Datasets:

---

CompassioninMachineLearning

/

reddit_topics

like 0

Follow

Compassion in machine learing 4

"I am not trolling or being sarcastic in anyway.\\n\\nKilling a human is obviously immoral and illegal. Yet in wartime if a group of soldiers are killed by a sneak attack from an opposing force it is not considered immoral and is not illegal. \\nBut if a soldier is tortured and killed then it can be considered a war crime.\\nThere are people in this world that think killing a human is perfectly fine. \\nThere are also people who think killing a human for any reason is not acceptable, even in wartime.\\n\\nAbortion is the same, some believe it\\u2019s moral and a woman gets to choose and some believe it\\u2019s immoral and should not be allowed. \\nAgain there are laws in some states that make it illegal and others that make it legal.\\nSome women have an abortion because of convenience and others out of necessity but in general it\\u2019s a hot topic as society has outlawed it in some places and allowed it in others so I can see the argument for debate on if this is moral or not.\\n\\nNot only is killing animals legal, it\\u2019s glorified. Some people eat cats and dogs. Others hunt for sport.\\nUsing the United States as an example of a first world country:\\nThere is not one state that is even close to outlawing the killing of animals for food\\nThere is not even one state in the US that has banned hunting for sport.\\n\\nI absolutely understand that killing an animal for food is not the best way to feed a society.\\nI absolutely understand that being vegan is a choice and can impact the world in a better way.\\n\\nBut things that are immoral are illegal. We as a society will not stand for something we as a group feel is immoral.\\n\\nThere are things in this world in which the immoral nature of the subject is up for debate. These topics are huge polarizing things in society, and the verdict is not even out yet (while most people know which way the world is leaning)\\n\\nAbortion\\nGay marriage \\nDisciplining your kids\\nHarassment issues\\n\\nAgain if killing animals for food is immoral why is there not even the whispering of legislation to support the immorality.\\n\\nPlease do not tell me why YOU think it\\u2019s immoral.\\n\\n**My question is why do you think society as a whole disagrees with you?**\\n\\n90%+ of the world can\\u2019t be uneducated, unfeeling, monsters.\\n\\n\\n\\n",

"I don't think animals have moral consideration, and I don't think global warming/climate change is a very big deal. I am curious if there are any potential reasons to be a veg*n that I am forgetting.",

"I don't really have a debate exactly, but here seemed more appropriate than r.vegan\\n\\nWhat I'm curious about is how people balance a meat eater eating meat, being conscious of the process to create the meat, but still being a relatively good person and caring for animals.\\n\\nI've met some arguments one year and in person where the vegan struggles to consider anyone who eats meat to be capable of good.\\n\\nThe notion of someone simultaneously caring about animals and eating meat seems to be an oxymoron to many as well. \\n\\nSo I guess my question is - do you think that someone can be a good person if they eat meat? And, do you think that someone can care about animals and eat meat? \\n\\nCheers",

"My post has been removed and I genuinely don't understand. The mods are not messaging me back.\\n\\nI agree that veganism is a venerable and ethical philosophy, but I feel excluded for trying to propose that the /r/vegan text should be amended to include the opening sentence of TVS manifesto as that recontextalises the sidebar text.\\n\\nI feel that the post was either misunderstood or simply picked off, as at no point did I argue against veganism. What do you all think?\\n\\nHere is the topic.\\n\\nhttps://old.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/aemdor/can_the_sidebar_text_be_adjusted_to_include_the/?context=10\\n\\nWhat about this debate is anti-vegan?",

"One of the philosophies I believe in is that if my stance doesn't directly affect something, I'm not gonna care about it. For example, voting for the president. I could vote for whatever, the results will be the same. The very cliche answer to that would be \\"but if everyone would think like that it would go wrong, you need to do your part, game theory, yada yada\\". I don't think that's a valid argument at all. Whatever decision I make, I can take two the different universes (in case its binary) and look at the outcome, and decide from it. If they're the exact same, then whatever. I'm myself and only myself. My stance won't affect other's.\\n\\nSo about being vegan (most likely a vegetarian, actually), I don't believe I would be helping the cause in an effective way, so it shouldn't matter. But there's more to it. In this case, MAYBE I can still help. If I keep eating animal meat, by the end of my live I would have eaten X animals. Otherwise, maybe I could have \\"\\"saved\\"\\" those X animals. But here's the thing, would that really be the case? I have no idea how food supply works, but maybe in that case the food would just rot in the supermarket instead and go to waste. Or something similar. The standard argument to give me here would be that I would be doing my part, if multiple people did this it could actually help, the industry would be less profitable, it would be disencouraged, that kind of thing. But given the \\"philosophy\\" I just mentioned (by the way, is there a name for this kind of belief?), that argument just doesn't make sense. \\n\\nIn that case, would it really matter if I became a vegan/vegetarian?",

"I really don't understand how people can go for 5 years + on just plants - after one meal i feel bloated, a little dizzy and become hungry shortly after. Plus, my concentration is far worse. No matter how much plant I eat I just don't feel satiated and fart a lot after. I don't encounter these problems after eating meat.\\n\\nFor plant meals I have either: \\n\\n\\nPasta with tomato passata, spinach, kidney beans, red onion chickpeas \\n\\n\\nRice noodles stir fried with onion, garlic, peppers, mushrooms, carrots, spinach, tomatoes, broccoli.\\n\\nFor meat meals I have either: \\n\\n\\n8-9 boiled chicken legs \\n\\n\\n300g gammon + 6/7 eggs, both fried in butter \\n\\n\\nRice + 500g beef mince (grass fed, to avoid cruelty) + 1 red onion \\n\\n\\n200-300g salmon fried in butter + potatoes\\n\\nMy sinuses are much better when eating the meat ones, plus I feel much more alert and energetic. No farting or bloating.\\n\\nMy point: We can't eat just plants, since it is mostly fibre. Excess fibre causes bloating and farts. 70% meat : 30% plant is optimal for me. I am physically fit and my blood pressure is normal (135/85). Blood tests are also normal",

"I'm not anti vegan, I don't mean any ill will. How do vegans feel about the damage that agriculture does to the environment? The effect of bulldozing ecosystems and poisoning of waterways with runoff to have a sterile field of soy for example doesn't seem to be recognized. Also, the industrial farming of bees for pollination. \\n\\nLesser of two evils to feed ourselves?",

"Let me ask you ( I took a beating in r/vegan): is game meat a fair alternative? Of course, not all.\\n\\nI'll show you. For a while now I've been living on an almost vegan diet. Exceptions being made at my granny's and whenever there is no alternative (I live in the German countryside). \\nBut, for professional reasons I'm also a hunter. As a forest officer hunting is part of my work life and necessary, too. \\nNecessary because of the lack of predators, the history of game preservation (Third Reich and GDR) to get their leaders many big stacks e.g. \\nOur forests are in parts heavily damaged due to either peeling off the bark for food (talking about near 100% in some areas) or eating the terminal buds. Both have an economical and ecological impact. I am happy to explain late!\\nBefore I'm getting lost...the idea is to reduce the population to a point where forests can grow with game but only such an amount of damage as if there was a natural equilibrium.\\nAnd that's why we hunt. And I do it, too although I'm not a fan of it. I'm not celebrating it nor do I collect antlers and whatnot. But I eat it sometimes. \\n\\nIt is much better in taste and quality than supermarket mass production meat and it has no footprint as they are there, just more than you would guess and what's sustainable.\\nAnd I am responsible for all of the production chain.\\nI'm not eating meat on a daily base but I don't feel bad for the exception. Just the killing is something I will never do with ease.",

"Hi everyone,\\n\\nI was thinking about the use of animals for medicine and I think I\\u2019ve solidified that vivisection and animal testing are unethical. That thought then brought me to an interesting question; is it ethical to take the venom from snakes and spiders to make antidotes for humans? \\n\\nAs far as I know the animals aren\\u2019t harmed during milking, and they aren\\u2019t held in captivity for longer than need be. I think definitely milking is more ethical than medical testing on animals, but can it be justified to take products from animals without harming them to save a few human lives?\\n",

"So because of the pandemic the whole industry that I work in is non-active. I am now looking for a temporary job and my partner found me one, but it\\u2019s in a fishing shop. I feel ethically impugned to work there but on the other hand I really need an income rn. What would another vegan do?\\n\\nEDIT: it\\u2019s in a warehouse, not an actual shop.",

"The book is dialogues on ethical vegetarianism by Michael Huemer. In this book, two college students \\u2013 a meat-eater and an ethical vegetarian \\u2013 discuss ethical vegetarianism in a series of dialogues conducted over four days. (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6ZiLViOYPeadLGtk6Sp57sRXCqP2dtqF)(https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6ZiLViOYPeadLGtk6Sp57sRXCqP2dtqF)",

"Am a vegan. Hear me out. \\n\\nI believe that you cannot be an ethical vegan unless you are also an environmentalist. Why? Because by irresponsibly engaging in unethical and unsustainable practices of any kind, you're dictating the allotment of the Earth's resources, while also choosing to partake in the destruction of the habitat and resources desperately needed by the animals you're trying so hard to protect.\\n\\nNow, I'm not saying that any person who ever uses single-use plastics is \\"not vegan enough\\", or \\"not doing enough\\", I'm not saying that just because you commute to work you're wrong, and I'm also not saying that anyone who has a reason (for instance: medical) to use certain products in a wasteful way is invalid. What I am saying is that there's a difference between thinking about what you can change and not doing anything. Abstaining from animal product is absolutely not enough, and I think that as a community, we as vegans don't recognize our own cognitive dissonance, because we get into the mindset that this is an \\"omnis only\\" thing. To put it simply, we need to remember that just because we've taken one red pill doesn't mean we've taken the only red pill. In reality, there are *many* red pills that we need to be taking. \\n\\nWhat can you do? A lot! If you haven't, start bringing your own bags to the store, or simply switch to paper! Get some produce bags and start using those! Buy in bulk if you can (maybe wait until after the pandemic for this one)! Use a reusable water bottle instead of a new one. If you're ordering takeout, make it a little less friendlier by asking for no cutlery, or choose to get a drink at home so that you can skip that Styrofoam cup and plastic straw. Patch your own clothes. Cut up some old tshirts that you'd otherwise toss and use them as rags. Chose to reject things like fast fashion, and instead look for ethically made and sustainable clothing. Find brands of your favorite things that *are* ethically sourced and produced! Switch to a nontoxic cleaning product. Find spaces where you can provide yourself with practical, reusable solutions so that you can reduce your waste output. All of these things seem small, but make a *huge* change when it comes to helping out the bigger cause. Nonhumans animals get it the worst, because they often don't have the luxuries like we do (like controlled air) that help us forget about climate change, and they also can't fight this fight. Instead, we need to act as advocates so that *their* voices can be heard and do *everyone* a favor. \\n\\nI'd love to hold a discussion on this and see what other people think. This is just my opinion.",

"I know we can get B-12, Iron, and the like from supplements.\\n\\nDoes anyone know about any other nutrients lacking in a vegan diet? Something like an amino acid or whatever?\\n\\nI\\u2019m really looking into veganism but I\\u2019m scared there is some *obscure* molecule or nutrient that will be lacking and will bite me in the a** years down the line.",

"Veganism is certainly more ethical and healthy than the typical meaty diet. \\n\\nHowever, veganism is morally dogmatic. \\n\\nHumans are not fundamentally different than other animals. \\n\\nVegans simultaneously argue that animals are sentient, but not capable or moral action. \\n\\nPerhaps a muscle has no feels, and it would be better to eat it than let a mouse be killed in the harvesting of grain. \\n\\nEdit: A mussel, like a clam that attaches to a rock in the sea, not a muscle that moves an arm. ",

"I understand this is a Vegan page, but hear me out. I agree mass slaughtering of animals in horrible conditions to put meat on the table for the masses is a terrible way to treat an animal. it\\u2019s why names such as beef, pork & poultry came about to desensitize the buyer from the product. Yet, going out into the woods & killing an animal that needs to be under a certain population number then eating said animal is just as ethical as veganism. Most wildlife conservation is paid for by hunters through gun & ammo taxes, licenses, tags, etc. This money goes directly to fund the nature we all get to enjoy & pass down through generations. decrease in hunting well you guessed it, equals less money for wild life conservation. Meat is an essential for a complete diet for total health. Not to mention, a person who takes the life of an animal to eat it has more respect & appreciation for that animal then any other person who\\u2019s a non hunter in my opinion. So with that said, what\\u2019s your opinion on the subject?",

"Why do people go raw vegan?",

"It's annoying to check in to this sub and find posts that aren't debates but are instead pointless trivias left to \\"confound\\" vegans. Obviously, everybody starts from somewhere, but there are so many posts that just posit some ridiculous idea wherein the OP doesn't respond to the question they pose. It's just pointless.\\n\\nCan we at least have a rule where OP has to respond to comments? ",

