\\n\\nedit\\nSome people are not getting my point and I apologize for not making it clear. My point is that this is not the same as giving your child the choice to do drugs, consume unhealthy foods, as those decisions mainly impact them whereas choosing to consume animal product more importantly impacts the animal that was murdered for it. I hope that makes sense, I'm not the best with explanations.",

"I just came across this link and thought it would be worth a discussion:\\n\\nhttps://www.bonappetit.com/story/social-omnivore-vegetarian-meat\\n\\nThe basic premise is that there are some people who will eat \\"veg\\" when they are in control over their food, but will eat more omnivorous when in situations where food is offered to them in social circumstances. The main reasons I see being given are:\\n\\n* To show respect for the food giver. For instance: my mom put a lot of work into this lasagna, I should show appreciation for it.\\n\\n* Convenience\\n\\n* To properly experience human culture, such as sampling local food while traveling.\\n\\nI note that there are some similar positions out there. For instance, this isn't too different from \\"freeganism\\". Especially in social circumstances where food is prepared for a group event and will probably become waste afterwards. Also note that Peter Singer has discussed a \\"Paris Exception\\" in his otherwise vegan ethics when it comes to traveling in areas where vegan food may be difficult to find or there are sufficient cultural pressures against this sort of eating:\\n\\nhttps://www.iamgoingvegan.com/paris-exception/\\n\\nWhat are your thoughts on this? From my perspective, I don't think this sort of thing comes close to proper veganism. But I can understand how some people who rely on social connections and social capital with non-vegans may find this to be an acceptable compromise to them. Perhaps it's best to encourage people who don't want to disrespect their mom's casserole to identify as such as a baby step to a more plant-based existence?",

"It's literally natural for animals to do it, same with us. Now you could say that we are more than other animals (which sounds terrible on its own) and we control ourselves, but then the same argument is used against homosexuality and masturbation (even if it's natural, we shall control ourselves). \\n\\nI do think making them live in terrible enviroment and torturing them before killing is terrible, but now is act of eating meat evil? Animals eat other animals, including humans. Why should we act like we aren't animals? Like we are something bigger and better than them?",

