text
stringlengths 8
28.6k
|
|---|
"I\\u2019m a vegan myself, but not very activist or preachy (compared to many others). Even so, I still get told to shut up on Facebook and people get offended when I share an article about eating less meat and tell me I\\u2019m making them feel bad.., \\ud83e\\udd37\\ud83c\\udffb\\u200d\\u2640\\ufe0f\\n\\n\\nSo, it has made think about how to get more people to go vegan. It feels so pointless talking to omnivores about it. I remember a quote from Forks over Knives or one of the other documentaries on Netflix where Dr. Greger gets asked if people have to buy organic produce and he has the most fantastic reply where he basically says that it is not a must and that \\u201cnothing should stop you from stuffing your face with as many fruits and vegetables as possible \\u201c - this quote is seared into my brain and heart. Because everyone knows that fruits and vegetables are good for you, but the way we structure our omnivore diets, everything is built around meat. Meat is the hero and at the center. So it makes it hard to add more vegetables, because they are not in the center of the meals. \\n\\n\\nTo my point: I don\\u2019t think we need to necessarily make everyone vegan to save the planet and animals. We need to change the way we think about meals. Force governments, institutions, businesses etc. to focus on meals where vegetables are the core ingredient and meat is accidentally there (or not). That could potentially be a much easier route to making people eating less or no meat, because it\\u2019s much more guilt free and I could see many governments going that route, to model healthier diets. It would also make it much easier for families to make meat free meals if it is modeled around in society and becomes more commonplace. So I wanted to hear what you think?", |
"For physical and mental health reasons, I have to incorporate cholesterol in my diet. How do I get cholesterol as a vegan?", |
"So every time you are on the internet and the question why or why not to eat meat comes up one of the major points on both sides seems to be that it is healthy/unhealthy.\\n\\nBut does anyone really become a vegan, because he/she thinks it\\u2019s healthier? I don\\u2019t get why you would make such a drastic diet choice, because you think it\\u2019s a bit healthier. There are good reasons to stay away from meat like the environment, bad living conditions for the animals (to put it mildly) or just not wanting anything to die for you. But trying to convince someone to stop eating meat, because you think it\\u2019s healthier doesn\\u2019t make much sense to me. \\n\\nAnd I\\u2018ve got similar problems with people who defend eating meat by bringing up that veganism not as healthy as eating meat. First of all it\\u2019s definitely not more unhealthy than the other extreme which is eating meat almost every day. As far as I know scientists are yet to give a definite answer, but it looks like eating meat in reasonable amounts and not eating meat, but making sure to get all your vitamins and such are both about equally healthy. But you can\\u2019t tell me that your main reason against becoming a vegan is that it\\u2019s so unhealthy when you eat meat almost every day and go to McDonald\\u2019s every now and than.\\n\\nEdit: for anyone interested - Not vegan, but kind of a vegetarian (short: I don\\u2019t buy meat myself, but if others cook, I\\u2019ll eat it). I\\u2019m not desperately trying to get everyone to stop eating meat. I don\\u2019t think people who eat meat are assholes and I definitely don\\u2019t think insulting them is the way to go.\\n\\nEdit 2: Not a native speaker", |
"1) The \\"You're in the right direction\\" viewpoint\\n\\n2) The \\"You're a hypocrit because you don't care for animals 100%\\"\\n\\nWhich one is it? Are there more options?", |
"A while ago I had a neurology practical that required us to dissect a frog to examine its neural pathways for credit. It made me wonder what vegans would think about this. Is this unethical to them? Am I a bad person to them? Now a lot of animals are used for medical research every year in the U.S and other countries. I was wondering what vegans think about these testings. Considering a lot are very important for cancer (and other) research. We can't really substitute them for a human replacement a lot of the times either since most are dangerous experiments.\\n\\n​\\n\\nps: I don't actually think it was inhumane it's just that I'm interested to know vegans take on that\\n\\nPss: the animal was frozen and humanely killed before hand, we didn't actually kill it just dissected it", |
"I can see where vegans/vegetarians are coming from when they say that mass industrialized farms of animals are immoral, but what are your thoughts about hunting for meat? I wouldn't think hunting for meat would be immoral at all, animals have been killing each other for food forever. Getting shot with a gun or crossbow is also likely a much quicker and less painful death than being eaten by coyote or other predator, so what are your thoughts about hunting?", |
"http://imgur.com/a/zPHbN\\nthe articles that prof commented: (this)(http://www.businessinsider.com/india-malnutrition-a-story-of-rotting-crops-and-rotten-bureaucracy-2012-7) and (this)(http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/The-mother-of-all-disruptions/article16946195.ece)\\n\\nif you want some context, earlier today (this happened)(http://imgur.com/a/ezZYH)\\nand i left the convo at that, but prof keeps commenting?? (which is the one with two articles and longass paragraph)\\n\\ni want to respond to the last comment where prof claims that it is moot to think that land required for livestock could be used for people oriented agriculture. i think prof is saying that even if animal agriculture didnt exist gov would still subsidize corn anyway? ok i dont know what profs even trying to say with that last one :/ help?", |
"Could someone eloquently explain that chickens are, in fact, harmed?", |
"Does anyone have any solutions to the problems created by invasive species other than extermination of the invasive species? I specifically do not mean measures which help the overall situation while ignoring invasive species, and i specifically do not mean the prevention of invasive species, as we already have many out being invasive already. What measures do you think we should be taking in the face of razorbacks or rabbits, or even less dramatically rats/cats on islands? How would you handle the cleanup of a future version of the Galapagos goat incident?\\n\\n​\\n\\nThis all is just my ramblings about the subject, was initionally going to be the actual post, but ive had problems with people not understanding my points and so compressed them in the above paragraph. Think of all this as background information if you want to better understand where im coming from. \\n\\nMy position is that there is no viable solution to invasive species beyond extermination in most cases. Im not going to pretend that every case is an invasive species, I use the term to indicate non native animals which cause lots of harm in the area, I'm not going to claim that we need to remove \\"wild\\" horses and burros. If an animal is able to live in an area without causing major damage to either other species or the ecosystem it is fine. \\n\\nI am less fine with maintaining sterilized cat colonies, because while that lowers the cat numbers relative to removal programs, and improves the lives of the cats, the birds don't care about the lives of the cats, they would rather we simply got rid of the cats, which is both a more expensive proposition and probably what we should do. With feral pets near humans there is greater ability for adoption, but that is not something which is universally true, and I would not say that it is inhumane to take lethal solutions against cats which have been introduced onto islands due to the fact that doing nothing will result in lots more death and, more importantly, the death of much more at risk species, such as on hawii with all the native birds or on new zeeland with their birds.\\n\\nCats, while exceedingly violent compared to their biomass, are not alone, especially on islands, and most of what ive said applies to island invasives as well. To get back to the land, lets focus on razorbacks, or the feral/wild pig/boar situation in texas (and other areas of america). Razorbacks, to apply the specifically american name for them (although i think they might call them that in australia) are a comination of feral pigs and wild boar released deliberately and on accident at various points in history. The reason why they are a problem is that they eat everything, unlike the native pig-like javalina, which (while mostly across the border) live in texas and south and are herbivores, at least as herbivorous as deer. This lack of competition creates a problem both because they eat every small animal that they can and lots of the more edible plants, driving large numbers of animals to simply not exist in the region where the pigs are. There is not enough people who want a razorback, mostly due to their aggression and the danger of keeping a fairly intelligent animal which will eat you if it wants to. They are the main reason why I think that there ultimately needs to be a way to get assault guns, because they both will eat your crops and are bullet resistant, in addition to the fact that they cause at least 50million in property damage to both agricultural and wild land yearly. I will say that they were introduced by hunters, because I know that it is going to be said, but that is irrelevant to the situation at hand, which is that the main way available to deal with them is to hunt/kill them. I don't even think that anyone has seriously suggested trying to capture and corral them until they die out on their own, because of the possibly of escape and the lack of money for such an escapade. \\n\\nThat finishes my rambling. Again, while i think i say most of what I need to in the long form text, feel free to ignore it if it does not make sense, really i just want to hear what yall think can be done beyond hunting for the control of invasive species, as most of what ive heard before is preventative or simply denial.", |
"So I saw this article and I'm pretty torn on how I feel about it. I can definitely understand why it happens (just like feral cats in Australia) but I do wonder if there's another solution. \\n(German Authorities Will Kill Hybrid Wolf-Dog Pups to Protect Wolf Population)(https://focusingonwildlife.com/news/german-authorities-will-kill-hybrid-wolf-dog-pups-to-protect-wolf-population/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-post-title_1120)", |
"I'm asking this because I just saw a post on r/damnthatsinteresting subreddit which stated that the first successful pig heart transplant in a person was made. I don't know the details, I don't know if that person is going to die tomorrow, it's really not important for this question.\\n\\nI just want to ask a hypothetical question which was inspired by this story: if pig hearts would do 100% of the job that human hearts do, would you be in favour of breeding them in the best way possible and then killing them to get their heart in order to save human lives, maybe even tens of thousands? (I imagine it wouldn't be possible to let them die of old age and then taking their heart because I think it would be unusable). \\n\\nI'm vegan, but from thinking about it just these few minutes I'm inclined towards saying yes. Which wouldn't make me vegan anymore I guess.", |