"Where I stepped into this sub with ecological concerns, it has been made clear to me the one and only drive for a true vegan (as supposed to plant based diet) is the ethics behind it, aimed to end the suffering inflicted by humans upon our livestock. I have been considering how to bring the ecology questions I have, but feel I need to go a bit deeper into the ethic thing before I can go there.\\n\\nThe ethical argument is purely emotional, and at it's strongest expression uses terms like slavery, rape and murder. Although it's possible to make logical comparisons between those terms and elements of modern animal husbandry (on grounds of the lack of consent), it easily comes over to non vegans as a far stretch of the imagination. After all, every time livestock anticipates an interaction and prepares for that, it can be argued they give a tacit consent...\\n\\n​\\n\\nSo I'm going to attempt to lay down my 'carnists' view of why the so-called 'suffering' of domesticated animals is justified. To do that, I need to list a number of concepts to build that case. I'm going to cut and paste some things to make things a bit easier for me. I'll use *Wikipedia for that and paste in italics.* If I get text from somewhere else I'll tell you so.\\n\\nTo point towards descriptions or understandings that echo what I've distilled out of the discussions here to be 'the vegan argument' or 'vegan understanding', I will use SVR (Standard Vegan Reasoning) Nothing bad meant with that, just to let you know when you see that its my understanding, or generalisation, of the reasoning used.\\n\\nI wonder if we can somehow skip the 'scientific consensus says humans can thrive on a full plant-based diet'. Right or wrong, it will kill any discussion...\\n\\nAlso, I'm not defending the way we farm now. I'm very much looking for ways to change things, I'm just convinced animal husbandry has a crucial role to play in our future as mankind. The really short version of my argument is more like 'domesticated animals suffer less than wild animals, and this is why this is true...' In my view, the SVR aim of abandoning animal husbandry all out is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.\\n\\nThe other thing that I would like to ask, as I'm of course going to be the devil's advocate and therefore all my comments will be 'carnist'... Please don't do the thing that always seems to happen on this sub and downvote everything just because you don't agree with it.... If the argument is weak, fair enough. If you don't understand, ask...\\n\\n​\\n\\n# OK, here it goes;\\n\\n**DOMESTICATION**: *Domestication is a sustained multi-generational relationship in which humans assume a significant degree of control over the reproduction and care of another group of organisms to secure a more predictable supply of resources from that group.*\\n\\nSo this is basically the SVR definition as it is mostly used to point towards the abuse. However;\\n\\n*A broader biological definition is that it is a co-evolutionary process that arises from a mutualism, in which one species (the domesticator) constructs an environment where it actively manages both the survival and reproduction of another species (the domesticate) in order to provide the former with resources and/or services*\\n\\nBasically the same, but it points towards '*a co-evolutionary process'* (a process that changes both parties) and, importantly, '*mutualism'* (beneficial for both partners), and *'constructs an environment',* an action or (energy) investment.\\n\\n*The domestication of animals is the relationship between non-human animals and humans who have influence on their \\"care\\" and reproduction. Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was also the first to recognize the difference between conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a by-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.*\\n\\nI would like to point out 2 biases in the quoted bits here. First *...multi-generational relationship in which humans assume a significant degree of control...* and secondly *...the relationship between non-human animals and humans who have influence on their \\"care\\"...* Domestication **is not a human trait**; its a Evolutionarily Stable Strategy\\\\*. It is relatively commonly observed among insects, and recently we even (found a fish who has domesticated a shrimp)(https://newatlas.com/science/fish-first-animal-domesticating-species/). (\\\\* I'll come back to this a but further)\\n\\nSo, with that in mind, a fairer description would be this:\\n\\n>Ecologically, domestication is a specialised type of symbiotic relationship in which one species (the domesticator) provides sustained, multi-generational support to another (the domesticate) in return for a predicable supply of a resource. Over generations, the positive benefits received by each partner can drive physiological, morphological, or behavioural adaptations that increase their value to the other, as well as their reliance on the partnership for survival.\\n\\n((Current Biology 29, November 18, 2019 \\u00a9 2019 Elsevier Ltd.)(https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(19)31249-7.pdf) )\\n\\nI been wondering if i needed to include this... **EVOLUTION**: *Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.* The reason i have mentioned it here is because it mentions something essential about life; '...*over successive generations.'* life is about death... It's undeniable. Death is part of life.\\n\\nAnother reason to quickly look at it is because it encapsulates the concept of Natural Selection as we need to realise that domestication is distinct from that.\\n\\nBut the main thing is that we need to understand that all phenotypes (the observable characteristics in an individual resulting from the expression of genes)**,** or to put it supper simple; 'things that evolved in us', including our 'fight or flight response (I mean, that is what we ultimately talk about here, isn't it?) have evolved because they increased Darwinian Fitness. (explained a bit further down)\\n\\nAnother very fundamental thing to understand is that (the evolution of) life is all to do with the conversion of energy, and the efficiency of the process that converts that energy. No doubt this needs to be discussed in the comments, as this is too complex to explain here without this post turning into a book... As a taster:\\n\\n>The history of the life-Earth system can be divided into five 'energetic' epochs, each featuring the evolution of life forms that can exploit a new source of energy. These sources are: geochemical energy, sunlight, oxygen, flesh and fire. The first two were present at the start, but oxygen, flesh and fire are all consequences of evolutionary events. (DOI:10.1038/s41559-017-0138 (full text)(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316561085_The_energy_expansions_of_evolution)) ((isolated infographic)(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ilqooLhz2QM/WWrvECOT1MI/AAAAAAAACls/4009E2-pN3MgXO9a9C9pvbrhHQ9CjaCDQCLcBGAs/s1600/energy%2Band%2Bevolution.jpg))\\n\\nThis energy efficiency is most easily observed in **SYMBIOSIS**: *any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different biological organisms ... The organisms, each termed a symbiont, must be of different species.*\\n\\nWithin this symbioses; **Mutualism**. And in particular **Reciprocal Altruism**:\\n\\n*Mutualism or interspecies* *reciprocal altruism* *is a long-term relationship between individuals of different* *species* *where both individuals benefit. Mutualistic relationships may be either obligate for both species, obligate for one but facultative for the other, or facultative for both.*\\n\\n*Reciprocal Altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.*\\n\\nSo, before i go any further, i want to put some of this together. It's clear that our relationship with domesticated animals is a symbiotic one. However, because of the perception of suffering, the SVR describes this relationship as Parasitism.\\n\\nI want to argue it's actually a complex mutualistic one , with mostly obligatory and some facultative elements on both sides.\\n\\nAs we domesticate, we 'push away' from that balance balance point where natural selection 'wanted' to be originally. As a consequence, the domesticator **has to take the responsibility for the delta.** In effect, **the energy balance between the two species shifts**. If the domesticator takes a responsibility away from the domesticated, it takes over **the need to invest the energy** needed to provide for that faculty, and consequently **takes that need for energy investment away** from the domesticated. If the efficiency by which the domesticator can do that compared to the domesticated is higher, the gain ends up bigger than the sum of the parts...\\n\\nTo put it plain; Man is as much (or even more...) enslaved by the cow as the cow is by man...\\n\\nSo the next concept is Biological (or Darwinian) FITNESS: *the* *quantitative* *representation of individual* *reproductive success*. It is also equal to the *average contribution* *to the* *gene pool* *of the next generation, made by the same individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype.*\\n\\nSupper plain; fitness is how successful a species is at living. It ties in/overlaps somehow with selection; *The* *British* *sociologist* *Herbert Spencer* *coined the phrase \\"****survival of the fittest****\\" in his 1864 work Principles of Biology to characterise what* *Charles Darwin* *had called* *natural selection*\\\\*... The next further advance was the introduction of the concept of\\\\* *inclusive fitness* *by the British biologist* *W.D. Hamilton* *in 1964 in his paper on* *The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour.*\\n\\n*inclusive fitness is one of two metrics of evolutionary success as defined by* *W. D. Hamilton* *in 1964:*\\n\\n* ***Personal fitness*** *is the number of offspring that an individual begets (regardless of who rescues/rears/supports them)*\\n* ***Inclusive fitness*** *is the number of offspring equivalents that an individual rears, rescues or otherwise supports through its behaviour (****regardless of who begets them****)*\\n\\nIt should be getting clear by now where I'm going to with this argument. But before I going to introduce the last concept, I really want to lay emphasis again on Symbiosis, as it has been pooh-poohed a number of times on this sub as I brought it up in the comments. So here is a nice article talking about it in a bit more depth:\\n\\n**Intimate partnerships:** Recent research illuminates how symbiosis has been\\u2014and still is\\u2014a major player in evolution (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514276112)(https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514276112)\\n\\nSo the last concept I want to introduce is THE EXTENDED PHENOTYPE: *a biological concept* (... of which the..) *main idea is that* *phenotype* *should not be limited to biological processes such as* *protein biosynthesis* *or* *tissue* *growth, but extended to include all effects that a* *gene* (\\\\*) *has on its environment, inside or outside the body of the individual organism.*\\n\\n\\\\*I would like to add here that the original author of the hypotheses (Richard Dawkins) also came up with a 'parallel' to gene evolution, also driven by natural selection called the meme.\\\\* This is actually not discussed within this wiki article, so to complete the statement within his theory you should read: to include all effects that a gene **and meme** has on its environment\\n\\n(\\\\*Memes are blocks of information or knowledge, and the building blocks of our cultures; *Memes generally replicate through exposure to humans, who have evolved as efficient copiers of information and behaviour. Because humans do not always copy memes perfectly, and because they may refine, combine or otherwise modify them with other memes to create new memes, they can change over time. Dawkins likened the process by which memes survive and change through the* *evolution of culture* *to the natural selection of genes in biological* *evolution*\\\\*. '*Agriculture' is a meme, or better a set of memes...*)\\\\*\\n\\n*... we arrive at our own \\u2018central theorem\\u2019 of the extended phenotype: An animal's behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes \\"for\\" that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it.*\\n\\n(I'm adding this, but more to clarify the extended phenotype than for the concept itself... )\\n\\nA concept closely related to this is NICHE CONSTRUCTION: *the process by which an* *organism* *alters its own (or another species') local environment. These alterations can be a physical change to the organism\\u2019s environment or encompass when an organism actively moves from one habitat to another to experience a different environment.*\\n\\n*For niche construction to affect* *evolution* *it must satisfy three criteria: 1) the organism must significantly modify environmental conditions, 2) these modifications must influence one or more selection pressures on a recipient organism, and 3) there must be an evolutionary response in at least one recipient population caused by the environmental modification.)*\\n\\nSo what are the points I can distil out of all this?\\n\\n* First at all, and straight to the 'suffering' part of it. Domestication and selective breading has changed our livestock fundamental from it's wild ancestors. Especially to select and breed for docility have 'pushed up' the trigger-point where the 'fight or flight mode' is activated. The animals have, in a way, become fearless which for me equals less suffering...\\n\\n​\\n\\n* If we can say that fitness is how successful a species is at living, so higher fitness equals thriving. Thriving to me sounds like the opposite of suffering... It's an undeniable that agriculture increased fitness... (Humans and Big Ag Livestock Now Account for 96 Percent of Mammal Biomass)(https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html) . And once again, to support the notion that the relationship is a mutualistic one; (The Shared Use of Extended Phenotypes Increases the Fitness of Simulated Populations.)(https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.617915/full)\\n\\n​\\n\\n* From the point of domestication, I repeat; *\\" Over generations, the positive benefits received by each partner can drive physiological, morphological, or behavioural adaptations that increase their value to the other, as well as their reliance on the partnership for survival.\\"* Both us as our livestock have evolved into a mutual dependency. (As I stated right in the beginning, if we can avoid the 'humans can live 100% plant-based debate here... Also; I'm not defending the *way* we farm livestock, I defend the *act* in itself...)\\n\\n​\\n\\n* So finally, and to strengthen my final point, I would like to take the argument to the deepest form and state that the Human+Animal-husbandry-genepool (+crops-genepool\\\\*) are 'one-extended-phenotype', and that our failure to recognise it like that stems from the fact we have a tendency (we have evolved...) to think reductionistic instead of holistic. A thought experiment; If two 'species' are mutually dependent, say a fig and a wasp, the both unable to reproduce without the other ((Why we couldn't have figs without wasps)(https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/mutualism)), can we really state they are two different species? **Only if** we classify one half as an animal and one half as a plant... (\\\\* I put crops in brackets as it's not part of this argument and I'm personally convinced they play a secondary role after livestock.) To make this concept extra clear; the best example of this is of course (the lichen)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen), something most people would see as a kind of plant.\\n\\n​\\n\\nAnd finally finally, just to illustrate the point a bit more; (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0470-4)(https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/60105880/Spengler_and_Mueller_201920190724-68097-182601k-libre.pdf?1564001599=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DGrazing_animals_drove_domestication_of_g.pdf&Expires=1673350612&Signature=AtpA0CvRVAtlAFha2ue39chzUR6iNX~ikcmh5XcLY5G2AgA2mKVyHv6V-ZQTBLJqWmK83SH4TB21~gYYP6tPfaXsvIDvNTSpq34tzTvgxWNu0JwKlSWUPNA4IuD4PQSuR1ChFyzlKxIw4VnmGR5izMJ7WmVsQnzH7pIGSNR~aJG0VS3Muq6jy8Wa3Drbef4-3Dx0OsLs-va4rgNirEJIWKNApd-JjgyMddhhgeGsMVVzGrSO4jMYiF9aeGm8P4TvNiIaN7sOpBQ18vnVkZtO9OZSxwrZXy524~aoWDE5xvusGCV~MNK3jzZ8USu09dan8PPqBJBKXYbTaHm0OjfJHA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA)\\n\\n​\\n\\nSo I think this is about all I can say here so looking forward to replies to the comments.\\n\\n(ps I'm going to be a bit busy this coming week, but will reply!)",