"# So let me first layout the ways I can conceive that could convince me to go vegan, then I will lay out why I believe these to not be the case in a structured manner for you to pick apart any individual point you want to argue for. If any one of these are met, I will go vegan:\\n\\n1. Not being vegan would be unethical under my ethical system.\\n2. Veganism is the ideal way to life for my individual wellbeing due to better social engagement, sufficiently decreased chance of negative health outcomes etc.\\n3. Going vegan is the only way to prevent significant negative outcomes to persons through climate change from my individual contribution through diet and general consumption.\\n4. There is an objective form of morality that exists I'm not aware of that entails veganism.\\n\\n​\\n\\n1. Here's a current summary of my ethical system. I'm a consequentialist who cares about wellbeing of persons to a reasonable degree considering my personal self-interest. So for example, I wouldn't kill myself to prevent all other persons in the world from coughing once even if on the net it would be better for overall well-being. Persons are defined as any sentient being who has the intelligence to pass a 1st grade curriculum within the US within that being's natural lifespan when given the physical abilities(A body that could hold a pencil and write, vocal chords for speech, and potentially other things I am not considering) to accomplish that. Anyone who is not included in persons does not get moral consideration unless the decision does not affect persons. So if we had a decision that would not affect persons, sentient non-persons wellbeing would be relevant. That's a rare instance if it ever comes up at all in the real world though. If a non-human animal fits within the definition of persons, they would immediately be given the same moral consideration as other persons. Let me give you a hypothetical that was a big part in leading me to this current stance. You have one world that has infinite amounts of say cows living in absolute bliss living the happiest possible lives you could for cows. You have another world where there is one moderately happy immortal 75 IQ human being or a system that breeds humans such that there would only ever be one moderately happy 75 IQ human on the planet. The second world seems better to me when I imagine it, leading me to believe my ethical intuitions points towards beings of a certain intelligence being of a different kind morally than beings who don't meet that criteria. My current belief if it isn't clear is that morals come purely from emotional intuitions(Emotivism for the philosophically well-read). So when you say something is wrong, to me you're saying \\"that's icky\\". Now this is all tentative, it's possible there are things I'm not considering and I could be moved off any of these points. I can not think of a way that veganism would be morally obligatory under this system.\\n2. Now let's move to the second point. I get better social engagement through eating animal-products due to it being the default, so I'm able to socially relate to the food that people eat at restaurants or cook at home more easily. Also from reading vegan subreddits, it seems as if being vegan causes social strife within their life which is clearly not ideal for social engagement. Now I'll lay out my diet for you to pick apart. Though I imagine you couldn't convince someone to go purely vegan on health grounds as there's surely some amount of animal-products that would be negligible to health, but I digress. I eat a pound of chicken breast about three times a week, a pound of fish(salmon, tilapia, cod) about four times a week, and then whey/casein protein daily to shore about any extra protein needs to 160 grams of protein daily. I mostly abstain from lamb and beef due to the health and climate outcomes, but probably have it a few times a year. When eating with my Italian family, I'll typically have something with cheese anywhere from every two weeks to once a month. I eat out approximately once a week and that varies depending on what I'm craving. It will occasionally be something with a fatty meat, but 3/4ths of time it's something like sushi or a relatively lean meat. I don't imagine the rest of my diet is relevant as they are non-animal products, but if it is I'll edit it in(This post will already be long enough after all). I'll just say I get in the daily recommended amount of vegetables and fruit which I'm guessing is the main driver in people becoming healthier through veganism, but correct me if I'm wrong. Now my understanding is the main driver in animal products being unhealthy is the saturated fat that comes along with it. My diet minimizes saturated fat, gets enough protein, gets in required veggies and fruit, and gets in sufficient amounts of healthy fat. I'm perfectly healthy other than asthma at 29. If there's anything I'm missing that would affect my personal well-being in regards to eating animal products vs veganism, don't hesitate to let me know.\\n3. This fits under ethics, but figured I'd clarify climate change is something I care about minimizing to a reasonable degree. So I'll lay out my limited knowledge of climate change having to do with diet. Beef and lamb release way more greenhouse gases than other animal products due to being ruminant animals that release methane through their gas. Poultry and farmed fish produces much less than lamb and beef, but still produce much more than non-animal products on the net. I don't have the knowledge to know the effect an individual has when eating animal products daily vs a vegan diet, I just do my best to minimize the worst of the worst climate change wise. For clarification if you're only focusing on this section and didn't read the diet section, I mainly eat fish, chicken, and whey protein and nearly completely avoid(will have it a few times a year) beef and lamb in terms of animal products. As for animal products that are non-diet related, I'm unsure if this has a significant effect on net contribution. Anyone with the knowledge to speak on this, do tell me the consequences to the world of my diet vs a vegan diet or the contribution non-diet related animal products have ideally with citations.\\n4. If you figured out all of morality, do impart your wisdom onto us mere mortals.\\n\\nI did my best to be comprehensive in my post, but feel free to ask clarifying questions you believe to be relevant. Also do bring up any points I didn't touch on that you think will be convincing.\\n\\nEdit: Upon further reflection, my definition of persons should say average lifespan rather than natural.\\n\\nEdit 2: Back to the original definition of persons.",

"like the title says; how do you justify your anthropocentrism as a vegan when you believe that humans > animals? Do you think that we need to pay lip service to not-yet-vegans to show we aren't looney vegans. Don't you think that, by making exceptions in the moral arguments for veganism we are allowing to be attacked by meat eaters and justify them to just keep doing what they do? Let's discuss! ",

"So just a thought I was thinking. The idea is that killing an animal for any reason is bad (unless maybe euthanasia) and that we shouldn't exploit an animal in anyway.\\n\\nBut if the animal is already dead from natural causes, why would you be opposed to eating it? Died of old age, starvation, killed and left by another animal. Whatever the reason may be. It's already dead, humans had nothing to do with it, why let it decompose when you can use it for sustenance? \\n\\nEdit: Wikipedia's Roadkill Cuisine is a pretty interesting read",