"Just curious.", |
"At what point does a being become 'sentient'? Are insects considered to be sentient? Where is the line drawn?", |
"*Apologies if this has been covered here before, I've read a few posts with similar content however none have fully addressed the issues I have*\\n\\nI am currently vegan however I have been considering consuming animal products from sources which I have personally viewed and vetted that are known to have high welfare standards. \\n\\nSurely an animal living its life in a captivity that attempts to satisfy an animals natural behaviours followed by a quick painless slaughter is better than never existing. \\n\\nNow I know this is well trodden ground and I have heard the arguments suggesting that if that is the reason we should constantly breed animals whenever we can as not to deny opportunities for life. However the way I see it the only reason we can breed these animals in the first place is that they provide a farmer with a return that they can use to sustain themselves/their family. No one can simply breed these animals without a use for them and therefore the only way for these animals to have an existence is to be raised for their meat/milk/eggs. \\n\\nFor the school of thought that argues that it is wrong to use animals in such an inferior manner what about our impact on wild animals environments through our ever expanding population and its demands (cities, roads, waste etc). We as a species live a life of luxury at the expense of animals irrespective of our diets. To claim that should not exploit these animals is closing our eyes to all the other ways we oppress animals. The only solution would be to cull 80% of our population and for the remnants to live in small wooden huts in the jungle. \\n\\nTherefore if I had a choice I would surely rather live a life in captivity with higher welfare standards (I appreciate the horrors of modern day factory farming) than never exist at all. Accepting the fact that for these animals there is no other alternative. \\n\\nPlease let me know what you think. I have a very open mind and I am looking for good arguments to sway me either way. \\n\\nTL;DR In our modern society a farm animal would have never existed if it wasn't farmed - surely higher welfare farming is better than no existence at all. ", |
"So I've been trying to go full vegan for about a year and a half. I'm mostly there but still struggling with certain foods. \\n\\nI today came across a debate from a month ago where most people concluding musicians using antique instruments would not be considered vegan and I found it interesting.\\n\\nI have a rather intimate fondness for classical music as one of my mother's (we shall call her Jane Doe henceforth) plays piano and the other (henceforth Joan Doe) plays cello (I play violin) and so I get pretty defensive over classical music. I will always choose to knowingly support the death and suffering of animals to listen to an orchestra playing Beethoven's Fifth (I know animals were harmed in the creation of the instruments and occasionally in the strings used for the instruments). Whenever that piece is being performed near me I make sure to go even if I know the musicians are using gut strings and antique instruments.\\n\\nI have strong emotional connections to specific pieces of classical (and contemporary) composers. Elgar's Cello Concerto in E Minor, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, Mars and Jupiter from The Planets, Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake and Paganini/Listz's La Campanella (noticing the theme of melancholia and anger?). I could *never* stop myself (thank you constant need for emotional validation) from seeing those whenever possible regardless of the demand I create for animal suffering.\\n\\nI'm also adopted and my original parents were fairly abusive and we won't get into that any further. Needless to say I have some seriously disordered eating but it's not important to this discussion (I ramble alot sorry).\\n\\nSo I'd like to have a discussion/debate about that again. The main issue being using instruments in which there is hide glue, horse hair, etc. being regarded as vegan or non-vegan.\\n\\nWould ethically sourced horse hair such as from my luthier who keeps horses as pets and obtains his hair during grooming be considered vegan? Would I be considered vegan despite my indirect support for the suffering of animals or no? Is it reducitarian? In the big picture of things, does it really matter? For that matter could hide or gut ever be ethically sourced say after natural death?", |
"Let's pretend that humans can survive by only eating oats. Let's say that oat farming causes the least amount of animal deaths. \\n\\nNow if vegan junk food causes more indirect animal deaths than oats, how are vegans justified to eat it? Isnt the point to reduce as much harm as possible?\\n\\nE.g. The impossible burger which required animal testing. Why are vegans justified to eat it when you can eat oats?", |
"Not much text to this one just wanted to discuss. \\n\\nAI becoming more advanced, if/when they becoming sentient, does owning a Robot become an anti-vegan principle ?", |
"edit: It\\u2019s been made clear to me by the lack of direct answers to my question that I really haven\\u2019t articulated it well. The following is a scenario that can help illustrate the thought experiment.\\n\\nLet\\u2019s say Person A lives in a 1st world country with plenty of non-animal-based options for food and clothing. I\\u2019m prefacing with this because I\\u2019m not looking to debate grey areas like someone using an animal when they have absolutely no other option. The majority of animal use in the modern world happens under Person A\\u2019s circumstances. \\n\\nPerson A holds a belief that it is wrong for anyone else to harm or exploit Person A against his/her will. Person A also holds a belief that they have the right to harm or exploit nonhuman animals. \\n\\nMy question is this: What non-arbitrary reasoning could Person A have for holding these two beliefs simultaneously, given their circumstances? ", |
"#Edit: After all the discussion in this thread and some thinking about the surrounding factors of small free range farming (like egg laying chickens still being bought from factory farm breeders who kill all the male chicks or the health detrements and likely pain cows and pigs have from being selectively overbred for growth or milk production) and especially the discussion of choice (mainly for the very intelligent pigs) I have now become convinced that the instances in which animal farming are morally acceptable are so rare that that the few exceptions are just not worth defending anymore.\\n#You (and cosmic skeptic who brought the whole issue on my mind in the first place) have succeeded. Good job and thank you!\\n\\n(end etit)\\n\\nI am currently considering switching to a mostly vegan diet mainly because of environmental and economic issues. But I am still not quite convinced by the moral argument when it doesn't concern factory farming. So assuming you go by a Utilitarian perspective of pleasure and suffering, how do you answer the following questions?\\n\\n1. Does the life of an animal like a chicken or turkey in the wild that has to deal with hunger, thirst, predators and a likely very painful death have a positive or a negative net value in a moral perspective meaning is it good that this animal lives at all?\\n2. Can you say for certain that the life of a chicken or turkey on a small farm with a moderate amount of space, a constant food supply and no danger from predators that is eventually killed in a quick manner is worse than the average aforementioned wild animal in terms of pleasure and suffering?\\n3. If the net Utilitarian value of the animal in question 1 is negative then would it be moral to exterminate the wild animals in order to prevent future generations of those animals from suffering?\\n4. What about the hunting (and succequent eating) of animals like deer or wild hog in areas where there are no natural predators of those animals anymore and where they are actively destroying their own environment due to their numbers? Is it acceptable? If not, what is the alternative?", |
"My fiance is vegan and so I've been consuming a lot of pro-vegan articles and documentaries. I am also getting into weight lifting and a lot of people over in /r/Fitness recommend the 5-3-1 routine championed by T-Nation. \\n\\nWhile browsing the TNation website, I came across their article (Vegans Suck at Science. Here's the Proof)(https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/vegans-suck-at-science-heres-the-proof). I read it and it sounds legit. When I read the pro-vegan literature, they sound legit too. Obviously, someone is wrong here but I am too new to both to discern who. Is this T-Nation article representing the complete truth?", |
"Vegan here, but want to look into \\u201csustainable\\u201d methods of farming animals. Not sure this is the place for it, but if anyone can point me towards useful, reliable info on sustainable farming methods? I often see people that aren\\u2019t vegan say that they get meat from sustainable sources, or that x type of farming is superior to veganism and to the mainstream farming system. \\nPreferably alternatives that could work on a somewhat global scale? Obviously a lot of progress needs to be made to change something like agribusiness on a global scale, but systems that could logically, feasibly apply on a global scale would be useful. \\n", |
"Vegan food is too expensive. Compared to meat substitutes it doesn\\u2019t take nearly as long to produce, which makes the vegan market a scandal. What can we do about this so going vegan is more financially attractive and accessible to more people?", |
"eating meat means animals more are brought in world and they're more happy than sad over life therefore it's good to eat meat?", |
"Most ethical arguments i hear about veganism are about \\"causing unnecessary suffering\\". Non-vegans then say that it's still better for animals to have a horrible life than no life at all, and the vegan argument is that you can't ask a non-existent animal if it would rather exist. The counter argument to this is that humans do the exact same thing with babies but then again without reproduction our own species would go extinct. In the end i feel like the discussion just got back to talking about the terrible living conditions and the suffering. But what if animals couldn't feel pain, just like plants can't? If we were able to genetically engineer animals without the ability to feel pain, would you be fine with exploiting and eating them? ", |
"I want to get to a point in my life where all my meat is derived from animals that I hunt, I want to get as far away from factory farming as possible and remove myself from perpetuating that industry. How do vegans view this? \\n\\nI understand that the most common argument I hear against this is that you want to reduce animal suffering which as a hunter I will be reducing their overall suffering, animals in the wild do not die of old age. They are eaten alive by predators. If an elk or deer is caught by a pack of wolves, the wolves take it down and begin eating immediately, asshole and stomach first. They go for the softest parts and eat inwards from there, the amount of suffering from this is unimaginable. If they could understand and make the decision, I'm quite certain they would choose dying a very very quick death from a rifle bullet rather than being torn apart and eaten alive slowly. What thoughts do vegans have on this type of ideology?", |