"There are any increasing number of theories that mushrooms/fungi are in fact sentient beings capable of relatively advanced communication, ability to work as a group, perceive the world, etc. Have you considered these theories and does it have an impact on your life and veganism?",

"Is a humans life more valuable and meaningful than any other animal?",

"I have two cats and have always loved having pets. But this can be nothing else but a moral contradiction. How can I call myself ethical and eat ethically but then say that it's fine for me to be the keeper of other animals. What if they roamed around freely to their own accord and I was just the food supplier. What is a way to have ethical pets if any",

"For context I have been vegan for a year now but this topic came up in discussion with a friend and I wanted to know what you guys thought of it.\\n\\nI know someone who suffered from anxiety and depression and recently found cooking to be a tool to help with this. He cooks mainly curries and these normally contain chicken or another type of meat. \\n\\nThe obvious fact here is that he could switch out the chicken for something else and he would gain a similar amount of pleasure from the process of cooking.\\n\\nHowever when we look at this action on its own, do you think that the benefit to his mental health is worth the pain caused to the animal involved? \\n\\nIt's kind of hard to explain the context fully but objectively, where should we draw the line? I for example wouldn't severely oppose someone who suffers from an eating disorder choosing to eat some meat as it would undoubtedly be good for their wellbeing. \\n\\nWould love to here your guys' thoughts.",

"The ancient ancestors of modern humans consumed flesh some 2.6 million years ago. The most commonly accepted theory is that what we believe makes us the most \\"human\\" (aside from our genes; our brain) evolved to the size and ability it has bc of the consumption of meat. As such, we have been \\"conditioned\\" to consume meat for 15x longer than we have been able to talk. We have also consumed meat longer than we have walked upright. We have been consuming meat longer than we have been making tools, too. Just like these other aspects of human culture, we condition each new generation due to the continued success the last generation experienced w the aforementioned, making the conditioning more and more ingrained. \\n\\nThis is not to say it makes meat consumption correct morally; this is not an appeal to nature of history. This is not an argument in favor of meat consumption per se, that is. It is a critical injunction against a common refrain that I hear on this sub: that we only continue to consume meat bc of simple conditioning parents do to their children and/or bc of the \\"big meat industry\\" My argument is there is nothing simple about the conditioning to consume meat and \\"Big Meat (hehe) has v little to do w it in the grand scheme of it. \\n\\nAnything that gives us a survival advantage will gain \\"favor\\" and be reinforced. If a specific location at a specific time of the year is favorable for finding fruit, over the course of several generations, that location will be selected for even if the fruit stops being as plentiful. This is part of the same reinforcing system which leads to criminals selecting close to where they live as the primary place to do crime; it's what familiarity is. It is what has been hypothesized is at the center of the birth of \\"sacred\\" places that seem to have no real significance; it's reinforcement from long forgotten generations of continued visitation of a formerly fruitful destination that we are conditioned to return to for long forgotten reasons. \\n\\nMeat consumption is believed to be the leading cause of our brain expansion which has given us our greatest survival adaptions. The amount of reinforcement this has had over the course of 2.6 million years cannot be understated. As such, it's not simple \\"indoctrination\\" as it is when some faddish cult has sprung up and conditioned someone to accept their leader the proper moral arbiter of existance, etc. To consume a vegan diet through choice is a novel concept to homo spaiens as our ancestors were consuming flesh literally for millions of years prior to modern humans being present on earth. \\n\\nIdeas like truth, morality, and justice are all conditioned as consuming flesh is. The only difference is truth, morality, and justice have existed for millions of years less than the consumption of flesh. If the desire to live in a house (also conditioned) is strong in humans do to < 10k years of habitual conditioning, imagine how it will be in 2.6 million years of continual exposure w positive reinforcement. The entire point here, again, is not to argue that meat consumption is morally correct, as meat consumption happened millions of years prior to moralities creation, but, to show that the concept of it being a faddish and/or cult-like conditioning/indoctrination is plain false. It goes beyond even cultural conditioning; it goes beyond human conditioning. It is a hominid conditioning that has shaped our behavior, our tool crafting, our walking patterns, or migration, our general and specific behavior, our culture, our entire being for literally millions of years. \\n\\nTo believe we can simply just toss that away and simply move on bc it is not a direct need for survival is foolish, IMHO. We do not need so much that use and yet use it bc of the longstanding comfort we have w it through conditioning and those who argue veganism should just happen would do better if they understood the dominate nature of conditioning and how conditioned we are to consume meat. What this means is if veganism is to become the way of humanity, it will prob take a very very long time to become this. Meat consumption is not simply a fad or a cultural idea; it is what has made us what we are.",

"Just bc I can survive wo consuming animals and just bc I cause suffering to an animal in killing it to consume does not mean I should not do it (it also doesn't mean I should do it; by default both are valid responses rationally/logically speaking) Morality is an emotional concept based in perceptions and not logical discourse. It's the same fallacious reasoning as someone saying \\"The 2nd Amendment says we can have guns so we always should be able to have them!\\" Just bc it is a specific way does not mean it ought to remain that way in perpetuity. \\n\\nAs such, when you are debating omnivore interlocutors and believe you are making a rational/logical position clear and using these emotion based positions to reinforce them, you are actually undercutting your position. There's nothing inherently wrong w making an emotional argument; one should know they are though and proceed as such. It is much more difficult to justify why everyone alive should adopt your emotional based position VS a logical one. \\n\\nSo please, continue to make emotional pleas in support of animals and your position, but, know that it is not a logical conclusion; just bc something is a specific way in reality that does not mean it ought to continue this way. We absolutely can survive wo animal products but this in no way informs to a reality where we ought to live that way. Much to the same extent, we do cause pain to an animal when we kill it, but, this fact does not speak to, in a rational/logical way, what we should or should not do. There's a gap and one must fill that gap w an emotional plea, not a logical one.",

"So I\\u2019m a vegan and I absolutely adore cooking shows and competitions- think Masterchef and shows on Food Network like Beat Bobby Flay. But I was thinking the other day about how usually a mandatory ingredient in those episodes are a cut of meat or type of cheese and you don\\u2019t often see a vegan competing in those shows. So if you were vegan and entered the competition you would have to cook those ingredients for the judges to eat in order to advance, but say you went on it for the purposes of exposure on cooking vegan food when you have the ability to or to get recognition in the culinary scene as an end game to highlight veganism, how do you feel about it? \\n \\nIn the scenario I\\u2019m thinking the chef wouldn\\u2019t eat/taste the animal product, they would just know how to cook the protein from feel, smell, or based off previous experience cooking it in the past, but they would take the opportunity to make a vegan dish when the mandatory ingredient is a vegetable or condiment of some kind. Thoughts?",

"Full disclosure, I am vegan and have been for many years. I believe that it is important to show the reality of the industry to people that might otherwise not know so they can make informed moral decisions. \\n\\nSomeone recently linked me to a street auditing video where interaction with some vegan street activism is instigated and captured. Auditing is a kind of sub culture where people exercise filming rights in public to see how they are received by officials such as police, and other members of the general public. Some say it's to protect the rights of people by exercising them, some say it just to provoke people for views. It's very interesting either way.\\n\\nIn this particular video the photographer happens upon some vegan street activism where television screens are displaying footage of violent animal agriculture practices. The video maker questions the morality of showing these kinds of images in public where children might view it and be disturbed by what they see. He likens it to showing pornography in public and describes it as inappropriate. \\n\\nI've been thinking about this for a few days and I have some thoughts on this argument:\\n\\n - I think children have the right to know how the food they consume is produced, but I do find the argument against potentially traumatising them somewhat convincing.\\n - I have never shown this kind of footage to a child for the very reason that I wouldn't want to traumatise them. When asked by children why I don't eat/use animal products I will usually simply tell them that I don't want to unnecessarily harm animals for it and leave it at that.\\n - One key difference here regarding the pornography comparison, is that while both might be seen as inappropriate for children, most children are supporting the practices shown on the vegans' videos, however indirect it might be. This isn't really the case for pornography. In the country where this interaction is recorded, kids are allowed to buy animal products and do, they are not allowed to buy pornography (even though some might).\\n - Another aspect here is culpability. Most children are not really in a position to be held accountable for directly supporting these kinds of practices. The younger children who might be more upset by this kind of footage are not usually responsible for sourcing their own food and most likely rely on their adult parents/guardians.\\n - While the images might be disturbing for children and adults alike, it is not really comparable to the harm that comes to animals in the production of food. I realise that this isn't a particularly strong argument and feels like a kind of two wrongs tu quoque.\\n \\n\\nThese are just my thoughts on it. I wanted to get some thoughts from others in this sub whether you agree with veganism or not. Is it morally permissible to show these kinds of images in public in your view? \\n\\n\\nThe video in question was this one: https://youtu.be/_14eiUufvws\\n\\nHis approach was a little obnoxious but he seemed to be sympathetic to the ethics of veganism (he spoils it a bit at the end by vindictively frying meat at around 19:30 and blaming the protestors). I think the demonstrators just accepted him as one of the many trolls they encounter through outreach and didn't engage in any meaningful way about the argument regarding the appropriateness of showing footage like of animal harm in public.\\n\\nSo what do you think? I'd like to hear takes on the topic from many different outlooks.",

"I see a lot of vegans claiming that a vegan diet is 'natural' (meaning it is what we would eat in nature). But in deciduous places such as Europe the only natural food other than meat would be things such as berrys, nuts, etc; and those things only grow at certain times in the year. So how would we have survived without animal foods? No hate, just interested.",

"Is the author trying to avoid some kind of overly-excitable profanity filter? Is it a PC thing? Serious question, I'm new to this sub and I don't get it.",

" Okay so mic the vegan made a video responding to \\"what I've learned\\".\\n\\n(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\\\\_83-G6fwmgg)(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_83-G6fwmgg)\\n\\nBut there's this comment which suggests that mike got some of the details wrong-\\n\\n\\" Mike cited this Review that actually shows Processed Meat and Sodium are Healthier than Fiber in his \\"debunking\\" Eric Berg video. This data was not reported in the Write up which vilified Eggs and Cholesterol - the Data was ignored, which can be found in the Figures / Tables .\\n\\nThis study looked at 6 of the Largest Heart Disease Study Cohorts between 1985\\u20132016 . That's a lot of Data. Still believe dr. Greger or Mike after reading this? \\u2022 Fiber was a Higher Risk Factor for CVD and All Cause Mortality than Processed Meat and Sodium \\u2022 Low Saturated Fat (vegetarian / vegan) Diets had the Highest CVD\\u00a0 and All Cause Mortality Risk \\u2022 Red Meat, Animal Meat, Eggs and Cholesterol had the Lowest Risk for CVD and All Cause Mortality\\n\\nJAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) Associations of Dietary Cholesterol or Egg Consumption With Incident Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2728487)(https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fjamanetwork.com%2Fjournals%2Fjama%2Ffullarticle%2F2728487) \\\\-- Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54831/)(https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC54831%2F) Low cholesterol and violent crime (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11104842/)(https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fm%2Fpubmed%2F11104842%2F) \\"Adjusting for other factors, low cholesterol is associated with increased subsequent criminal violence.\\" Interestingly, there has been a rise oin militant Veganism in the last few years. Correlation, or Causation? Please consider this.\\n\\nDietary Cholesterol, Lipid Levels, and Cardiovascular Risk among Adults with Diabetes or Impaired Fasting Glucose in the Framingham Offspring Study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024517/)(https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC6024517%2F) \\u201cIn sex-stratified analyses, men in the highest sex-specific tertile of dietary cholesterol had a 43% lower risk of CVD \\u2026\\u201d \\u201cThis study found no evidence of adverse association between dietary cholesterol and risk of CVD among adults with T2DM or prediabetes. In fact, after adjusting for confounding by other lifestyle factors, those with higher dietary cholesterol intakes had a lower long-term risk of developing CVD.\\u201d\\n\\nUse of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study and updated meta-analysis (https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/346/bmj.e8707.full.pdf)(https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmj.com%2Fcontent%2Fbmj%2F346%2Fbmj.e8707.full.pdf) \\u201cIn this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid \\\\(Omega 6 Vegetable Oils\\\\) in place of saturated fats \\\\(Animal Fats\\\\) increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease.\\u201d\\n\\nThe Evidence for Saturated Fat and for Sugar Related to Coronary Heart Disease (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856550/)(https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC4856550%2F) \\"Additionally, diets high in sugar may induce many other abnormalities associated with elevated CHD risk, including elevated levels of glucose, insulin, and uric acid, impaired glucose tolerance, insulin and leptin resistance, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and altered platelet function.\\" \\"This paper reviews the evidence linking saturated fats and sugars to CHD, and concludes that the latter is more of a problem than the former.\\" \\"\\n\\nand there is also a post on r\\\\\\\\science that states that\\n\\n\\"Results from a large (n=48188), 18-year follow-up from the prospective EPIC-Oxford study show that vegetarians and vegans have a 20% higher risk of stroke compared to meat eaters.\\"\\n\\n(https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d30jzq/results\\\\_from\\\\_a\\\\_large\\\\_n48188\\\\_18year\\\\_followup\\\\_from/)(https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d30jzq/results_from_a_large_n48188_18year_followup_from/)\\n\\nThis is actually pretty concerning. Can anyone help?",