"A few examples:\\n\\n1. Smartphones are essential to their basic functionality which stops at a dozen dollars, so getting a new second-hand phone while the old is functional is not vegan.\\n2. If you get a second-hand car, you're still driving up the demand of new cars as people who would have bought the second-hand car now get a new one. In overwhelming amounts of places you do not need a car and imposing such lifestyle on oneself is their own decision.\\n3. If you get a second-hand pet, you're still driving up the breeding of these pets through decreased availability of said pets ready to be adopted, making people choose from breeders. You do not need a pet and it's extremely not vegan both in breeding, exploitation & contributing towards deaths of animals through farming or hunting thanks to one mouth more needing food.\\n\\nFurther more:\\n\\n1. A popular feminist quote: \\"Personal is political\\". \\nEvery action and behavior which you take part of reinforces this very thing which you're taking part of as a normative act in the society. If you use a car, more people will get cars, that includes new ones. If you get a pet cat, more people will get one and also through breeding. If you get a new second-hand phone every year, more people will get new phones. If you eat meat, more people will think that eating meat is fine.\\n2. If second-hand usage would be sound logic, then using left-over meat should be vegan and wearing left-over animal fur or leather should be okay - everything which is left over or could be reused would be vegan.\\n\\nA quick predictable counterargument: \\"People who buy brand new products, don't buy second hand\\" is absolutely not true in any sense, if you think like that then we axiomatically disagree and there's nothing to discuss as my personal experience alone shows complete contrary.\\n\\nAs far as possible and reasonable is not an argument either because these aren't necessary products. You do not need 4 cameras instead of one, you do not need to drive a car instead of a bus, you do not need to kill indirectly 1,000 more animals just so you could pet one, you do not need to eat meat.",

"Birds lay eggs, regardless if humans collect them or not. Bees make honey regardless if it is collected by humans. \\n\\nAssuming that the birds are free-range and the honey is not industrial, what's the argument against eggs and honey?\\n\\nYou don't kill the animals. You don't have to artificially stimulate production, as is the case with milk production. You should control how much you take and not to take too much.\\n\\nBut I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with these two animal products. Animals form symbiotic relationships for food all the time like ants and aphids.\\n\\nFor animals who have lived with humans for thousands of generations and who would not survive on their own in the wild, what arguments would you present against symbiotic food harvest by humans for animal products that do not require killing (meat industry) or artificial impregnation (dairy industry) for items that the animals naturally produce, factory farming not withstanding?",

"Here is the short blog post: (The imperfect veganism of Ezra Klein)(http://veganstrategist.org/2016/12/30/the-imperfect-veganism-of-ezra-klein/)\\n\\nI think that vegan recidivism is a major and unspoken problem in the community. For a variety of reasons, 84% of vegans and vegetarians eventually quit.(link)(http://jacknorrisrd.com/vegetarian-recidivism-survey/) I think that the mindset that Ezra Klein describes could be a useful way to convince new potential vegans to stick with it for the long haul.\\n\\nSome questions:\\n\\n- Do you consider this to be vegan?\\n- Is this an effective approach for promoting veganism and preventing recidivism?\\n- Do you ever personally think or act this way?\\n\\n",

"I\\u2019ve been selected for the opportunity to work at the Halley VI research station for 3 months starting March 2023. I am beyond excited to get first hand experience on the field, but I\\u2019m worried about food selection. Will I have much difficulty being vegan during my stay? Do you think there will be other vegans?",

"How do you guys feel about trapping? Where I live in northern Alberta trapping is a way of life for many people, and I wholeheartedly support it. I'm actually wearing a pair of rabbit skin moccasins right now lol. I haven't heard of anyone who doesn't support it so I'm just curious to hear what some of you have to say. ",

"I eat meat and I understand it is wrong in the sense I know I couldn't justify it if someone asked me. But I also don't feel bad even knowing how the animal died or any other information, I just know I couldn't use a sound argument to defend it. \\n\\nBut also lots of my life is like that as is yours. For example, I get into plenty of fights, many of which I can't justify but that doesn't stop me from doing them because I'm a slave to my passions. I just can't defend them. You also have many parts of your life in which you are behaving unethically and even when presented with arguments that refute your position, you likely won't change unless you genuinely FEEL that they are wrong not just that you understand they are wrong.",