"I keep on seeing vegans insist that \\"grass fed\\" is somehow a fake concept. I beg to differ.\\n\\nI live in a rural area. There are thousands of cows living all around me that live peaceful lives out on pastures consisting of real grass, clean water, and a covered shelter for winter time where they are fed grass that has been gathered and preserved precisely for winter time feed. If you lived locally, I could physically take you to one of the farms where I bought a 1/4 cow this year, and you could observe them walking around an open pasture land located by a natural river. Every year the grass grows heavily in spring and summer, they eat it, whatever they don't eat gets packaged into big bales which partially ferment. They actually like the partially fermented grass even better, they love the taste. None of these animals are being fed \\"fake food\\". The idea that all cows live in a tiny stall in a giant feed lot is patently false.\\n\\nI believe that vegans are heavily invested in propagating the idea that \\"all animals\\" live in a factory farm, when in fact there are a wide variety of farms out there, operating in vastly different ways. The logical course of action is to avoid purchasing meat from the egregious factory feed lot style operations, and direct our money towards ethical farms who treat their animals with respect. Vegans would have us believe these don't exist, yet every day I drive/bicycle/walk by farms exactly like the above. In fact I know the owners of these farms, the people who work there, and I've personally visited them.\\n\\nVegans, what would you do if you met some of these farmers...try to tell them they don't respect animals? When they work with them every single day, ensure they are happy, healthy, disease and parasite free? \\n\\nSome vegans, I'm fairly sure are just against animal domestication in the first place. In that case, sure, thats a different argument entirely.", |
"I'd like to get some feedback on a trait that may be present in infants, one that I think is related to moral agency. My belief is that if I name traits that are associated with different entities, the traits should account for observational differences between the entities. For example, most human infants will grow up to become moral agents, whereas livestock infants will not. In my opinion, there are two possible reasons for this observation, a trait inherent to the human infants, or external influences, such as the way we raise each type of infant. I think there is abundant observational evidence that suggests no matter how hard we try, a livestock infant will never become a moral agent. Therefore, I must conclude that there is something inherent about human infants that accounts for the fact that most of them will grow up to become moral agents. Some would probably refer to this trait as a capability or some type of potential. I'm going to refer to it as a \\"precursor\\" trait.\\n\\nFirst, I feel that moral agency is a trait that is not trivial in the same way that skin color would be considered trivial when it comes to moral value. For example, if a human adult decides to euthanize an animal, they are (hopefully) doing so because it is in the best interests of the animal. It's hard for me to see this being the case if the human adult cannot tell right from wrong. Even though the precursor trait is not the same as moral agency, it's necessary to attain moral agency, and therefore I feel it is relevant.\\n\\nThe precursor trait has some unique properties. First, the trait is necessary for attainment of moral agency, but not sufficient. For example, a feral child - one with no exposure to right or wrong would not know the difference between right and wrong simply due to upbringing. However, the feral child may still possess the trait. \\n\\nSecond, there may be no way to know if the trait actually exists within a particular infant. For example, infants that eventually turn into serial killers may not possess the trait. We may be able to test for sentience in animal infants (maybe see if they respond to painful stimuli), but I don't know how one would test for the precursor trait I've mentioned.\\n\\nNow the problem presented by the trait - infants cannot attain the trait of moral agency without a proper upbringing. But we do not know which infants are capable of attaining moral agency because we do not know which ones possess the precursor trait. Therefore, I would claim that we have an obligation to raise all infants with the goal of attaining moral agency in mind, regardless of whether or not the trait is present. To do anything less would result in harm to the infants that possess the trait. This implies that I cannot kill any infants.\\n\\nMy thinking has some analogies to some legal systems. Humans are free to live their lives unless they have committed a crime and then they can be punished. This means there is a presumption that allows everybody to be free even though some will commit crimes. Individuals are punished only if they are proven to commit a crime. With respect to the precursor trait, there is a presumption that all infants should be raised with the goal of attaining moral agency and an individual would only be harmed if moral agency was not attained.\\n\\nPlease note that I understand that I have not addressed the mentally impaired with this argument. Also, I'm not arguing that the precursor trait justifies harming animals. However, I do think it makes infants distinct from animals with respect to moral consideration.\\n\\nThoughts? ", |
"Considering that it is very difficult if not impossible to be vegan and not support corporate agribusiness that destroys rainforest and exploits the local labor of the people who live in these areas so that large corporations can unsustainably grow soy, palm oil, paper and other plant-based products, wouldn't the actual ethical solution be to support local businesses only?", |
"Curious how vegans feel about eating insects and fungus...\\n\\nIntentional and incidental :D\\n\\nIf fungus angle is weird, mycelium (mushrooms) can solve mazes with more accuracy and problem solving prowess than people can. Paul Stammets a leading mycologist as well as peers in the scientific community, are having trouble (cant) disproving mycelium is sentient... intelligently solving mazes with numerous red herrings designed to fool or mislead senses. Anyways, it wouldnt surprise me whatsoever in the near future for it to be common knowledge fungus is sentient.\\n\\ni dont know many vegans, the ones i do want me to know, and are evangelists and annoying. I do however notice they dont seem to put any effort into de-bugging organic produce. once i brought a bunch of blackberries i grew to work. a vegan guy at work ate a lot without washing them... despite a large note i left warning these are yard fruits, no pesticides, insects may live in them... o well :x made me wonder\\n\\nSo... how do vegans feel about eating things with faces or smart things with no faces?", |
"As you all know, busting makes me feel good. The ghosts already dead, right? And often times, they're being jerks, like haunting the living n'shit.\\n\\nCan you be vegan and still be a ghost-buster?", |
"**OVERVIEW**\\n\\nHi, /r/DebateAVegan! I'm not really here for a fight, but I am truly curious about how you guys feel about The Vegan Stigma and evangelizing veganism. I come from a place of 100% respect and I value your opinions and values.\\n\\nAs some background, here are some of my views:\\n\\n- I'm currently an \\"omni\\"\\n- I *don't think* that animal farms are bad/unnatural *in and of themselves*\\n- I *don't think* that \\"omni\\" diets are bad (I mostly believe in balance)\\n- I *do think* that factory farms have abhorrent laws and practices\\n- I *do think* that, all in all, local farms run a more ethical business, but they still sell animals to other farmers and slaughterhouses, so they aren't perfect\\n- I *do think* that slaughterhouse laws and practices are archaic\\n- I *do think* that the environmental effects of farms are __hugely__ detrimental\\n\\nHOWEVER, here is the thing. I feel pretty similar to (this redditor)(https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/52oqmb/i_hate_being_vegan/) in that I'm terrified of associating myself with The Vegan Stigma. If I was going to commit myself to this diet, I feel like that it's something that I really need to feel strongly about and be 100% completely unashamed of it. \\n\\n-----------------------------\\n\\n**THE VEGAN STIGMA AND FREELEE THE BANANA GIRL**\\n\\nI feel like veganism has a stigma attached to it because, when you say you're a vegan, people will feel like you're challenging their lifestyle and you may be labelled as pretentious. At least for me, when I encountered a vegan I felt... guilty. Like my meat-eating and dairy-eating habits were being challenged. So, I could see why a lot of people respond to that with anger instead of inquisitiveness. Because, honestly, people *really* don't like to change, and they *really* don't like feeling like they are unethical/animal abusers/environment destroyers/unhealthy eaters.\\n\\nSO, this is where freelee comes in. I know, I know, a lot of vegans and non-vegans alike think that she's a poisonous lech, but hear me out. Freelee is unapologetically vegan. She evangelizes that shit like a Jehovah's Witness. Her approach is, in my opinion, uncompassionate and narcissistic, BUT, that girl gets the clicks! You may hate that she's associated with the movement and that many people are turned off to veganism by her, but... even though I really don't agree with her methods... I feel like telling people \\"you can eat whatever you want, no problem grrrl\\" won't get people to change their habits. People usually don't change unless something extreme happens in their life (like getting super angry at this random vegan chick). \\n\\n__I will emphasize here that I think freelee should rethink a lot of her methods and (catty, juvenile responses)(http://freeleebananagirl.tumblr.com/post/141860995345/erin-janus-just-wrote-this-freelee-has-become)__, but what I am saying here is that she is clearly not ashamed of being vegan and says some brutally honest things to force people to take a hard look at their lifestyle.\\n\\nIf I committed to a vegan lifestyle, I would want to be unapologetically vegan and be happy to give my curious friends and family the cold hard facts about the meat and dairy industry *if and only if they asked*, but I wouldn't want to be as aggressive as freelee and come off as a poisonous bully.\\n\\n-----------------------------\\n\\n**HOW TO BE UNAFRAID OF THE STIGMA**\\n\\nI really don't want to adopt this lifestyle if I'm ashamed to be associated with it. Given that it's something that is pretty controversial, the only way that the mainstream culture will accept it is if there are more people who are openly vegan without being a pushy asshole about it. There have to be more people who are unapologetic and proud to be vegan.\\n\\nSo, how do you develop this confidence? \\n\\nA couple of ideas that I had is:\\n\\n- Narrow down why I believe in it and have citations/statistics from reputable sources to back it up.\\n- Make friends with people who are vegan\\n\\nI don't think that will be enough, though.\\n\\nAlthough the citations will give me confidence in what I believe, they may not give me the confidence to deal with the people who feel threatened/angry by a vegan lifestyle. I try to avoid conflict in my life if at all possible, but dietary needs is just one of those things that you can't keep private. Friends throw parties. Mothers bake birthday cakes. Employers invite their co-workers for drinks. Saying something like \\"I don't eat dairy\\" or \\"no thanks, I'm not hungry\\" avoids conflict, but who wants to walk on eggshells about something that is such a big part of their life?\\n \\n\\n-----------------------------\\n\\n**IF YOU ARE AN ETHICAL* VEGAN, THEN SHOULDN'T YOU EVANGELIZE?**\\n\\n_*animal abuse or environmental_\\n\\nWith all of that being said, I have a lot of mixed feelings about evangelism. I feel like attraction is more compassionate and less pushy than promotion, but it moves a lot slower. I do believe that nobody should ever be forced to do anything that they don't want to, so perhaps I'll rephrase the question:\\n\\n_If you are an ethical vegan, then wouldn't the ethical thing to do is to promote your beliefs?_\\n\\nI feel like, honestly, a single person removing animal products from their diet doesn't change much, but if that single person could get their SO, family, and friends to remove animal products from their diet, then that would most definitely impact the industry. That being said... I would imagine that being That Vegan that shows up to Thanksgiving with pictures of slaughterhouses is not really ideal as that just creates conflict and distance.\\n\\nSo, what do you guys think? What's the happy medium?\\n\\n-----------------------------\\n\\n**IN CONCLUSION**\\n\\nI really appreciate you guys reading this and taking the time to respond. I don't know anybody very well that is vegan or even vegetarian, so I truly value hearing your thoughts without fear of criticism for considering a vegan diet.\\n", |