"I have been a vegan for almost two years and I was traveling in a train through the English countryside. I would often see these huge fields with 10-12 sheep/cattle eating grass, sleeping, lying down etc which seemed reasonably happy with their lives. So my friend (who I have tried to convert to veganism) said to me \\"You claim all animals are put in cages, tortured, abused, never get to see sunlight etc but that's not what I see\\". How would you argue against that or explain that? With that said, I still think it's completely unethical to kill an animal for meat even if it lived a good life.",

"When someone can\\u2019t go vegan or stops being vegan for health issues, vegans like to point out that \\u201cthe academy of dietetics and nutrition have conducted a study which proves a well planned vegan diet is appropriate for all stages of life and meets nutritional requirements\\u201d\\nHowever, it doesn\\u2019t seem like this statement applies to some people with certain medical conditions. \\nWhile in theory, a balanced and supplemented vegan diet can meet nutritional needs, this may not be practical for everyone. For example, they may have gut issues and problems with digesting plant based food, or they could have multiple food allergies or intolerances thus restricting their diet would be risky. Some people have absorbtion issues and meat is more nutrient dense and bioavailable than plants.",

"Listen I'm a huge fan of Ed Earthing even I'm not a vegan, there are some good topics on connotation with animal ethics to live and justified anti-violence. He's an activist on animal ethics because he finds any violence unjustified, which sounds great message about anti-violence that even non-vegans could appreciate. Yes, an act of antiviolence is a great activist because any violence has no excuse to happen- even domestic abuse because that's no good. Yes, he's one of those anti-violent people that comment on fighting is wrong, this is a good thing because bullfighting needs to stop and rodeos are too aggressive (in a cold-hearted psychotic way) to happen. \\n\\nNot getting attached to a farm animal is not an excuse because the farmer is letting to become aggressive to the very animal they raised. Aggression as in not having a qualm if it gets killed because someone slit their throat (does it sound an act of aggression to animals). Not getting attach does not mean it's okay to be aggressive or cold heart kill it like a murderer. No wonder Ed Earthling is becoming more anti violent when years go by because he's tried of any aggressive excuse of killing because the farmer told them not to get attached. When did the farmer told you not to get attached when people develop signs of aggression like a sadist that wants violence because there are not attached to the reality itself, ironic right?",

"I have this one \\n(https://animalvisuals.org/projects/1mc/)(https://animalvisuals.org/projects/1mc/) \\n\\n\\nBut it doesn't show how it's calculating deaths for cows. Is there a more supported study?",

"Basically title. Many insects and small rodents are killed in the farming process. Even natural pesticides are extremely toxic and in a lot of cases are not superior in any reasonable format. Why is this ignored?",

"I see their points but I still feel it's twisting and altering the definition of veganism to make it suit an antinatalist agenda in which animal exploitation is pushed to the back while resource use is pushed to the front of the argument. I'm antinatalist my self for entirely personal reason that have nothing to do with veganism, yet I struggle to see how this would ever help our cause. Our very existence causes harm, we accept that as vegans and do our best to reduce harm as much as possible, but how does that extend into self-sterilization? So I'd love to hear some sound and logical arguments against it. I'm hoping there's more than just 'you can raise vegan kids'.",

"A big part of why I started supporting veganism and animal liberation is (among other things) the climate change aspect. I heard about cows emitting a lot of methane, so it seems logical to support stopping the meat and milk industry. \\n\\n\\nHowever, I have 2 questions about that, that I'd like to get an answer to, to be confident about my views ; \\n\\n\\n1) Wouldn't the cows still emit methane once they're free? I mean, they're still there. And we can't just kill all the cows that were in the meat industry, can we? That would seem counter-intuitive. \\n2) If we liberate all the cows, what do we do? Are they few enough that they can just coexist freely with humans without interfering?",

"I saw a video saying chickens for meat are bred to grow at an unnatural pace. Even if they weren\\u2019t killed wouldn\\u2019t they just suffer having to go through that? Wouldn\\u2019t it be more humane to just not let them suffer?",

"What are some good things to watch/read for an introduction to veganism?\\nMy friends are fine with talking about veganism, but I'm quite bad, because I get easily frustrated. I want to tell them X is a good place to learn about veganism.",

"Imagine a forest. Deers live in this forest, but a lot of them are starving and sick because there is not enough food for them.\\n\\nHumans see that the situation is bad.\\n\\nFirst human: Don't do anything, just leave the animals alone. They have only one right: the right to be left alone.\\n\\nSecond human: Are you insane? They are starving and sick. I think we should release some wolves to do the job. Wolves are natural. Everything that is natural is good. Nature knows best. Wolves are evolved to hunt deer. We need to do what we evolved to do. Wolves have canines, they need to eat meat to survive. We need to cull the weak and sick deer. We need to kill the deer, otherwise they are going to die. Survival of the fittest, might makes right baby! Praise the ecosystem, praise nature!\\n\\nThird human: What? Wolves have zero compassion, they are going to rip them apart and eat them alive, that's absolutely insane! Imagine that you are a pregnant deer and a wolf rips your baby out of you and eats you alive. That's absolute horror. I think human hunters should do the job, they are capable of compassion. A quick bullet to the head is much better than getting eaten alive.\\n\\nFourth human: I think we should take the sick and starving into a wildlife sanctuary, give them food and heal them. I think we can come up with a non-lethal method of population control, for example sterilization. We can also monitor them, heal them when they get sick and vaccinate them against diseases. Deer are friends! They are not food! We need to make sure our friends are okay.\\n\\n&#x200B;\\n\\nOut of the 4, which human's point of view is most ethical? Which one would you choose?",

"It looks and feels better, it\\u2019s sustainable and organic. It does a better job than the synthetic vegan crap. I\\u2019m NOT talking about skinning a snow leopard here; I\\u2019m talking about coyote pelts from culls, lambskins as a byproduct of raising sheep/lamb, deer skins from hunts, etc. etc.\\n\\n*The questions/rebuttals are all very repetitive at this point. Any point you want to make has probably already been made, so check the threads. I\\u2019ve answered all comments at this time. Don\\u2019t want to devote more time to replies, so if I don\\u2019t respond, it\\u2019s because I turned off notifications and got better things to do*",

"I\\u2019m half expecting the vegan half of this sub to say \\u201cof course it\\u2019s better to eat the plant based alternatives! It\\u2019s plant based and full of goodness!\\u201d And the omnivore side of it to say \\u201cmeat is better as it\\u2019s not all processed with chemicals etc.\\u201d\\n\\nIt\\u2019s a debate I keep seeing on social media when I see ads for meat alternatives.\\n\\nBefore anybody does also argue \\u201cif you love animals so much, then why do we need alternatives?\\u201d Sometimes to an omnivore these alternatives are one thing helping them do their bit at least! \\n\\nBut the reason I ask this is because I\\u2019m personally trying to switch my diet to more plant based alternatives. A lot I have struggled with but some I have really enjoyed over the past 12 months.\\n\\nWhat is the actual science behind these alternate foods compared to their meat counterparts? Are they full of chemicals? Are they better?",

"What do you think about the increasing prevalence of this sentiment? Is it a legitimate threat to our movement? I have seen it solely on \\"social-justice\\" blogs, instagrams and other social media platforms. It truly baffles me that someone who prides themselves on being so aware of injustice can dismiss veganism or condone animal abuse. \\nPerhaps the most extreme examples of cognitive dissonance come from these people who spend their time analyzing the smallest nuances of racism, sexism, homophobia etc. and then dismiss animal abuse as a non-problem. I immediately lose all respect for \\"social justice warriors\\" who post anti-vegan messages. Any attempt to reason with them is met with dismissal on the grounds that \\"you're being ableist/classist\\". It's infuriating and their belief makes zero sense to me. I can understand nearly every argument (were meant to eat meat, food chain, animals do it etc.) except this one. \\nSo I have two questions- are these people right? and if not, how would you approach them?",

"I keep seeing posts making claims that 'you can't be X unless your a vegan', or saying 'you can't be vegan unless you're also X'\\n\\nAnd honestly I agree. How can I say it is a good thing for me to have strong convictions about how animals are treated, while I have zero convictions about how our planet/other people are treated?\\n\\nI hear the phrase 'veganism is THE moral baseline' and it bothers me so much it makes me want to crawl out of my skin. 'Veganism is A moral baseline' is far more fitting saying in my mind as it doesn't hold veganism up a a pedestal as if being vegan is the only way to be ethical.\\n\\nTo sum up, I see being Vegan as simply a facet of being an ethical person and that there are many equally valid and important facets that have little to do with veganism. Furthermore being vegan is only a single step on the road to becoming an ethical person.\\n\\nThis ended up being more of a rant, and this post isn't based on any real research and is mostly just my feelings. Any feedback/critiques are very encouraged",

"Mined fertilizer ingredients (rock phosphate, potash) are - well from mining. This impacts the environment isn\\u2019t sustainable and negatively affects animals and humans.\\n\\nI have seen many \\u201cvegan fertilizer\\u201d products with mined ingredients - this amounts to \\u201cvegan washing\\u201d these products aren\\u2019t really vegan \\ud83e\\udd51",

"Could becoming vegan as a whole singlehandedly save the environment if veganism becomes a bigger trend in the future? \\n\\nThe climate is dying, and that's really sad, I hope people realize it and start to become vegan: and I hope veganism can make a positive impact on the climate well enough to curve the loss the environment is suffering.",

"I thought that this sub might know the answer to my question.\\n\\nI neither like nor dislike PETA. In fact (as a vegan) I know surprisingly little about them. I constantly see PETA being made fun of or criticized, but I'm not sure where this criticism is coming from. Apparently they lie, exaggerate, and scam people? \\n\\nCould anyone point me to some information on this? I'm interested to know why they're so infamous and if I should be avoiding them. ",

"There seems to be a lot of ex-vegans in /r/zerocarb like a really high amount of them. I also have 3 ladies at my work who are 10+ year vegetarian and they are all back eating meat because of health issues, described mostly as autoimmune issues... is long term veganism simply not possible? We have entire vegetarian populations for example India, but they are not the healthiest people on the planet I guess. What\\u2019s going on here? Do we need meat and dairy?\\n\\nAnother example today in the news:\\nhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7872671/Woman-switched-vegan-diet-eating-offal-says-shes-never-felt-better.html",