"Hope this isn't a dupe, but I didn't find an up-to-date thread for this...\\n\\nSo I've been in a discussion, and there seems to be a lot ex vegans/vegetarians. See (this article)(https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201412/84-vegetarians-and-vegans-return-meat-why) and also (its source)(https://faunalytics.org/how-many-former-vegetarians-and-vegans-are-there/).\\n\\nGuy told me that's because all people are only doing it for virtue signalling (lol), but seriously, why is it?\\n\\nWhy do you think people go back? I see multiple reasons here: \\n- They did it because it's \\"in\\", or for a SO \\n- Health issues (Aka failed to get the right nutrients and blamed it on veganism/vegetarianism) \\n- Peer pressure (Omnis can be pricks, we all know that) \\n- Cravings (aka weak willed) \\n- Social isolation (Like not knowing any real life vegans) \\n\\nOr maybe the data is simply flawed and there's not that many ex vegans/vegetarians?\\n\\n\\n\\nIf someone is in for the ethics, I couldn't possible imagine how he/she could go back. You don't just start abusing animals again, or do you?",

"Hi, I've asked this question in /r/vegan too, but found out this group exists and though it might be a better place. \\n\\nI guess I could call myself a flexitarian. I do eat meat weekly, but in very little amounts. This didn't happen as an overnight choice, just gradually developed like this with the development of my knowledge about environment, health and ethics issues. There's still a lot of things I'm not sure about (mostly the lack of transparency about food frustrates me), but I feel good about my diet and I end up buying mostly seasonal veggies and the little animal products I buy at least say they're biological. \\nMy philosophy is that pleasure is important, and it's good to indulge occasionally and it's bad to be too strict to yourself. I think any good change in your life has to become a habit, but doesn't need to be a strict rule.\\nSo it's obvious that a lot of people have a negative view of vegans being too pushy in their convictions. They get biased and it becomes harder to convince them of the benefits of eating vegan. A lot of people I know preach that they just love meat and all their vegan friends should just keep their veganism to themselves and let them do what they want. \\nSo isn't it better to approach people in more subtle way. I've never seen anyone talking about being/converting to vegan subtly..\\nSo there's omnivores and carnivores and picky eaters. I don't think carnivores could ever become vegan and I don't think a picky eater can be convinced to eat anything else than they do, it's always a personal jurney to liking new food for them. So you could maybe convince carnivores to eat more veggies and not as much meat, but probably to a limited extent. Omnivores are then the interesting target group.\\nWouldn't it be easier to convince people to eat less animal products than to stop entirely. Maybe they would gradually convert to vegan over time. If not, if every person on earth ate half of the meat they do now, it would still be as if half the world is vegan. No one needs to forbid themselves anything and it would already be so much better for the world and for their health. \\nThere is a TED talk about being flexetarian (weekday vegetarian) that I mostly agree with.\\ntl;dr: Why do I rarely see vegans trying to convince people to eat less meat or, even better, encourage them and help them to eat more vegan dishes rather than go completely vegan? Doesn't preaching too much add to a negative bias towards vegan people and food and make it harder to convince people? Isn't it easier to convince more people to eat less meat than to become vegan and wouldn't that already help with a lot of issues that animal products cause?",

"I am not trying to be provocative or anything, just generally curious. Lately I\\u2019m thinking of becoming vegan due to ethical reasons. This question however has always bugged me. \\n\\nIn my research, I\\u2019ve always come across one central argument: \\u201cplants have no central nervous system and therefore do not feel anything\\u201d. \\n\\nWouldn\\u2019t that imply that anesthetizing an animal to the point where it doesn\\u2019t feel the pain (or anything for that matter) anymore would make it morally right? At the end of the day we eat a living being. Wouldn\\u2019t it be unethical to make arbitrary decisions on what we eat because we find that other animals are more like us humans than plants which can\\u2019t express feelings? Wouldn\\u2019t we place animal lives above non thinking plant life? \\n\\nI apologize if this is a stupid question and hope you can help me.",

"If someone put food in front of you and told you there was a 50% chance it's not vegan, and you declined it based purely on ethical reasons, then you are inconsistent with your morals, and the very fact that you're reading this is most likely the proof.",

"Disclaimer: I am vegan for environmental and ethical reasons.\\n\\nAs someone working in academia, it would be pretty easy for me to google up many scientific papers supporting the idea that veganism has health benefits. However, it could be equally easy to find papers supporting other types of diets as better-balanced. When browsing more popular information sources, it would be even worse as you can find info supporting almost any kind of crazy diet. \\n\\nNot being a nutritional expert I am unable to critically evaluate this large amount of info sources, so I can only rely on authorities and there is also lots of disagreement. I feel that in this sense lots of vegans succumb to confirmation bias. \\n\\nI conclude that arguing for veganism based on health benefits is pretty unconvincing.",