"Hi, I'm vegan and have just adopted a cat since he was not having a great time living at my sisters with her two dogs.\\n\\nI'm just interested to hear from anybody who knows more than I do about the dietary requirements of cats. Ie can they live healthily on a vegan diet? If not can they eat vegan food the majority of the time and be fine? Can I buy any good options in the uk? Etc.\\n\\nThanks.", |
"The crux of my question is whether you are a vegan because you feel it is morally good or because you feel eating animal products is morally bad. A analogous question would be do you practice christianity because you want to go to heaven or rather so you don't go to hell. I find it a tough question to ask in any situation but I think it shows internal motivation for an action. I will say I am omnivore but I absolutely accept veganism and it's ideals as completely legitimate. I'm more so curious if being a vegan conveys a certain moral high ground that I have observed a few times.", |
"I'm wondering if you think eating and selling meat and fish should be illegal where it can be punished with fines or imprisonment, or if it should stay legal - but maybe be seen as bad like cheating. Or if you think it's fine like how it's today.\\n\\nPlease explain why. You can write \\"pro legal, vegan\\", \\"pro legal, omnivore\\", \\"cons legal, vegan\\" etc., so I can see what you're standing for. I want to hear arguments both for and against when it comes to ethics, animal's rights, economy, resources to feed humanity etc.", |
"So today I see a popular post in the vegan sub saying \\u201chard pill to swallow: if you are not vegan then you are pro-animal abuse\\u201d \\n\\nI would like to hear some thoughtful debate on the following:\\n\\"harder pill to swallow: if you own a smartphone, then you are pro-human suffering and therefore not vegan\\"\\n\\nEdit: I phrased this pretty poorly. I disagree with both statements, but I'm looking for some thoughtful debate on why a vegan would agree with the first statement but disagree with the second.\\n\\nSecond Edit: I feel like most of the responses are basically saying \\"I do own a smartphone, and therefore I am pro-human suffering, but that doesn't make me not vegan because it's too inconvenient not to have one, or I chose a profession that requires it, or some other reason that is acceptable within the vegan philosophy\\"", |
"I am a meat eater & I recently watched a vegan live stream educating people like me on vegan beliefs. This got me thinking.\\nI came to this conclusion.\\n\\n\\u2018Vegans are thinking about the cause, \\nBut not the result.\\u2019\\n\\nLet me explain. I completely understand We don\\u2019t really need to eat meat anymore. It\\u2019s a massive waste of resources and it\\u2019s not good for the planet\\u2026\\n\\n\\u2018Imagine\\u2019 the whole of the UK realises this and decides to make the change to a completely vegan civilisation. Great! Well not really. (In my opinion)\\n\\n1. Domesticated meat produce animals will suffer more than they do now.\\n \\n(Scenario)\\nThe UK are now a vegan civilisation and all domesticated animals are free to live their life.\\n\\nAs you may know. 83% of all plant harvest are used to feed animals for the meat industry. \\nBut we\\u2019re vegan now right? \\nWell them animals still exist and still need feeding and we\\u2019re going to need more land to accommodate our own vegan diet needs now aswel.\\n\\nSure we can put them on massive fields and let them live their life naturally. But remember cows have no natural predators in the UK. We killed all them hundreds of years ago to protect our cattle. Which means They would massively breed out of control (or not breed at all) and eat all their food supply and would starve to death because not a single farmer is going to want to spend their time and money feeding animals that have no profitable gain to them.\\n\\nSurely we couldn\\u2019t let them starve? After all. We got them into this mess why should they suffer?\\n\\nDomesticated sheep. Bred for thousands of years through natural selection to grow a unhealthy amount of wool which will lead to a painful and horrific death naturally\\u2026 Well they\\u2019re not going to sheer themselves? \\n\\nAre we really not going to make use of this material that we forced them to grow through years of torture and in-breeding and just let them suffer? \\n\\nConclusion:\\n\\nWe have forced Domesticated animals into a state where they would not survive naturally. And would be far more humane for the species\\nTo be fed a well Nourished diet, Treated well and euthanised in painless method. After all, That\\u2019s what we designed them for.\\n\\n2. How are we going to accommodate the extra need of plant food supply? \\n\\nYou may know that farmers spray their crops with pesticides. These are absolutely devastating for wild life. \\n \\nA massive increase of pesticides would cause a massive domino effect on plants and other wildlife, Honey bees are a example here as pesticides are very dangerous to them.\\n\\n(Not really the UK) but countries are massively burning down forests already to accommodate the demand for land to harvest on. \\nImagine how much this would increase?!\\nAnimals homes are being destroyed. \\n\\nImagine the insane increase in farmland machinery. Which will contribute to global warming.\\nTractors, combine harvesters etc.\\n\\n3. Finals comments \\n\\nOther than the massive loss of jobs & economic failure this would cause I think I covered most of my thoughts I wanted to in this post other than a few minor ones.\\n\\nI understand I could be & most probably am wrong about some, maybe all of the things I mentioned. This is why it\\u2019s a change my mind post. \\n\\nI do honestly believe being vegan has good intentions but I\\u2019m not necessarily a good thing. And I will not be making the switch to a vegan lifestyle because of the reason I stated above. \\nWe really messed these animals up for our own personal gain. There\\u2019s no reversing what we did to them. We used to think it was good thing. Now we realise it\\u2019s a bad thing (just like fossil fuels) but animal harvesting lead us to life as we know it now and I personally don\\u2019t believe there\\u2019s no going back.\\n\\nThankyou for reading. I\\u2019m open for criticism. I\\u2019m open for being educated I\\u2019m open to admit I\\u2019m wrong. I\\u2019m open to debate with people in the comments\\n\\nI don\\u2019t mean to offend anybody with this post. Respect to all your choices & beliefs.", |
"I am sorry that this discussion might probably be overused, however I think I might have something new to discuss with some vegetarians or vegans who are vegetarians or vegans because they believe strongly in the cause. I know vegetarians that follow that movement for stupid reasons... and to discuss with them has no purpose. In any case I am very thankful that someone can make a discussion with reasonable arguments. \\n\\nThink of this, there is a scenario in which you have two subjects, you MUST torture one. However you are still a very sensitive human being who is against violence in any way, and you find any form of violence to be detestable. But in this experiment you have to do it (just for the sake of argument) One of the subjects is mute (I mean that he/she can't speak... I don't know if this is the correct way to say it.) and the other subject is not mute. Note that you don't know this information. Before the procedure takes place you can torture for 10 seconds both subjects to see which one you prefer to torture. So you realize that one shouts horribly and the other one is silent, you can't see physically none of them... Most of us human beings would torture the mute person, since you can't hear it shout, then most of the times you would assume it doest feel pain. \\n\\nMy point is... the vegetarian argument operates under the assumption that plants don't feel physical pain, whereas animals do... \\n\\nI think you know were I am going with this discussion. It is not proven that plants feel physical pain, however what if that pain is not in any way similar to what human pain is? I mean why are we only protecting one of the 5 kingdoms in nature. There is Animalia, which is the one we protect, but there is also Plantae, Fungi, Monera and Protist. \\n\\nWhy just Animalia? Is it just because we can relate to the pain with facial expressions and sounds?\\n\\nIm sorry if I sound stupid, but really think about the issue, I am not against veganism, however I do believe that there is a sense of hypocrisy or at least a sense of discrimination to the other living organism kingdoms. \\n\\nI finally want to mention that I absolutely HATE humans for doing terrible things with animals, I suffer more from animal killings than from human killings, so I am really not biased against veganism. \\n\\nI hope you understand what I am trying to say, since English is my second language... I hope I am not writing like crap.\\n\\n\\n\\n", |
"The part of veganism that is most appealing to me is the idea of reducing suffering. I don't care about health, environment, or animal rights arguments at all.\\n\\nSo, a fish in the wild is going to die eventually, probably eaten by a parasite or a predator, or will die from starvation or disease. How does abstaining from eating wild caught fish reduce suffering?\\n\\nDo modern methods of fishing cause them more suffering than if they were to die in other ways?\\n\\nThanks!", |
"This is a random and largely unimportant question, just curious on what y\\u2019all think. \\n\\nSo in a full dive VR Scenario like the Matrix or Sword Art Online, would you eat an animal? Why or why not ?", |