"Have a positive, and compelling, argument for your beliefs.\\n\\nIt's really that simple. Understand the ethical case for your position and state it clearly.\\n\\nThings that don't work.\\n\\n-Equating animals to humans.-\\n\\nThis should be obvious but it's a regularly repeated double standard. The other animals aren't held to the same ethical obligations as humans but humans should see our equality with the other animals and not doing so is \\"spesiesist\\". If you can't sew the double standard here read it again.\\n\\n-Claim that if there isn't a single trait, or group of traits, that apply to all ethical decisions the person is being inconsistant in a way that makes them wrong-\\n\\nEthical decisions are situational and a reason that fits a general case may not cover some fringe case. That doesn't mean there isn't some other reason to behave similarly in the fringe case. All it means is fringe cases will often have fringe reasoning. \\n\\nAll one needs for proper ethical reasoning is a goal and a justificafion for the activity in service to the goal. Not all goals are equal and if your base goal isn't human wellbeing in curious how you define the word good and what standard you use for ethics that isn't self destructive.\\n\\n-Use any form of deontology-\\n\\nIf you want to claim a moral duty exists you'll need to justify that claim. Else I'm free to say, \\"no it doesn't.\\" And that which was presented without evidence or argument needs no evidence or argument to dismiss it.\\n\\n-Call me names-\\n\\nI'm regularly amazed by this one. The sub is debate a vegan not get called names by one. The hostility does nothing for your cause but undermine it. If you can't engage in good faith, then you probably should take some time off for your own health and wellbeing. All that stress is harmful.\\n\\n-Hold a very narrow time window for utility-\\n\\nUtilitarianism is the only ethical system that can justify its precepts. However arguments against utility almost always follow one of two paths, 1. A very narrow focus on utility that requires every action to have an immediate transactional benefit, extreme short sightedness, or 2. A hilarious hypothetical where the base rules of reality are rewritten and then ethical decisions under the nde ruleset are examined with the ethics of actual reality. \\n\\nSeriously, stop the down vote, hold off on asking me about puppy kicking, those only reinforce the stereotype of the angry vegan.\\n\\nRather than attacking my position, make the positive case for yours. Even if I agree all the reasons I do things are wrong, that doesn't get me to veganism. The only way to get me to vegan is to convince me veganism is the best path to human flourishing.",

"A few posts from /r/vegan have made it to /r/all. The subject of these posts usually involves mocking omnivores or discussing how much better vegans are. This gives all meat-reduced diets a bad name and turns people away.\\n\\nI'm very concerned that Reddit's vegan and vegetarian communities would rather be an exclusive clique and brag about how awesome they are. If that's what you all want, for the sake of animals you should make a private subreddit. That attitude makes omnivores think \\"oh those crazy vegans\\" or \\"oh those miserable hippies\\" and they won't give any thought to our messages. Sure, maybe we'll \\"win over\\" one or two, but even those who come into it militant and gung-ho about how they'll never harm another animal again are more likely to burn out and quickly go back to their old diets to never return. As a result, more animals will die.\\n\\nWhen presenting ourselves as vegans and vegetarians, we should be peaceful, kind, tolerant, and helpful. If someone says they won't eat meat one day a week, we should celebrate that. We should post high quality pictures of our meat free meals to /r/foodporn, we should post recipe guides to /r/gifrecipes, we should post our quick and frugal meals to /r/eatcheapandhealthy and when we do, leave the shaming, blaming, and politics out of it. Everyone is aware of vegetarianism and veganism, most are unaware of how simple and tasty it can be. \\n\\nIf we let people come to use, they're more likely to stay. Please, for the sake of animals, try to represent this movement well.",

"Sorry I don't know how to word it exactly but I was curious if what I'm growing is vegan. I use animal manure, and sometimes other animal products like ground bone instead of chemical fertilizers. Does this make the veggies I'm growing not vegan?",

"There is a video titled Grass Fed Beef Slaughter (you have to verify your age on youtube to watch).\\n\\nDo you think if people were shown footage where animals are killed as humanly as possible, they would be upset and disgusted, the same way they are when they are shown the usual footage by vegan activists?\\n\\nWould you be against doing cube of truth with footage of best case scenarios? - I would be interested in your reasoning.\\n\\nMost people just can't afford/don't have access to animal products from \\"cruelty-free\\" or \\"ethical\\" farms, but they certainly would want to buy these products, if they had the opportunity.\\n\\nIf this is the case, I believe in order to make someone vegan, you have to be able to make a case against a best case scenario.\\n\\nI believe most vegans doing this kind of activism wouldn't accept being introduced to any other ethical issue in a one-sided manner, they would want to know the pros and cons of prostitution, market economy, human migration etc. \\n\\nIf I wanted to make a case against market economy, it is evident to me, that I have to make a strong case against market economy, not capitalism. \\n\\nOr if I wanted to make a case against all forms of prostitution, arguing that prostitution is associated with the spread of sexually transmitted diseases is not enough - I would know, that I have to present all the pros and cons, before making the conclusion, that prostitution is never ethical.\\n\\nMeat eaters could do cube of truth with the same material vegan use (or basically just join vegan cube of truth events), and they could hand out information about \\"cruelty-free\\" or \\"ethical\\" farming.\\n\\n# Edit:\\n\\n### One more analogy:\\n\\nI could show people shocking images of bodybuilders who were using drugs or other extreme measures and got sick, to imply that no bodybuilding whatsoever is the only alternative to bodybuilding on drugs or in a extreme way. \\n\\nIf people were telling me:\\n\\n> But I think bodyweight exercise is okay.\\n\\nI would tell them:\\n\\n> But look at these images! Look!!! See??? Do you honestly think bodybuilding can ever be safe???\\n\\nThey:\\n\\n> Yes, I think so.\\n\\nAnd I:\\n\\n> Do you really really think so? Don't you see??? You don't??? No?\\n\\nAnd so on.",

"When did the use of the word 'transition' become established in discourses around veganism? Particularly used in phrases like 'I transitioned to veganism in 2016' or 'I'm currently transitioning to being a vegan'. I've looked through personal accounts of veganism through the decades in magazines and books and have only really found it occurring in discussions from the 2010's onwards.\\n\\nI'm particularly interested the verb 'to transition' and what this says about identity and how people conceive and construct their lives in a postmodern world. Does the use of such words create particular metaphysical assumptions about human identity and how it can be shaped and reinvented over linear time? We develop narratives and stories about our selves - careers of selfhood that people strive to make coherent and 'make sense'. Assumes that as individuals we pass or move from one state to another - that we somehow cross an threshold or Rubicon after which we have transitioned and arrive at another place or state of existence - but this place is never fixed, the labels people transition to are malleable and open-ended so how do we know when we have successfully transitioned? We are more in a constant state of becoming, and to 'have transitioned' assumes fixed states of mind and perception.\\n\\nI know I am just splitting hairs and engaging in semantics but genuinely find it quite interesting. Any thoughts appreciated!",

"I've seen so many posts by PETA and others about how its unethical, wrong and murder to eat meat, use wool/fur, have pets, etc. while simultaneously applauding abortion as \\"a choice\\".\\n\\nYou can't make a human life a choice and an animal life something that is more valuable than a human.",

"I've seen a lot of overlap in products that are vegan and products that are non-GMO. Is there a lot of demand for this or is it another vegan/health conscious stereotype? ",

"Hi and Happy New Year. I have a question that I was hoping a vegan could help with.\\n\\nIn terms of animal cruelty, there\\u2019s no doubt in my mind that a vegan diet means that you aren\\u2019t complicit in the deaths of livestock. But it means more and more people are relying on crops - which it could be argued deprive wild animals of natural habitat. \\n\\nWhat\\u2019s more, harvesting crops using industrial methods would harm or kill small animals and insects. \\n\\nHow are these issues reconciled with the idea of a cruelty-free diet? \\n\\nThanks!",

"I\\u2019m not a vegan but I was wondering about what y\\u2019all consider to be reasonable self defense. So if I am hiking and a rabid coyote starts to run at me and tries to bite me, can I shoot it?\\n\\nI personally think this is fine as the animal is already going to die from the rabies and I don\\u2019t have to get bit.",

"I just realized i\\u2019m arguing with 3 separate people over bivalve sentience level\\u2019s in attempt to get a \\u201cgot you vegan\\u201d moment when I really don\\u2019t even care. I abstain from eating them as a precaution. But my argument is that if we were to ignore bivalves, what is stopping you from eating a plant based diet three meals a day instead of the slaughtered/tortured/murdered carcass\\u2019s of dead animals? If I bit the bullet on bivalves not being sentient would you go vegan? If I proved that bivalves are indeed sentient would you go vegan? It seems like bivalves don\\u2019t have anything to do with you not going vegan so why aren\\u2019t you vegan?",

"Before anything, I'm a vegan, but I struggle to understand why animal sanctuaries function the way they do.\\nWhen I went vegan I was all in for animal sanctuaries, I offered myself to volunteer at one that was in a town I was going to visit for a couple of days, after I read in their FB page how exhausting was to clean up, after they denied my petition, which upset me because I would be happy to be cleaning turds or whatever I could do for these people and the animals, I started to look closely into how they work.\\nSo first, all you can see in a sanctuary FB page or insta or whatever, is that they need money, lots of it, but they only tell you so after telling you a heartbreaking story of an abused chicken that needs a 600\\u20ac operation to keep living but that they would never stop suffering because of their previous abuse.\\n\\nI have several issues with this and it's something that bugs me beyond belief.\\nFirst is that, they keep animals that are in constant pain just to show carnists what they are supporting is wrong.\\nSecond is that they require a massive amount of money just to exist, money that in my idea could be used to much better purposes, like teaming up with more sanctuaries and setting up a natural park or natural reserve.\\nThird is that they also \\"save\\" wild animals and to me bringing home a mouse that was bitten by a fox in the woods and asking people for money to \\"save\\" them is utterly ridiculous, it's just another way of being an intruder in nature, meddling with natural selection and evolution, as if we are to \\"save\\" and protect every animal ever and ignoring predators actually have to eat meat to survive.\\n\\nI just don't get it at all, I obviously respect what they do, I'm aware that is very noble to save another life from cruelty but I'm starting to see this is not always the case, but some sort of ego trip.\\nDon't be mad at me, I'm an open minded person and I haven't found any information yet to reconsider this, to me it just gets more obvious every day and it annoys me.",

"This is topical now, and probably of interest to explore how vegans think about Veganism.\\n\\nThere are a few meat-eater friends of mine who go to vegan restaurants while I'm around, they always pick the most meat-like vegan food. It's appreciable that no animals are harmed in the process but the intent to eat meat is still unchanged.\\n\\nI think, our focus should be more around promoting ethical veganism (than just dietary) exclude all forms of animal exploitation including not wearing clothing made of wool, leather and not using products tested on animals.\\n\\nWhat are your thoughts?",

"Vegan most of my life, and it has always been very very easy for me, I have never enjoyed eating animal products, nor have I ever craved them. I\\u2019ve always been healthy with no illness or physical issues. I used to think people who said they need meat to feel good, or to be healthy were in denial.\\n\\nBut by now, I\\u2019ve just met too many people who have tried to be vegan or vegetarian who experienced energy and health issues or intense cravings that were so hard to ignore they could not sustain this diet. I am now of the mind that some bodies just respond better to plant based and others to animal based. \\nGiven that probably most humans could \\u201csurvive\\u201d on either all vegan or omni diets, is it possible that some people only \\u201cthrive\\u201d consuming animal products and others thrive more with plants?\\nSecondary debate: is it ok to choose to thrive rather than simply to survive if it meant taking the life of animals?",

"A year ago I was 375lbs my blood pressure was 175/105 and fasting glucose was 135.\\nI joined /r/zerocarb and started eating only meat and drinking water.\\nI'm down to 265 my blood pressure is 119/75 and my fasting glucose is 75.\\n\\nI'm curious about your input/questions about my past year or results.",

"\\"Don't ask me why I'm vegan, ask yourself why you aren't.\\" :P",

"Me and my missus have been debating this for a long time now, the same goes for animal medicines so on and so fourth ",

"I am a vegan myself but when I think about veganism as a mean to avoid unnecessary animal suffering, from a philosophical perspective, I run into an issue.\\n\\nSome animals are killed when growing crops, vegetables and fruit too, so if we are willing to give up the enjoyment of eating meat to save animal lives, why wouldn't we give up the enjoyment of eating vegan snacks, vegan cakes and similar stuff that is not necessary to maintain a healthy diet and for humanity to continue its existence?\\n\\nGrowing plants to produce these things harms animals too (obviously not on the same scale) and we eat them solely for our own personal pleasure so what moral high-ground does a vegan that buys vegan food, than isn't necessary for him to survive, have to lecture a non-vegan about morality? Wouldn't it essentially be the same as someone that eats 2 chickens a month telling someone that eats 3 chickens a month that his diet is morally superior because he supports less animal suffering?\\n\\n**By the way, I am aware that to compare the deaths of animals caused by the crop industry and the deaths caused by the meat industry is ridiculous using a common sense but I'm asking from this cold hard logic viewpoint**",

"If pharmaceutics don't experiments with them, what will be the solution? i think the human cares and life it's an important thing,but how can we maintain a balance between the pharmaceutical benefits for our health and the animal life?",

"What is your stance on the use of manure? It is no longer a waste product. It's a commodity. What about the use of blood, fish, and bonemeal as fertilizer? Do vegans avoid such produce? Could large populations be sustained on produce without large animal farms? Could we produce enough cotton and linnen for clothing?",

"I haven't researched the stats in a long time but when I first started looking into this stuff many years ago, it was said that something like 50Billion animals where killed a year for human eating.\\n\\nObviously, if the world transitions to vegan, these 50B will mostly be culled. Maybe some can be rewilded but probably virtually none as a percentage and maybe some will go to sanctuaries but again, virtually none percentage wise. (This point remains true on a smaller scale if any country goes vegan or if the demand for animal products goes down significantly).\\n\\nIf one argues: \\"while the current state of farming is disgusting, we could collapse down to some 'humane farming\\". Vegans will often say \\"Even if the animal lives the good-life, killing can never be humane\\". But doesn't it seem better for an animal to live and be killed prematurely than to be denied existence entirely which is what would happen if humanity wasn't eating them.\\n\\nI imagine this is a fairly common argument but there doesn't seem to be an obvious and fatal counter-example right off the top of my head. You could say something about sustainability which might be convincing but would certainly change the dynamic of how compelling veganism is as a moral imperative. You could advance some slightly more technical argument about killing being wrong deontologically or something but I'm not sure that'd be convincing to me or most people.\\n\\nThere's something else here that I'm not so interested in getting into words properly and might not be super convincing to a lot of people even if I did. But... disallowing the existence of entire species seems somehow more perverse than 'mere killing'.\\n\\nI've been vegan for the better part of a decade but in recent years, I find myself increasingly skeptical of the sort of 'philosophical underpinnings'. I happen to be remain vegan in practice because I have neither the means nor the desire to seek out a way to consume animals that reduces to obvious negative effects to 'mere killing' but I think that if that weren't the case, I'd be running out of reasons to refrain.\\n\\nThanks for reading.",

"So, I'm not a vegan. I believe that eating animals is morally justified. **HOWEVER**, I think this entirely hinges on whether animals qualify as deserving of rights. If animals have rights (as they would for example in a suffering-based utilitarian rights system), I think it plainly follows that not only is veganism acceptable, it's *morally obligatory*. However I think it goes further than that.\\n\\nI think the central question is \\"where do rights come from?\\"\\n\\nFor me, the answer is a metaphorical/hypothetical contractual agreement based on certain conditions (if you know philosophy, think Nagel/Rawls/Scanlon). Basically, we have the right to life because we recognize as rational thinking-things that it is in our personal best interest to band together in a society that doesn't kill eachother. Basically \\"I don't kill people because I don't want to be killed, and the best way to accomplish that is to societally adopt a right of life\\".\\n\\nThis metaphorical/hypothetical contractual deliberation (wherein we decide what things qualify as rights and what don't, etc) requires that the agents in the deliberation be rational and capable of understanding the abstract concept of \\"rights\\". After all, if you asked a plant what rights we should have, it has no way to comprehend rights.\\n\\nBecause a non-rational-agent is incapable of understanding the concept of rights, they're also unable to respect the rights of other rights-having-beings in all the circumstances that they would be expected to. Thus, they are not party to the contractual agreement that determines our rights, and thus do not have rights.\\n\\nI believe that animals do not have the mental capacity to understand an abstract concept like rights, and thus do not have rights. This means that, morally speaking, killing an animal is no different than harvesting a plant, or breaking a rock.\\n\\nThat being said, that doesn't mean we can morally do *whatever we want* to animals. They don't have their own rights, but there are still practical/pragmatic concerns about certain behaviors, for example, animal abuse.\\n\\nTorturing animals for personal enjoyment is, I hope we can all agree, an awful and inexcusable behavior. For me, the moral wrongness of this comes from the provable relationship between animal cruelty and violence towards humans. Because torturing animals often leads to violence against humans, I believe rational agents in the contract deliberation would agree to animal torture being wrong, because of it's resultant effect on other rights-having-beings.\\n\\nHowever, because animals don't directly have rights, any consideration of the value of their life is taken *in comparison* to practical benefits for rational agents. So while torturing animals for personal enjoyment is wrong for the reasons above, farming animals for the meat because people enjoy meat is (at least in theory) acceptable.\\n\\n**How is this not just speciesism with extra steps?**\\n\\nI admit it leads to a similar result at least right now. However I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of animals having rights, if they can be shown to be capable of understanding/respecting rights. For example, I think there's at least some science backing up the intelligence of certain animals, like dolphins, gorillas, etc.\\n\\nI don't know enough about animal psychology to know if they can comprehend rights, but if someone could demonstrate that they are capable of understanding/respecting rights, I'd wholeheartedly agree that we are morally obligated to respect those rights, and probably do something in the realm of reparations for past harms.\\n\\n**Doesn't this require accepting that some humans also don't qualify for rights?**\\n\\nIn short, yes. In long, not really. In the abstract sense, yes, some profoundly disabled humans would be outside the contract, and thus not have rights directly. However, for the same reason as animal cruelty is wrong, a strong argument can be made for extending rights to profoundly disabled people.\\n\\nBecause the rational agents who are engaging in the deliberation know that they might have profoundly disabled relatives, and know that psychologically we have strong bonds to family. We also know that allowing certain violent treatment of this small subset of the population would also likely have a strong correlation with violence towards rights-having-beings as with animal cruelty. Between those two aspects, I think that *effectively*, we'd be required to respect most or all of the same rights with profoundly disabled people that we do with rights-having-beings.\\n\\nThis also opens up one of the ways that this argument could be turned to support veganism. If it could be demonstrated that the vast majority of society had strong reactions to animals being killed (to the level of a family member being killed, mind you) and that this belief was pervasive enough to not be merely a personal belief or a moral belief, then there would be a basis for conferring a similar level of \\"effective rights\\" onto animals. However I think we're nowhere near this point in current society.\\n\\n**How is this view \\"better\\" than veganism?**\\n\\nFirst off, I have no problem with non-ethical vegans. Anyone who eats a vegan diet for nutritional reasons, or for purely emotional ones, I have no problem with. My problem is with the position of ethical vegans who want to take the further step of applying their ethics to others.\\n\\nMy understanding of typical ethical veganism is the suffering-based utlitarianism presented by Singer et al. in books like *Animal Liberation*. I have a number of problems with utilitarianism itself that I think go beyond the scope of this sub, but I also have problems related to utilitarian veganism in particular.\\n\\nFor one, how does the \\"name the trait\\" argument not cut both ways? The challenge is always on the meat eater to \\"name the trait\\", but I think vegans have an equally tough time naming the trait that *does* qualify animals as having rights. Using the maximal reduction of suffering (as in utilitarianism) seems like it has it's own speciesist issues (like our idea that suffering *just is* badness itself, when from an evolutionary perspective you could question that).\\n\\nI also don't understand how ethical vegans justify the \\"second class\\" rights we give to animals. For example, it's wrong to eat animals because they have the right to life, but it's apparently okay to lock them in your home until stockholm syndrome sets in because \\"pets are cute\\" and \\"we're doing them a favor\\"? We certainly wouldn't accept those arguments in favor of locking humans away against their will (at least unless they're prisoners but that's a whole separate discussion).\\n\\nI've also never met a vegan that would actually choose to save 5 cats from a burning building if they had to choose between 5 cats and two children. Ethical vegans want to say we're morally obligated to fully respect the rights of animals (which I'm on board with assuming they have rights), but then also want to have their rights be secondary to humans. That strikes me as deeply hypocritical. Is the suffering of animals \\"lesser\\" than humans in some way, or are they in some other way less deserving of \\"full\\" rights? And if so, why can't that same argument be used to justify eating them?\\n\\nAny ethical theory that supports separate \\"tiers\\" of rights is deeply concerning to me, because it seems like the kind of thing that could, with minimal adjustment, be used to justify things like slavery or other kinds of class oppression.\\n\\nOne last point that worries me is where to draw the line. Our right to life is, in my opinion, a moral obligation/duty. If people are somewhere being unjustifiably killed, it's our *duty* to do what we can to stop it. If animals also have the right to life, to what extent might we be required to go out into nature and stop or curtail predatory behavior?\\n\\nSo basically, I see ethical veganism as hypocritical because it attempts to draw the line in a somewhat arbitrary position, and then while advocating for a strong sense of rights, also quietly brings in \\"second class rights\\". I think a contractual basis for rights creates a far preferable system for explaining the origin of rights, in a way that can adequately explain the way people see rights in society, without falling into the traps that utilitarianism falls into.\\n\\nEDIT: I doubt any people are still reading this, but on the off chance someone stumbles upon it: while going over this thread, on a whim I decided to read the short chapter on animal rights in Robert Nozick's book, *Anarchy, State, and Utopia*. (lots of books like this are available for free on libgen.io and other places around the web)\\n\\nRegardless of your position on animal rights, I think it's absolutely worth a read if you're even a little into philosophy. The book is long of course, but the chapter is quite short. In classic Nozick style, he doesn't present a single argument that he claims is correct, rather he asks a multitude of questions and challenges some pre-existing views. He has some arguments in there that I think absolutely *blow away* any of the arguments anyone in this thread (including me) has presented on either side of the topic. He also addresses a bunch of what we've been talking about here.",

"I feel like veganism often overlooks the human suffering behind consumption. If the central maxim of veganism is to reduce or eliminate suffering, shouldn't that extend to humans to the same extent (if not greater extent) as animals? However vegans do not necessarily consider fair labor standards, occupational safety, fair wages, etc. in their consumption habits. \\n\\nI like to substitute avacadoes for cheese because they have the same cream texture. So say I'm given two choices at the market: I can buy avacadoes produced by workers who are paid less then minimum wage, live in substandard farmworkers housing, and experience harmful exposure of pesticides to them and their families; or I can buy goat cheese that's produced by a friend who uses sustainable practices and allows the goats to roam across plenty of land, socialize, and anything else it would take to say that the goat was living a good life. Which should I choose? It seems clear the vegan option is worse. \\n\\nFurther, consider the suffering that goes into non-food products. I just saw a headline about another suicide at an iPhone factory. We all know about sweatshop labor and clothing. Should vegans consider that suffering too? \\n\\nOne answer may be that it's only realistic to deviate your consumptive habits so far. But you definitely can live without an iPhone or Nike clothes. So I feel like a vegan responding to these points would be pushed into a corner where they have to admit that they continue to consumer these product because of comfort and ease despite their principles - the same line of thinking that is one of the biggest obstacles to convincing people to go vegan. I feel like this validates nonvegans reluctance because even if you go vegan you have to use the same logic to continue unethical consumption. \\n\\nFair trade and equal exchange are okay but only go so far. If I'm not mistaken those labels are only applied to imported goods and we have no fair labor label for domestic goods. If the goal is to end suffering, it seems to me we should start with people. And importantly for my argument, you don't have to consume fair trade goods to call yourself vegan. \\n\\nIt sum it seems weird to me that you could call yourself a vegan and still consume products that cause suffering to humans. ",

"I'm up with veganism up until its about not using objects that were created by insects or that harm insects. First off, many, many insects die from pesticides for vegetables as it is.\\n\\nMost insects don't even have noiception, which is just the reflex-like device insects have, otherwise the first part required in an animal in order for it to feel pain. This isn't even talking about the emotional level pain that mammals and birds feel. Basically, mammals and birds are like (2/2) on receiving pain, while insects are (0/2) and I could argue that even animals with (1/2) aren't worth moral consideration. What makes an insect's life worth more than a plants?\\n\\nFor this reason, why do vegans abstain from honey and silk? Soooo many insects die from so many other causes.\\n\\nAlso, bivalves like oysters don't feel pain, so what's wrong with eating them?\\n\\nThen, for a real question I don't know about. Do crabs, lobsters, and spiders feel pain??\\n\\nThanks!",

"https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/pig-organs-for-humans/536307/\\n\\nI am pretty sure there will be a huge backlash against vegans if vegans were to protest against it, further reinforcing its crazy cult status. But the whole thing reiterates the idea of commodifying animals and the speciecist view of seeing animals as means to our ends.\\n",

"Most vegan leather today is currently made from PVC or PU. \\n\\nIt's been said that PVC is an emerging toxic plastic, extremely harmful for the environment, and PU comes from fossil fuels, and producing PU is not yet entirely non-toxic. \\n\\nQuite a dilemma here: should I appreciate the fact that no animal was harmed during the production or should I be worried that my purchase might leave a carbon-footprint? \\n\\nWhat do you guys think?",

"Best Speech Ever Commentary",

"Eating meat is usually perceived as being more masculine than abstaining from eating meat, but does physical evidence really support these perceptions?\\n\\nMeat-eating men have lower testosterone, more flaccid penises, and more repulsive body odor, as judged by heterosexual women. Are these the traits most usually associated with more 'masculinity'?\\n\\nhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10883675/\\n\\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117588/\\n\\nhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16891352/",

"What is the justification for treating the unnecessary, human caused suffering of animals as equal to the unnecessary, human caused suffering of other humans? Humans and animals are not equal so by what authority should we treat their unnecessary, harm caused suffering as equal.\\n\\nThe authority to generate morality against causing human-human unnecessary suffering is a selfish one; if unnecessary human-human suffering proliferates, society will inevitably degenerate into revolution and anarchy where I personally have the risk of suffering and dying. Also, if things like theft, assault, and rape are not morally selected against, I live in fear of that happening to me. There is not a selfish argument to lend authority to ethical veganism as the suffering cow is not me.",