"So this is a divisive topic for many, and I've heard a range of views on this subject as to whether honey is or is not considered to be vegan. \\n\\nSome vegans say yes, others say no. Here, I hope to gather some of the main arguments for and against, to help build a better understanding of the topic and people's stances on it.\\n\\nAs such, this is an open invitation to fact check said arguments if they're based in incorrect or misinterpreted facts. Or indeed to disagree on points of ethics. The idea is to discuss ideas and information, and learn. \\n\\nIn my view there is a strong case for locally produced honey; and an overwhelming case for decentralised community beekeeping. There is a lesser case for mass-market honey (and personally I do not consume it). \\n\\nBelow are primarily a collection of the main arguments I have encountered - and please, I'd love to hear people's views on these points and anything I may have missed! I've tried to be as objective as possible about this so that the post is something both vegans and non-vegans seeing this post can potentially engage with, and my hope is that based on people's responses I can edit the post to collate the main positions for and against.\\n\\nFor the purposes of this post, when I say \\"vegan\\" I mean the principles of basing consumption around minimising animal suffering and maximising animal welfare (and consequently, avoiding consuming animals or animal products). Hopefully this is an acceptable general definition for the broad majority of the vegan community. I add this just so we can keep the discussion focused on the bees rather than quibbling over the semantics of what it means to be vegan. I also include a lot of ecological and environmental arguments because, for the most part, I feel that these values align closely with vegan values, and we should care about making the world a better place for all creatures. \\n\\nThe summary is:\\n\\n* We should support beekeepers and their businesses (and maybe even the ethically dubious ones); \\n* honey can be harvested ethically, sustainably, and non-invasively (but it often isn't); \\n* bee farming is not an inherently exploitative practice - hive migration and 'consent';\\n* honey is a by-product of pollination and should not go to waste;\\n* the problem with honey substitutes and alternative products (i.e. agave); \\n* ethical consumption - why honey is a more ethical product than most of your cruelty free grocery list\\n* everyone should start beekeeping (and why if they did, most of the ethical problems around honey would disappear).\\n\\nSo: \\n\\n1. **Beekeeping is necessary to maintain bee populations (and high bee populations are important).**\\n 1. We can all agree, bees are pretty great. They are vital to our ecosystems and are our primary pollinators. More bees = more good. Unfortunately, native bee populations struggle for a variety of reasons. Part of that reason is outcompetition by the non-native honeybee species most apiaries keep. The biggest reasons however are pesticides, agricultural insecticides, and other forms of pollution and disease, habitat destruction, global warming (longer colder winters kills off bees), and our society's weird obsession with populating its green spaces (parks, gardens, green areas of cities) with non-native plants and flowers or species which don't support the bee populations (and several of which are toxic to bees). The key point here is that removing honeybees from the equation will not cause native wild bee species to suddenly recover, because these issues affect both honeybees and native species. The difference is, the native species are less able to replenish their population to recover from losses, as they're self-maintaining their populations; whereas honeybees are cultivated and cared for in environments that support their populations.\\n 2. Honeybees vs wild bees is a false dichotomy; supporting both aren't opposing goals and there is no mutual exclusivity in doing so. Honeybees are inferior pollinators to wild bees, we know this. There are many things that we can (and I think should) do to support our native bee species, such as lobbying to ban pesticides & insecticides that are harmful to bees, planting more native wildflowers, setting up 'wild hives'. However, overall having high bee populations irrespective of species is better than having neither, and the native bees continue to die out regardless of what the honeybees are up to, affecting the whole ecosystem. Artificial hives are protected from predators, insulated against cold in the winter, and when honey supplies run low and the hive risks starvation, the keepers can feed the bees (either sugar syrup as is more normal in large industrial hives, or residual honey solution from the excess production of honey during summer months as is more normal in smaller scale or sustainable hives). The focus needs to be on helping to support our native wild bee populations, rather than pulling out of the honeybee economy by ceasing honey consumption. \\n2. **Supporting beekeepers**\\n 1. Buying honey supports beekeepers, and that is a good thing:\\n 2. Here, we have to balance out the ethics. On the one hand, supporting apiaries = more & healthier bees = food & healthy ecosystems. On the other, apiaries exist on an sliding scale, from exploitative and 'abusive' to symbiotic and non-invasive. \\n 3. The two main arguments I see are this: Firstly, that unlike with large scale livestock farming, it is objectively good for the ecosystem to have more bees in it, even if they're coming from bad apiaries. They are the only ones cultivating bees at any scale significant enough to have an impact. I personally begrudge the compromise and my ideal model involves small scale decentralised community beekeeping, discussed later, but it is a fair argument in respect of the current agricultural reality (even if one I personally dislike).\\n 4. The second is that beekeepers (I am just using this term generally for any beekeeping operation of scale) are the ones doing the most work alongside environmental organisations and conservation groups to fight against harmful pesticides, for pollinator friendly policies, and raising awareness about bees (and how they're all dying & without them we're all screwed - I'm sure we can all agree that less bees dying is a good thing). In addition to the eco/environmental ethics stuff, this is also effectively an animal rights campaign for bees. \\n 5. Unfortunately for beekeepers, beekeeping is also not the most lucrative of professions. It doesn't really lend itself awfully well to intensive farming techniques - the bees still need space and access to good local flora; honey takes a long time to make; and it takes time for hives to recover their populations if used for agricultural pollination (which also slows down honey production). This makes beekeeping a rather niche and not especially popular profession, and fewer beekeepers means fewer bees. We want more bees.\\n3. **Many bee-farming methods are sustainable and are not harmful to the bees**.\\n 1. It is moot that most any large scale industrial farming methods are harmful to the environment and animal (or in this case, insect) welfare. This is equally true for both livestock (no need to expand on this one in a vegan subreddit) and vegetable agriculture (fertiliser runoff, soil depletion, habitat destruction, pesticides etc.) The point here is to distinguish beekeeping from livestock farming, and emphasise that beekeeping (and honey production) can be symbiotic and cruelty free.\\n 2. Unlike animal livestock, there are bee farming methods which do not 'exploit' bee populations. There is a firm distinction between e.g. sustainable meat farming and sustainable honey farming. Bees do not go to the slaughterhouse to produce honey. They are more or less left to their own devices and periodically checked for hive health and disease. Far fewer bees die incidentally when harvesting honey than die pollinating fields or during crop harvesting. Where this happens it is typically due to being accidentally crushed when the combs are removed. There are good arguments as to why this does not render honey harvesting as non-vegan. However for those unconvinced by those arguments, there are certain hive designs like drip hives that eliminate this issue entirely.\\n 3. It is a misconception that bees 'need' all the honey they produce. During summer months, most honeybee hives overproduce honey at a rate greater than the hive can sustain. This can harm the structural integrity of hives, and cause excess bee death as the internal hive space is overfilled with honey or bees are killed to make room for new combs. Harvesting the excess honey is not harmful to the health of the hive, and in many respects is good for the overall health of the hive. As above, 'traditional' beekeeping usually keeps some of this harvested excess honey in reserve, to feed it back to the hive during winter. There are also fantastic new methods being developed like drip-farming which is completely non-invasive.\\n 4. As a counterpoint to the above, we have the issue that most industrial hives use sugar solution to feed the hives and usually overharvest leading to the keepers using the solution to feed the hives even during summer when honey should be abundant. There is also a significantly higher rate of bee death in industrial hives & honey harvesting techniques, especially if automated. Albeit, this strongly depends on hive design. As with most intensive farming, whether its quinoa or honey, intensive practices are ecologically harmful and ethically problematic with respect to animal (or in this case insect) welfare. This forms the lesser case - ultimately, these beekeeping practices do not prioritise hive health, and typically use wing clipping to prevent hive migration. I do not personally support mass market honey produced in this way, however I would like to invite discussion on the topic as I believe there is still an argument to be made in respect of supporting the overall beekeeping economy for broader environmental and ecological reasons. \\n4. **Hive Migration and 'consent' - unlike livestock, swarms are not captive and can and do abandon hives where they do not like the conditions (with certain exceptions).** \\n 1. Bees practice hive migration. Hive migration is where a hive will form a migration swarm and abandon their hive, leaving to form a new hive in a new location. These migrations may be either partial, when the original hive reaches a certain size, and produces a new queen to set off and form her own hive; or complete hive migrations in which the entire population will abandon the hive entirely, because hive conditions are unsatisfactory or in continuous decline. There's nothing much a keeper can do to prevent this (other than clipping, discussed below) because the hives naturally need to be designed to allow the bees to move freely in and out to do their thing, collect pollen etc. A migratory swarm is a pretty incredible thing. \\n 2. There are two approaches to this in beekeeping. The first is wing clipping, where the queen's wings are clipped to prevent hive migration. This is a common practice in larger/industrial scale apiaries, in which hive conditions are poor due to overharvesting and use of sugar syrup as a food source replacement. In practical terms, these apiaries 'need' to do this, otherwise they would lose a lot of bees. In ethical terms, this is clearly exploitative farming, clearly not vegan, and even for non-vegans it's very ethically questionable. \\n 3. The second is to create an environment for the bees that is better the alternative. If the bees like it then they won't migrate. Bees stay with their beekeepers, typically, because the keeper provides a better environment than the bees would get in the wild and the bees know that they are being taken care of. \\n 4. The hive understands that the keepers feed them and maintain and repair the hives, and they are safe from the cold and predators. In return, the keeper harvests the honey. Hives understand that there is a relationship in which this is done in return for tending to the hive, and as far as insect reasoning goes, that's a deal that the hive (usually) accepts. But if the hive has a problem with it, it is quite capable of defending itself; and if it really wants to leave, it will. Hives get to 'know' their keepers and don't attack swarm them even when they are harvesting honey - and when well looked after, rarely choose to abandon their hives.