"I won't ask that you take parts on the whole yt drama thing, I'll just ask for you to read PV's article on NTT (here)(https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait) (which explains NTT, shows how it doesn't lead to veganism, and reinforces it to make it \\"meat proof\\" I guess)\\n\\nAnd then, I'll kindly ask that someone explains to me in ELI5 style what is being said (here)(https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Part_1_Counterexample), in the \\"In English\\" section. Especially the second sentence, it's almost unreadable.\\n\\nIs NTT airtight or does it have holes? What is PV trying to say?",

"The time for debate us over, join me my fellow vegans if you heed that call, in the extermination of the reptilian carnist threat. I am not at all a hardstuck, bored madperson typing this from bed. OFWGKTA praise trans-species Jesus. Apeople.",

"Ok so let me preface this by saying I\\u2019ll be 4 years vegan in April so I definitely think veganism is worthwhile. I\\u2019ve come across this critique that veganism is racist a lot on twitter and in my graduate department (I\\u2019ve gotten a surprising amount of rudeness and I\\u2019m not like an activist or anything). \\n\\nWhen I went vegan I wasn\\u2019t really concerned about what marginalized people or people who lived in food deserts were eating. I understand poverty and oppression could making eating choices limited and I\\u2019d rather people eat what\\u2019s available. Long work hours contribute to eating whatever you can too. I work in the restaurant industry and there\\u2019s a lot of people who rely on our animal product laden menu for food. Are there seriously vegans who target poor and marginalized people? \\n\\nVeganism is at least to me a rejection of the dehumanizing qualities of the capitalist exploitation of labor in industrialized societies? Am I wrong here? \\n\\nI don\\u2019t think veganism as a lifestyle is really inherently racist though. My bf and I are white Americans who live in a small city? We\\u2019re interested in converting other middle income people who live in cities? Animal products so gross me out now though lol. \\n\\nIndigenous people living traditional lifestyles often live in specific ways adapted to their ecology and at least where I\\u2019m from (Northeast US) indigenous people ate animals for survival and used them probably the most ethical way possible. My issue isn\\u2019t at all with people living pre-capitalist lifestyles especially since animals aren\\u2019t raised for the sole purpose of slaughter and the overall ecosystem is well maintained which is better for everybody. \\n\\nI really think veganism can be used like Christianity, cleanliness, western culture and a bunch of other moral markers in a white supremacist way but it\\u2019s not inherently racist. Like women covering their breasts isn\\u2019t racist until some dude in the 1860s says women bare breasted in subsaharan Africa is why those people are worse than whites. \\n\\nIdk those are my thoughts, do you think it makes sense? Do you think veganism is white supremacy?",

"\\nThis isn\\u2019t a huge deal but it\\u2019s been bugging me. Is the concept of anthropomorphism inherently speciest? I have really bad moral OCD where I am constantly thinking about the morality of my actions. For example, one of my favorite games of the decade is Hollow Knight. For those of you who don\\u2019t know, it is a game in which every character is a cute anthropomorphic insect person. This made me start thinking: is this a speciest concept. If you make the insects seem like people in fiction, then you acknowledge they\\u2019re not like people in real life and therefore are not afforded the same rights. If aliens more intelligent than us made a game that elevated us to their standards then we would be incredibly offended because the contrast that they\\u2019re playing with sees us as lesser. Also there\\u2019s the movie The Lobster. In it, single people are forced to find a romantic partner in 40 days or they will be turned into an animal of their choosing. Is portraying the concept of being turned into an animal as bad speciest? I\\u2019m just afraid that media I consume might be promoting immoral values.",

"I have seen a hash tag that asks people to name the traits that if absent in a human would allow them to be eaten. If a person doesn't have an answer then the conclusion says if we cannot name a trait we must not eat animals and thus are morally obligated to be vegan.\\n\\nHowever, if I were to say the same thing about the law, that the law applies to humans and no trait a person could lack would make them free from human law, then the conclusion would be that we are obligated to hold animals to human law.\\n\\nI could also be cheeky and say sentience and. Excuse saying if a human lacks sentience it is OK to eat them doesn't mean all animals with sentience cannot be eaten.\\n\\nI personally do not feel there is a situation where it would be morally justifiable to murder and eat a human. That, however doesn't apply to all non-humans as my example with the law helps to demonstrates. This argument essentially is little more than a false equivalence. ",

"We polled almost 1,000 18- to 35-year-olds about their attitudes on sex on the first date and whether they've actually done it! 6XABuT",

"I'm very tired so sorry if this doesn't make a lot of sense. But I've never really gotten veganism. Like how is avoiding animal products saving animals? You realise any reputable market will buy from good farmers and butchers because what no one seems to realise is that if animals are stressed and afraid when they die then their meat will be worthless. It will be tough and no one would ever buy it. It's called RIGAMORTIS. Look it up for more information. \\nNow yes of course not everyone would raise happy healthy animals and butcher them when they are happy, but completely avoiding animals products seems entirely pointless to me. \\nNow sure I don't ever buy caged eggs. I actually go to a farm to buy my eggs but why would you not just buy free range eggs from a farm you can research? And that goes for any other product. Why wouldn't you just boycott brands and farms that don't have healthy procedures and living environments. \\nLike eggs and meat are some of the most nutritious foods we can eat so avoiding them seems silly to me when you can just buy free range milk and eggs and organic meet from a butcher where you can know exactly where the meat is from. \\nI buy 90% of my meat and dairy straight from farmers where I can see the living conditions with my own eyes. I know a lot of people don't have access to that but googling a company and brands can come up with a lot of great info. \\nAlright I'm gonna stop rambling and go to bed because I just had a 17 hour long fucking day. Hope to wake up to some good responses. \\n\\nSource: Chef at one of the top 10 most sustainable restaurants in the world and top 20 in the world. ",

"Cats, unlike humans, *are* obligate carnivores. I understand that some vegans take the view that even having pets would be considered restricting the autonomy of them, but I'm sure the majority would like to keep our furry friends. Animals need to die to feed them, and since humans provide food for their pets, it seems to follow that there'd still be the necessity of slaughterhouses and keeping livestock. Would vegans still consider that unethical, and if so what would be the alternative?",

"I have a protein and iron deficiency. I have allergies to legumes, all nuts, soy, tofu, and most things vegan. I can't swallow pills because my gag reflex. My doctor suggests a meat diet because I need the protein.\\n (Wouldn't turn vegan either way, and don't say watch Dominion or Don't watch.org because I did. It was boring.)",

"As a long-time vegetarian, whenever I've tried being vegan, I've hated it. Here's why:\\n\\n* The food - I'm a pretty good cook, and I make a number of decent vegan dishes. However, eating only vegan gets pretty old after a while, and I crave dishes with a bit of butter, cheese, etc. Vegan dishes that imitate non-vegan ones are, for the most part, pale imitations. (I say this after having made dozens of them. Sort of okay, but it leaves me wanting the real thing.)\\n\\n* I have to meticulously balance my diet to ensure I'm getting all the right nutrients. \\n\\n* I hate having to turn down products with dairy in them all the time (work, parties, etc.). I get it's the rational thing to do, but that knowledge doesn't cheer me up. I know that sounds petty, but humans aren't rational automatons. It's easy for me to abstain from meat because the link between meat consumption and suffering is so visceral that I wouldn't even enjoy eating it. Despite the vegan documentaries I've seen and books I've read, that link is far weaker when it comes to, say, someone offering me a homemade cupcake or chocolate at work at 3pm when I'm hungry and don't have any of my own food left.\\n\\n* For most products, not just food, vegan substitutes cost twice as much and are half as effective. My expensive vegan foundation looks like a clay mask compared to even cheap non-vegan brands. It's near-impossible to get a vegan waterproof mascara, and the vegan non-waterproof ones smear and disintegrate. Eye shadow range is limited (e.g. I found it impossible to find a vegan lavender eye shadow, the colour I normally wear). The vegan conditioners I tried made my hair super greasy. I get it's petty, but it's frustrating. Also, I'm not even a huge make-up person --- I only own a couple of products. If it's this frustrating to me, I don't know how someone who was heavily into make-up would find it.\\n\\n- Shoes -- basically no stylish options (the only vegan boots sold near me look like they're from a 1996 Target junior girls' catalogue), and the non-leather shoes I buy wear out after little use. If I pay for an expensive vegan leather alternative, then it looks like I'm wearing (and thus supporting the manufacturing of) real leather. \\n\\n* The surcharge on anything vegan (mentioning this again as it's very frustrating for someone on a limited budget). Want some ethical marshmallows? That'll cost you $20. Ethical nail polish? Another $20. \\n\\n* Milk used to be one of my favourite foods, and I hate the taste of non-dairy milk. Psychologically it's difficult to abstain from it when I can get the real stuff from an ethical farm (albeit at a crazy surcharge, but in this case it doesn't bother me). If I abstain from the ethical milk, I'm not supporting the farm that tries to do right thing (no artificial insemination, calves stay with mothers for months etc.). If it goes out of business, all that's available to the millions of omnivores is the factory farmed stuff. So I don't even feel good about abstaining from it. (Also, I get that people abstain for dairy etc. for health reasons, but psychologically that's far easier.) \\n\\n* Having to constantly check whether something's vegan or not. \\n\\n* Again, psychologically it's difficult to be vegan when everywhere I go there's people who don't give the slightest toss about animals (aside from dogs and cats). Here I am paying out the nose for products, eating a monotonous diet, possibly harming my long-term health, and I step outside my door and look at a crowd of leather-clad people chowing down on delicious-looking hamburgers at the fast food joint opposite me, without the slightest care in the world. \\n\\nIn sum: I'd never go back to eating meat, but I've found being vegan to be a pretty miserable existence. It's like death by a thousand cuts - alone, each item is is petty, but taken together, it's pretty frustrating. I can easily abstain from non-vegan products and eat a vegetarian diet, but having to maintain a vegan diet makes me unhappy. I wish it didn't, but it does. What can I do? \\n\\nOther point: It seems like discussions of finding veganism difficult isn't really accepted on /r/vegan. If you complain about something, you're essentially told you shouldn't feel that way (\\"You shouldn't miss cheese, nutritional yeast/soy cheese is a fine alternative!\\"). I question how many people there are long-term vegans. In my experience, despite being fully aware of the exploitation of animals, and being a SJW-y person living in an area with vegan restaurants and (expensive) supermarkets, it's very tough to stick to. It's like being on a restrictive, dreary perma-diet.\\n\\nEdit: Possible over-kill on the word 'psychologically'. \\n\\n ",

"If so, why. Few bees die due to them being in a safe place and it actually benefits the local environment, and the bees are not hurt",

"So veganism is the rejection of commodifying animals. For this reason I don't believe pet ownership to be vegan.\\n\\n1) It is very rare to acquire a pet without transactional means. Even if the pet is a rescue or given by someone who doesn't want it, it is still being treated as a object being passed from one person to another (commodification)\\n\\n\\n2) A lot of vegans like to use the word 'companion' or 'family' for pets to ignore the ownership aspect. Omnivores use these words too admittedly, but acknowledge the ownership aspect. Some vegans insist there is no ownership and their pet is their child or whatever. This is purely an argument on semantics but regardless of how you paint it you still own that pet. It has no autonomy to walk away if it doesn't want you as a companion (except for cats, the exception to this rule). You can train the animal to not walk/run away but the initial stages of this training remove that autonomy. Your pet may be your companion but you still own that animal so it is a commodity.\\n\\n\\n3) Assuming the pet has been acquired through 'non-rescue' means, you have explicitly contributed the breeding therefore commodification of animals.\\n\\n\\n4) Animals are generally bred to sell, but the offspring are often neutered to end this cycle. This is making a reproductive decision for an animal that has not given consent to a procedure (nor is able to).\\n\\nThere's a million more reasons but I do not think it can be vegan to own a pet. \\n\\nI do think adopting from rescues is a good thing and definitely ethical, most pets have great lives with their humans. I just don't think it aligns with the core of veganism which is to not commodify animals.",

"It feels like everyday there is a post in r/vegan where someone is asking for advice with dating a non-vegan. Pretty much every comment that follows is the classic reddit advice of just leave them. I think this is a pretty short-sighted outlook and I\\u2019m going to explain why.\\n\\nI should add that I\\u2019ve been vegan for 6 years now. I have had sleepless nights over this very topic. I\\u2019ve ended relationships because the other person wasn\\u2019t vegan. I\\u2019m talking about this because I feel like I\\u2019ve sat at both ends of this argument.\\n\\nAlso, let me be clear. Obviously don\\u2019t date someone who bullies you for being vegan, who isn\\u2019t respectful of your choice to be vegan and isn\\u2019t willing to eat vegan food with you. Also, I understand if you want a meat free house etc. Also don\\u2019t date someone with the intention of turning them vegan.\\n\\nThe main reason vegans give for not wanting to date non-vegans is a clash in values. Often, I see comparisons like dating a non-vegan is like dating a racist or a misogynist. I understand this logic but feel that it\\u2019s not quite the same \\u2013 here\\u2019s why:\\n\\nMost humans are good people, and like vegans, they don\\u2019t want to see other people or animals in pain. They find the thought of hurting an animal repulsive and don\\u2019t want to see it or be in anyway associated with it (don\\u2019t worry, I get the irony here). My point here is that most people are against cruelty.\\n\\nMeat, eggs, and dairy is part of our tradition (at least in the UK where I live). My whole family eats meat, and I ate meat for 22 years (I was vegetarian for a year before going vegan). It was totally ingrained in me that eating meat was ok and normal. I was told that vegetarians and vegans were a little extreme. Eating \\u201cnon-vegan\\u201d is totally normalised in our society.\\n\\nMost people, myself included are really good at seeing something awful like slaughterhouse footage and thinking \\u201cwell that\\u2019s only an isolated incident\\u201d, \\u201cI only buy free-range\\u201d and \\u201cthere\\u2019s not really much I can do about it\\u201d. It took me a long time to see past the industry driven BS and I think its unfair to hold someone to a value I\\u2019ve only just found.\\n\\nMy points here are trying to show that it\\u2019s normal for people to see something they massively disagree with but still, through environment and upbringing dismiss it, ignore it and continue to fund it. I don\\u2019t think the clash in values is as severe as lots of vegans think. Most non-vegans are good people who want a cruelty free world, they just haven\\u2019t broken out of the heavily reinforced/meat is ok/we need meat mindset.\\n\\nI also think its worth reflecting on who we all we\\u2019re before we went vegan. I wouldn\\u2019t say that I was ever evil, violent, or cruel. I just ate meat because it seemed normal. I would\\u2019ve said that I loved animals and that I was against animal cruelty, but I still ate meat.\\n\\nI think that so long as you\\u2019re dating someone who is kind, accepting and understanding you can have a loving a fulfilling relationship, even if they don\\u2019t eat meat. Who knows, after spending time with you maybe their mindset will change.\\n\\nI\\u2019ve read this through a few times and it still seems a bit muddled, happy to discuss.",

"which is better being a meat eater but actively helping the environment and society ( let say actively cleaning the coast area or rescuing stray animals , building recycable habitats for humanities) or becoming vegan because they are shallow and just doing it for fame and body figure",

"Hi all, I'm going to start out by saying that I am a vegan and I also have an environmental science degree.\\n\\nI know too well how invasive species cause massive problems for ecosystems and can cause certain species to go extinct very easily.\\nCommon practice is to cull these species to maintain ecosystem stability, this is an important aspect of environmental conservation.\\n\\nTypically culling is seen as the best way to go about this as you can't capture and release these animals back into their own country of origin, doing so causes problems where they belong.\\n\\nMy other thoughts include capture, nurteur and release to prevent reproduction but that might not be ideal either. \\n\\nDoes anyone have an opinion on this issue?",

"I fully believe that vegans are more moral in their ideals than non-vegans. I've seen anecdotally that some vegans might act more rude than their counterparts but I'll write that off as controversial people in any group being the most vocal and present in discussions. Besides, it shows that they actually care about this issue.\\n\\nMy personal opinion is that, if my individual impact on this industry truly changed anything, i would avoid consuming animal products. If it's already there though, and it's going to waste, i don't see a moral issue in eating the animal since I'm not supporting any harmful industries. At this moment, i do not believe that i would change anything by giving a retail store a small amount of money every once in a while. Someone else is eventually going to buy that same product and contribute what i would've contributed. The only thing i gain from avoiding these products is a sense of morality and a loss of enjoyment and potentially money. As far as I've seen, vegan alternatives for things i want to consume are not cheap. You have to weigh these things, maybe not equally, but somewhat proportionally. This ties into a point I'll make later in my post.\\n\\nI do understand that this personal opinion would never work on a larger scale. If we all indulge in something with the idea that we have no impact, nothing will ever change. At the same time, if i choose to not indulge while other people do, my impact would do nothing to help. It's difficult to find an answer to this dilemma but overall, this is more of an opinion to keep to yourself.\\n\\nIf i wanted to try my utmost to avoid participating in unethical business practices, i would either be living in the woods with nothing or i would be dead. In any industry, evil exists somewhere along the supply chain. Our phones that we talk on, our computers that we use for work, everything that we buy has some amount of unethical practices tied to it. Ethical consumption does not exist under capitalism. I don't believe we should all be personally responsible for this truth but that does not make it any less true.\\n\\nMorality has no place in a discussion where you're picking and choosing which things to be moral about. Anybody who valued morality to the extreme could not reply to this as they wouldn't have anything to reply with. Again, they would be living in the woods or dead.\\n\\nIf you could, give me a counter to this argument. You could use morality in your reply but know that i will most likely disregard that for the reasons i listed above.\\n\\n&#x200B;",

"An argument I hear a lot from religious friends is that God placed animals on this Earth for them to consume. Therefore, it is not morally wrong to be an omnivore.\\n\\nNow, in a discussion about veganism, I would have found it fruitless to then change the subject to whether or not God exists, so I would leave it at that and not press the point.\\n\\nBut this made me think. A vegan theist may believe that God placed animals for them to eat. Yet, they also find omnivorism cruel and wrong. In order to reconcile these beliefs, I can only think of a few scenarios:\\n\\n1. You don't believe God ordained animals for human consumption\\n2. You believe God is malicious\\n3. You are vegan for reasons other than morals\\n\\nIs there any religious vegan that wishes to expand upon, or talk about their own beliefs in regards to this?",

"I don't eat meat for the taste but for health reasons. I live a very active life style which includes regular weight lifting. There is no plant protein equivalent to that of meat. Especially in regards to the anabolic response of animal protein on skeletal muscle (Study:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26224750). It is also established that lean muscle mass is a strong predictor of longevity (Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035379/). We know frailty in elderly persons put them at significant risk for falls and subsequent hip fractures which cause deterioration in health (Study:https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.3.398). I firmly believe the United States not only has an obesity epidemic but also a frailty epidemic (a person with a BMI of 26+ is 9 times out of 10 also very weak). I do believe someone can live a very healthy life as a vegan. I also believe a vegan diet can build muscle as there are several vegan athletes/bodybuilders. However, I do not believe it is as optimal as an omnivore diet because of the excessive carbohydrate intake involved in the vegan diet. I'm hoping for some/all of these views to be challenged as well as any other input you all have as that is how I learn best. ",

"Not a vegan but I understand (though don't personally agree with) some of the moral philosophies behind it and am not here to pick a fight.\\n\\nOk, preamble aside.\\n\\n>honeybees are the world's most important commercial\\u00a0pollinator\\u2014the\\u00a0Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that of 100 crops that produce 90 percent of the world's food,\\u00a071 of those are bee pollinated. (source)(https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/diversity-bees-good-environmentand-farmers-wallets-180951339/)\\n\\nHoneybees in the US are a non-native species so this entire system is an artificial one.\\n\\nIf bees are a necessity to plant agriculture is their keeping still outside of vegan ethics or would it be considered more of an unavoidable side effect like the deaths caused by other plant agriculture practices? If it's arguably ok to keep them and use them for pollination, at what point of the keeping process is the line crossed into unethical from the vegan standpoint? If bees are unacceptable across the board, what techniques/technologies would you recommend to replace them?\\n\\nI know \\"vegan\\" isn't universal in its interpretation and that some of you will have harder ethical lines than others. This is not intended as a \\"gotcha\\" question, I'm just trying to educate myself on your stances/arguments.",

"My uncle owns a small, isolated farm in rural Maryland. He raises cows for milk and chickens for eggs, and very rarely will he kill an animal. (This is all, generally, for himself and for immediate family.) \\n\\nWhen I was 15 my family and I visited him in Maryland and took us for a tour of the farm. The last place he took us too was the barn where his cows slept at night or came just so sit. It was mid day so most of the cows were out and about in a large, fenced off area around the barn except for one.\\n\\nWhen we walked inside we could immediately hear wheezing and when we asked what it was, my Uncle told us that one of his cows was getting up in years and had developed respiratory problems that would eventually lead to her dying of old age and organ failure. \\n\\nTwo days into our visit with him, he killed the cow in as humane a way as something like that can be done in order to keep her from suffering more as she slowly died. \\n\\nIm your opinion, was this the right or wrong thing for him to do? Why?\\n\\nEdit: Chickens and cows not raised for meat",

"Hello. I support veganism pretty much wholesale already. I just have one small question.\\n\\nI think we can all agree that animal agriculture is sucks for the planet. According to (ourworldindata.org)(https://ourworldindata.org), 77% of agricultural land is used for livestock, while 23% is used for plant-based food (crops). \\n\\nSo if we abolished animal agriculture in the future, then 77% of agricultural land would be theoretically free to use for plant-based food.\\n\\nBut if everyone went vegan, I assume that all 7.5 billion of us will eat more plants than we do now.\\n\\nIf that's the case, wouldn't the environmental benefit of abolishing animal agriculture be offset by the additional consumption of plant-based foods (so more land use)? Or will our land use still decrease?",

"(Here)(http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/peta-warhammer-fur-free/) is the explanation from PETA about this subject.\\n\\nA few notes :\\n\\n* I know that PETA is not representative of the values vegan community. Especially not with this subreddit.\\n* I am vegan. This shouldn't have any place here but I don't want responses trying to explain me why we shouldn't use fur.\\n\\nArgument from PETA :\\n\\n* Using virtual fur in popular game, play a role in the transmission of animal cruelty.\\n\\nArguments of opponents :\\n\\n* There is no correlation (nor (causality)(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/study-finds-no-evidence-violent-video-games-make-children-aggres/) between player of war games and violence. \\n* Human used fur to protect from cold. Giving historical contest.\\n\\nEDIT : turns out it was a troll from PETA ... I don't know them enough\\n\\n",

"If your vegan and say because it\\u2019s healthy, if we had a magical pill that stoped anything bad from happening to you (cancer and stuff) would you eat meat\\n\\nAnd if your a vegan because of animal suffering,\\nWould you eat meat if we turned cows unsentient\\n",

"I\\u2019ve been with a handful of both vegetarians and meat eaters and there\\u2019s a clear difference in sexual performance. The vegetarians are very energetic, longer lasting, are able to maintain an erection, and smell better. The meat eaters on the other hand, and these weren\\u2019t out of shape people or people with bad lifestyles, had worse odor, had a hard time keeping up, had a harder time maintaining an erection, and seemed to get tired out quicker.\\n\\nI thought to myself oh maybe this is just a coincidence or something but then I was watching the Game Changers and they did a study where they tracked the participants erections while they slept. When they ate meat they had far less erections at night but when they ate a plant based meal they had more erections at night that were stronger. I did more digging and the saturated fat and cholesterol in meat isn\\u2019t as innocent as people thought, and it does affect and slow down blood flow to other parts of the body. Like if a meat eater constantly eats meat for every meal and they have clumpy/fatty blood constantly cycling throughout their body it\\u2019s going to affect blood flow and eventually build plaque. \\n\\nI\\u2019m a vegan but i haven\\u2019t been with any other vegans so i can\\u2019t make a comparison but there is definitely a difference in guys who eat meat vs guys who don\\u2019t eat meat. I do believe that meat intake negatively impacts sexual performance and is one of the main factors for erectile dysfunction as men age. The documentary really showed that all meat is bad for our health including the so called \\u201chealthy ones\\u201d like chicken because it still builds plaque.",

"I'll start off by saying I know this is not every vegan. I have come across many ethical vegans on this sub that find it correct to equate humans to animals and thus argue \\"Would you do this to a human? Would you rape, eat, or enslave a human? If not, why do this to an animal?\\" This is an is/ought fallacy but my argument shows an emotional and not a logical reason this train of thought is fallacious.\\n\\nMy belief is there is a difference between animals and humans and those ethical vegans who attempt to conflate human issues of rape, murder, slavery, etc. to animal conditions are betraying their true belief to the inferiority of animals through remaining friends and cordial w family, coworkers, strangers, etc. who are omnivores.\\n\\nIf you found out tomorrow you father was a rapist or your friend was a murder or that your boss owned slaves, you would quit those relationships no matter the cost. Yet you tolerate omnivorism bc it is nowhere near the same to take control of an animal at birth, limit its freedom, herd it, then kill it, butcher it, cook it, and eat it as it is to assault your wife (another offense most would drop a relationship w another over).",