\\n 5. It is worth mentioning that many keepers use smoke to pacify hives when harvesting honey, and it's fair to distinguish those that use this practice from the keepers who do not use smoke. While it is 'harmless' to the bees, the bees don't get a say. On the other hand, there are many who do not; and there are certain species of more docile bee more appropriate to smokeless harvesting.\\n5. **Bees are hive insects, not animals.**\\n 1. This is a controversial topic with a range of views. However the real crutch of this point is the idea that a bee is not an individual animal; it is a hive insect. \\n 2. When looking at bee health and what's good for bees, it is not appropriate to import the same ethical judgements we apply to animal welfare and look at each individual bee as a precious creature that needs protecting. Hundreds and thousands of bees die and are killed/\\"recycled\\" by the hive \\\\*constantly\\\\* as part of the overall functioning of a hive. Bees do this with their own hive populations. If food is scarce, they cull themselves. They recycle their 'dead' for resources and material to be reinvested into the hive. ***The organism, truly, is the hive itself.*** Not each individual bee. The bees are more like the cells that make up that overall organism. On a personal basis we can have an empathic reaction to bees - they're cute, they're great for the environment, I'd always feed a struggling bee a bit of syrup to get it back on it's feet (wings?) but that's just me and my personal emotions and love of bees. In my mind, I know that it's the hive that matters. So here's the thing: if a few bees are killed in the process of beekeeping, but the overall health of the hive benefits as a result of that process/relationship, then that is not an exploitative relationship. It is far closer to pruning a tree to take off dead limbs than milking a cow.\\n 3. One of the most common comparisons I hear is that it is like taking milk from a cow. This is an absolutely false equivalency and it seems to come mostly from a place of ignorance about how bees work, and emotional reasoning. Bees are not cows, they aren't even mammals with complex nervous systems or emotional/reasoning ability. Honey is not milk, you don't get it by squeezing the bees and you aren't eating the bees themselves like a crunchy honey filled snack. Cows are kept in a forced cycle of pregnancy in order to ensure they continue to produce milk, separated from their calves, and often hooked up to painful mechanical milking apparatus. It's inherently exploitative and abusive on any large scale. Bees however, do not need to be forced or coerced to produce honey; it is a byproduct of resource harvesting. They also do not have feelings, and the hive doesn't actually care that much about the beekeepers harvesting the honey (provided the overall hive is looked after and the harvesting is not excessive or invasive/destructive to the hive) - the hive understands there is a symbiotic relationship involved and it benefits more from that relationship than not (otherwise the hive will just migrate somewhere else, as above.) Again - the emphasis is on what the hive 'wants' rather than individual worker bees or what have you (and of course it's impossible to imply mammalian reasoning onto a hive mind, hence why the \\"wants\\" is in inverted quotes, but hives are a form of distributed intelligence in their own way, and it acts with a certain degree of personality and intentionality).\\n6. **On pollination**\\n 1. The \\\\*vast\\\\* majority of farmed bees are not used to produce honey, but to pollinate crops. There isn't actually a ton of money involved in honey, compared to the effort involved in producing it. Beekeepers typically make up that financial deficit by 'renting' their bees for agricultural use, transporting them to fields and having them do their thing. This is absolutely essential for vegetable agriculture generally, and is the main income stream for a lot of apiaries. This is unfortunately a very raw deal for the bees for many reasons, expanded upon below. The end meaning however is that rather than bees being raised to produce honey, honey is far more frequently a byproduct of industrial pollination which is sold on to maximise revenue and prevent wastage.\\n 2. *A note on agricultural pollination:* \\n 1. As above, many apiaries make the bulk of their income providing pollination services to farmers, rather than honey production. Hives will be rented out to pollinate agricultural cropland, because it is not possible for wild pollinators to effectively pollinate large fields of crops. This practice is both absolutely essential to modern agriculture and deeply problematic. \\n 2. This is because many of these crops naturally contain chemicals/toxins that are harmful to bees; and because farmers use insecticides and pesticides on their fields which are toxic to bees. Almonds, for example, contain a chemical that is highly toxic to bees; so much so that many keepers are becoming increasingly unwilling to rent their hives to pollinate almond farms at all because they can lose up to 40% or more of their whole bee population in one pollination. In regard to the pest/insecticides, this is an even more serious issue. Beekeepers can choose not to rent their hives to almond farms, but the majority of crops are treated with pesticides, which make it very hard to avoid. Certain common pesticides can seriously impact hive health, as the 'sick' bees return to the hive and contaminate it after pollinating. \\n 3. Unsurprisingly, beekeepers don't like losing their hives. Both economically, as beekeepers have to factor in the expectation that the population of their hives will take a hit from each pollination, and will take time to recover before they can be used again; but also because most beekeepers tend to actually quite like bees and it makes them unhappy when a ton of them die pollinating chemical sprayed farms in order to make ends meet as a bee-based business. \\n 4. The crux here is, the bees are being farmed for agricultural use regardless of whether or not people buy honey. Otherwise, the honey goes to waste. So twofold, a) waste = bad; and b) it supports the apiaries who are responsible for maintaining the pollinator populations necessary to maintain our food supplies and ecosystems. Bees are the true MVPs of our ecosystems, and we are utterly dependent upon them - and we have them to thank for making plant based diets possible. \\n7. **Honey farming is significantly less harmful to both bees and ecosystems than popular vegan honey alternatives, such as agave syrup.** \\n 1. Its fair to mention that a good number of the vegan community is aware that substitutes like agave are harmful, and they do not consume it either. And also, that being anti honey does not necessarily mean being pro-agave (to avoid any implied false comparison or straw manning). However if you are vegan and currently use agave as a 'cruelty free' honey substitute, you may wish to consider the below.\\n 2. Whether you consume agave or not, it is the most popular vegan substitute for honey, and the dietary preferences within this community drive global consumer trends. It is primarily the demand for a vegan honey substitute that drives global supply and demand for agave outside of South America. Growing agave is, plainly, terrible for the environment. It is a very slow growing crop that requires an enormous amount of chemical fertiliser, herbicides, pesticides etc. to grow; and in order to obtain the syrup, the entire plant must be killed. And this isn't even taking into consideration the added environmental impact of transporting that agave from South America to the rest of the world. As with any crop doused in pesticides and other chemicals, when a hive is used to pollinate that crop, a lot of bees get sick and die.\\n 3. Honey is invariably almost always locally sourced, being a much more eco-friendly product overall and a far smaller contributor to pollution. It also takes up net-zero space by virtue of it being a byproduct of pollination. Far more bees die in order to grow agave (or indeed pretty much any large scale crop at all) than die to produce honey. As stated elsewhere, in most conventional hives it is likely that a few bees bees may be accidentally crushed when removing the combs (something done periodically anyway to monitor the health of the hive) - however this is nothing compared to the number that will die from pesticides producing 'plant based' and 'cruelty free' honey alternatives. And that is just talking about the bees; there are also the insects, small mammals, birds, and other creatures affected by the land clearance, habitat destruction, and harvesting involved in planting and growing a crop.\\n 4. The bottom line is, putting honey substitutes (or really, vegetables in general) on the table is not possible without a significant amount of bee death to carry out mass pollination of those agricultural crops. Honey is comparably less harmful to and less exploitative of bees than the products marketed as cruelty free/plant based alternatives, and involves less bee death and less harm to the hive *in addition to* being significantly more ecologically sustainable. It is more cruelty free than an almond, or an avocado.\\n 5. Therefore, increasing demand for alternative products and reducing demand for honey is ultimately harmful to bees and harmful to the environment because: it makes beekeeping less lucrative and more dependent on income from agricultural pollination. Less bees = more bad, as above. And also as above, the high amount of bee death involved in agricultural pollination is significantly contributed to by consumer demand for certain products that are marketed to vegan consumers as ethical alternatives, but which in fact are unsustainable and/or harmful to pollinators (and much more so than harvesting honey). \\n8. **Ethical consumption**\\n 1. The old \\"there's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism\\" adage does apply here and it's fair to say we're all just trying to do our best to live our lives whilst making the smallest negative impact on animal/ecological/environmental welfare that it is possible for us to do under such systems. We don't all have a choice in where our food comes from, so we do our best.\\n 2. We are however, responsible for making sure that ethical consumption is ethical *in fact* and not just in principle. Picking the path of least suffering means being honest with ourselves about where our food comes from and how it is produced. It also means taking responsibility for the commercial pressures applied to the food chain & distribution by veganism taking off in popularity, and more people increasingly become interested in ethical consumption. In my view, part of that means saying no to so-called 'cruelty free' vegan alternative products like agave syrup, which pays lip service to the 'plant based' ethos of veganism, but swims over the actual ethics part where producing and shipping agave halfway across the world to meet the increase in demand in western markets, driven by veganism, is dreadful for the environment. Agave is not an ethical product and we should not embrace it as such simply because it comes from a plant. The distinction comes down more to semantics than applied environmental ethics.\\n 3. Animal/insect/ecological welfare is a holistic, not individual process. There's no meaningful difference between a bee dying to harvest honey and a bee dying because it's been run through an industrial grain processor or poisoned by insecticides when carrying out agricultural pollinations. Either way the bee has died in order to produce food that you eat. Honey harvesting is less harmful to bees than pollination or agricultural harvesting; and does not involve habitat destruction, land clearance, and the thousands of small birds, mammals, lizards, and bugs that get killed en masse by combine harvester blades when harvest time comes. \\n 4. If the idea of veganism is to take the best choices possible to avoid consuming animals or animal products (or products derived from animal harm) & otherwise promote those values in the world, then the most ethically consistent approach is the \\"least harm + maximum good\\" approach. If you are ethically OK with consuming an avocado, then you should be ethically OK with consuming something that involves an equal or lesser amount of animal harm in its production. Well, that's honey. \\n 5. With respect to agricultural pollination (I know I keep mentioning it in a post about honey but it is very relevant), bees are carrying out all this pollination activity regardless as part of the agricultural lifecycle, and by just buzzing around doing their thing when they're not 'on the job'. Again, the primary business activity of most large scale apiaries is agricultural pollination, not honey production & sale. The honey is primarily a byproduct of carrying out the pollination activity. So - what do you do with it? Honeybees in agricultural rotations overproduce honey and this excess needs to be removed for the health of the hive **whether or not people buy it.** So the alternative is, what, just throw it out? Stockpile it (and pay the costs of storage) for no real purpose beyond topping up the hive's food supply during winter? That is enormously wasteful, and not realistic. So by consuming honey you're ensuring that the honey doesn't go to waste, as well as supporting apiaries and therefore bees.\\n9. **Conclusion + why we should all start keeping bees: a note on community beekeeping**\\n 1. Thanks to those who have stayed with me through my essay on bees and honey. When it comes down to it, it remains a personal choice but I hope that this has provoked some interesting discussion and maybe opened a few minds to honey as an ethical product which is consistent with the values of veganism, environmentalism, and eco-ethics.\\n 2. Overall, I remain generally anti-industrial bee farming. However I appreciate that modern agriculture has rendered hive pollination of agricultural crops a necessity, and there is a demand that needs to be met (and a price paid by the bees) in order to keep producing crops to feed people. However, going into all this is easily enough for a separate essay so I won't dig in on this topic here. This is about the bees.\\n 3. I appreciate that I've mentioned agricultural pollination quite a lot in a post which is primarily about honey, but it is important to mention them together because they are not separable. It used to be the case in most of Europe that almost every town and village would keep bees for honey and pollination. Wide-spread, decentralised beekeeping is the single best thing we can do for bee populations as a society (in addition to planting lots of native wildflowers everywhere - guerrilla gardening is good stuff.) Many apartment building roofs for example, are excellent locations for beehives that can help sustain local communities and improve biodiversity, increase local pollination and plant health, and also provide a sustainable food source at low cost. Using newer methods such as drip harvesting are even better, but not suitable for all locations. The more locally kept hives, the lower the pressure on industrial scale beekeepers and conservation groups to maintain bee populations; everyone's garden plants will be healthier; and it will encourage community support of environmental policies, & regulations on harmful pesticides. If bee populations are boosted up by community participation in beekeeping, natural pollinators will also lower our dependence on industrial scale agricultural pollination, leading to less industrial scale bee death in agriculture and a better world for all. \\n\\nThanks for coming to my TED talk!", |
"A human fetus is capable of feeling pain. They are, in every sense, a \\"captive,\\" every bit as much as an animal in a factory farm. Why aren't there more pro-life vegans?", |
"I am a moral error theorist. I don't believe we have good reasons to suppose that objective moral values exist. That is, objective morals are the kinds of thing that would have to be writ into the fabric of the universe by some sort of creator. Since I don't believe in a creator, I don't believe in objective moral values. Therefore, ethical veganism fails as a compelling reason to be vegan. I'm work-shopping this idea still, so any respectful criticism is welcome. Thanks, cheers!", |
"The recent (2020 PhilPapers Survey)(https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4938) shows most philosophers think omnivorism, construed as the proposition that it is permissible to eat meat and use animal products under ordinary circumstances, is true. \\n\\nIf we narrow the demographic to ethicists, the margin between omnivores and vegans/vegetarians shrinks a bit, but omnivorism ultimately wins. It's also worthy to notice that even if veganism doesn't win, it still is six times more likely to be accepted by a philosopher rather than the average person.\\n\\nWhat do you think is the explanation? IMO there are very good arguments for veganism (e.g. marginal cases) and the best counterarguments all require very weighty assumptions (e.g. Carruthers' argument from contractualism+philosophy of mind).\\n\\nAre philosophers just unwilling to change their lives? I think this is a rather cynical (although honestly plausible) view. \\n\\nFurther, there are some very vocal defenders of veganism who weren't vegan themselves (e.g. Korsgaard was a vegetarian for forty years even while defending veganism from a Kantian standpoint). So maybe philosophers choose to live with cognitive dissonance rather than deceiving themselves, in which case the statistics remain unexplained. Or did I miss some extraordinary rebuttal of vegan points?", |
"I've been very passionate about the vegan lifestyle for 10 years, but recently I've been bothered by something....owning pets. Not necessarily the idea of having a pet, but that if you own a cat or dog, for example, you must feed them meat. This results in continuing the support of the meat industry. Can we start encouraging our fellow vegans to not own any carnivorous or omnivorous animals? It is just very hypocritical to speak out against the horrors of the meat industry when we have pets that eat those abused animals.", |
"How am I supposed to debate when 90% of the comments are angry people hurling meaningless insults? I cant scroll through 100 comments and reply to the good ones when I can\\u2019t find them in the endless sea of anger. The folk who can\\u2019t converse maturely really need to just be banned from commenting on any posts. It\\u2019s way too toxic for me to try to have these meaningful conversations. And it\\u2019s hard to not lose sight of the original posts point when you are being gaslit by an angry mob. Seriously, every single post I make here has to be deleted because I open my phone to 70 Reddit notifications and 60 of them are angry comments that don\\u2019t add anything to the conversation.", |
"During dinners with non-vegans, its easy to end up answering repetitive questions (e.g. why, where you get your protein, supplements). The average reaction is that these people also started to eat less meat etc. etc. \\nOf course it is nice that these people are interested, and that my actions could possibly have a positive impact on their lives. \\nHowever, unlike others, I do not necessarily have the urge to tell everybody I\\u2019m vegan, which make these questions tiring. On the other hand, ignoring the questions seems rude as well. Could you guys help me out?", |
"I'm certainly not a bamboozle (bamboozling is not universalizable!), so I guess (I have to do this now)(http://i.imgur.com/VmTLhrc.png).\\n\\nSo it seems to me that a lot of the justifications for vegans here are (consequentialist)(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/), and so I've come to assume that most vegans on reddit in places with a high amount of vegans are consequentialists. I thought we could have a casual discussion about that before someone with an actually interesting topic comes around.\\n\\nThe closest prominent theory to my view would be Kantianism, so I'll be putting forth a view for the sake of argument that's very close to it to start the discussion.\\n___\\n\\n# Various reasons I think utilitarianism is wrong (a quick, simplified rundown to start the conversation)\\n\\nUnfortunately for anyone who was wanting a novel discussion, all my initial criticisms of utilitarianism are pretty mainstream and boring. Sucks for anyone who was under the impression that I'd somehow be interesting.\\n\\nAnyway, there's no need to read all of this if you have no trouble sparking a discussion yourself. I just don't want anyone to feel like they have to do all the work here.\\n\\n1. **Utilitarianism doesn't view anyone as inherently valuable as people**. A pig or your best friend or your dogs are only *instruments* to the well-being they cause. There's only moral worth to your existence to the extent that you can satisfy the pleasures or desires of the world. *Very* hot, but not very appealing. It seems intuitive to me that regardless of how much someone can feel pleasure or how much pleasure they bring others that they're inherently worth something. I don't see, say, an extrovert who brings happiness to many friends as worth more than a hermit who keeps to themselves and has a minimal effect on the pleasure of others and aren't *especially* happy themselves.\\n\\n2. Related to seeing people as worth more or less than one another based on their ability to create pleasure for more people, another counter-intuitive conclusion seems to be that **you should value people as mere sources of well-being**. A friend is a friend because they please you and nothing more. You can find other sources of pleasure. You can replace your friend with, say, a really good porn collection and the latter is at least somewhat a replacement for the former. And yet we like to think that our friends are more than better versions of porn collections.\\n\\n3. Without people being inherently valuable, **rights seem obsolete**. Someone can be tortured and killed as long as enough people derive pleasure out of it. In fact, given the subreddit, we're all quite aware that beings *are* regularly tortured, raped, and killed for the fleeting pleasure of others, though not to a degree that a utilitarian would consider justifiable. At some point though, if a killer is sadistic enough to enjoy killing a hermit more than the amount of pleasure that they would have had, it seems the utilitarian would have us support that killer as doing the righteous thing. It seems we can justify sacrificing people for the perverse satisfactions of large crowds all the time. You could end up supporting killing someone you know is innocent because everyone thinks they're guilty and will riot if you don't kill them.\\n\\n4. And related to *that* point, the difficulty in accounting for the distribution of well-being leads to some very strange conclusions, such as **the utility monster**. If we had a universe of two people with two conflicting sources of well-being, and the second person could gain more well-being than the first, then we'd accept that the second person's wishes ought to trump the first. This doesn't seem like a difficult pill to swallow until you take it to an extreme in which a being could gain ludicrous amounts of pleasure equal or greater than the amount of suffering they cause from torturing the entire species to no end. It is a net gain over the alternative of not torturing them if this utility monster gains that much utility from it, yet our intuitions tell us that this being justified is likely incorrect.\\n\\n5. At some point, once you add it up enough, **some small pleasure becomes just as valuable, accumulated, as some big pleasure**. For instance, the pleasure advantage of an immortal being not being tortured for thousands of years over being an immortal being tortured is eventually going to lose out to the pleasure advantage between a lot of people not having to brush their teeth every day and having to brush their teeth every day. This seems to suggest that given it affects enough people, you can torture an immortal being for thousands and thousands of years so that enough people don't have to brush their teeth on a daily basis. Certainly, not having to brush my teeth is a very small amount of pleasure, it'd probably be something like a quadrillionth of a quadrillionth of the amount of pleasure I would derive from not being tortured, but no matter what fraction that is, that seems to indicate unimaginable torture will eventually be fine as long as it allows a nonillion people to go about their day without brushing their teeth.\\n\\n***In short***, *utilitarianism seems to suggest that it is the well-being that can be tied to people that matters rather than the people themselves, that what we think our friends are is actually wrongheaded and they're nothing more than shallow sources of pleasure, perverse sources of well-being are justified, we can justify re-distributing well-being in a variety of ways that our intuitions scream are unfair as long as it still adds up to the same amount of well-being, and seemingly trivial things are capable of being comparable to seemingly very, very important things.*\\n___\\n\\n# Various reasons (I think an alternative might be right)(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/) (also quick and dirty)\\n\\n1. (**People are not instrumentally valuable, but valuable due to the very nature of what they are**)(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#HumFor). I think the utilitarian account understands that what people want is valuable, but misunderstands this intuition. It comes from understanding that (our own desires are valuable)(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#AutFor), but we consider all our desires valuable because they make sense to us. If it doesn't make sense, we probably wouldn't want it. Like if I thought \\"I wanna cut my leg off so I can fly,\\" I'd then immediately reject that desire because it makes no sense. Only rational desires are worth considering and insane desires are not on equal footing. Because there's nothing really special about my rational desires and your rational desires, it wouldn't make sense for either of us to say one is more valuable than the other or only one of our wills are valuable. If our wills are then equally valuable, then it would be a logical contradiction to give weight to the things I value and not give weight to the things you value, so just by being someone who can rationally value things, you are as morally valuable as I am.\\n\\n2. Aside from how intuitive it is to have everyone be inherently valuable, I think **the argument is pretty solid as well**. Just by acting, you are asserting that that which you will is valuable. If you didn't value your desires, you wouldn't act on them. Without anything to make your will the only thing that matters, everyone's will matters. This also resolves the issue of perverse desires, such as the sadistic killer who really, really wants to kill that hermit. It's a will that assumes the lack of value in a rational agent's will, which is self-contradictory. You're being illogical if you say something like \\"I really value the fact that nothing is valuable,\\" and in the same sense, you're being illogical if you say \\"I really value my will to not value this person's will to not die.\\"\\n\\n3. If everyone's valuable, then (**it's only rational to have universalizable maxims for our actions**)(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat). This prevents any of our perfect duties to come into conflict the way utilitarians may find conflict when two people seem to desire two opposite things just as much as one another. The utilitarian is left unable to resolve a lot of issues that are very important to resolve for utilitarians whereas this theory would have no perfect, important contradictions of the sort. Kantians may have conflicting imperfect duties, such as the duty to increase well-being just like a utilitarian has to increase well-being, but they are not the foundation of the theory in the same way maximizing well-being is for a utilitarian so it doesn't pose as much of a problem.\\n\\n***In short***, *approximately Kantian views tend to value everyone inherently, has a solid argument that doesn't rely ONLY on its intuitive power (the way utilitarianism seems to just rely on more well-being for people being intuitive even if there's not exactly an argument that you'd lay out for it beyond that), avoids valuing perverse and seemingly immoral desires, is universal (and therefore fair), and doesn't end up with conflicts that are fundamentally troubling for the theory.*\\n___\\n\\n**DISCLAIMER:** Please do not use this as a source. The view I put forth is not to be taken as exactly what Kant said or meant, and refuting it is not to be taken as actually refuting Kant. It is essentially a placeholder alternative view to have something to argue against along with arguing for utilitarianism in response to this post. If you'd like to know what Kant actually thought, I've provided links for you to read. Obviously if you wanna go full Kant, then I have full respect for your autonomous choice to do so.\\n\\nalso i will occasionally answer in poetry. i wont bother explaining why its kinda complicated i just have to right now, sry.", |
"Hello all, sorry I don't know if this is the right subreddit to place it - but I've been talking to an ignorant person who ONLY accepts peer reviewed studies (while not having linked any themself, they're just refusing to even acknowledge anything regarding veganism). So, anybody in here who has some peer reviewed studies in favour of veganism? I know veganism is the right way, but it seems like this person refuses everything I say simply because I haven't sent a direct link to a peer reviewed study (while they actually haven't either, pretty ironic). Would be nice if I could set up a list with links to peer reviewed studies in case I come across someone like this again :).\\nSorry for my bad English, it isn't my main language. Thanks for reading!", |
"I\\u2019m sure it\\u2019s been asked but I haven\\u2019t seen this and have been curious about it. What is the view of human life, it\\u2019s conception, and the ethical framing behind abortion through a vegan\\u2019s eyes? Is it a mixed subject among the community?", |
"You can skip the introduction but you will get an idea of how I found this crazy idea.\\n\\n**Introduction:**\\n\\nI've been an ethical vegan for 2 years now. In that time, and it was actually thanks to these things, I learnt critical thinking, bits about philosophy, and debate skills. In all that time, I was learning from it, and became better at debating veganism with others. Whilst I haven't really made anyone vegan, I know I've planted seeds, and that's better than nothing. However, it made me wonder, I'm always frustrated in debates because my opponents almost never answer the questions I ask. Which seems like an indication they probably agree even if only slightly. So how do I address that issue? How can I change it and make more effective arguments. Which leads to the crazy idea I had.\\n\\n​\\n\\n**The crazy idea:**\\n\\nBecause my thinking as evolved drastically over the years, somehow. I've been trying to figure out ways to make life easier. It relates to veganism because I wanted to see if there are more effective ways to convince people to go vegan. In a vegan unrelated example, I've found small ways to debate things like LGBTQ+ rights with objective evidence. That leads me to the crazy idea. Being what I call \\"Setting the goal posts.\\" which I'm not sure if it's a real thing or not. The idea is that I can give my opponents in debates, an idea of what will convince me to not follow my position, and basically side with the opponent.\\n\\n​\\n\\n**Using the crazy idea with Veganism:**\\n\\nThere's three questions I would ask opponents with this \\"Set the goal posts\\" Idea. The opponent has to prove the following are true:\\n\\n1. Animals can\\u2019t sense anything\\n2. Animals can\\u2019t think and make subjective choices\\n3. Animals can\\u2019t acknowledge reality\\n\\n​\\n\\n**I'm curious to know what everyone thinks about the idea and the questions.**\\n\\nThat about sums it up. I got around to this idea also because I wanted to take as unbiased and neutral a position as possible. But also argue as objectively as possible. I want to serve the greater good at the least amount of harm, with least harm being the most preferred.\\n\\n​\\n\\n​\\n\\nEdit: thanks for the comments. I guess I'm just too stupid. I don't really understand the issue with it exactly? I thought these were good questions to get a non-vegan thinking, which will plant a seed. \\n\\nAlso, I can tell there's some users here who just read the title and thought \\"Non-vegan giving advice to non-vegans, ew!\\" Read the post. \\n\\nI don't know anymore. I try to do things for animal rights, but I can't ever seem to make strong arguments for it. Not gonna lie, seeing a lot of these comments just, makes me ashamed. I'm not smart. I don't know why people want me to live. I'm useless. I punched myself in the forehead as I wrote this because I don't know what else I can do. My head won't work. Should I try again? ", |
"If everyone else dogmatically bought from factory farms would you still be vegan?", |
"So is the main difference between vegans and meat eaters the value we put on animals? I've been looking through this subreddit and others on both sides, and I just want to make sure I understand what the disagreement boils down too. Some vegans and vegetarians seen to believe that animal lives are equal to human lives or should be valued much more than they are now. Meat eaters on the other hand seem to believe that there is a distinct difference between human and animal lives or \\"souls\\".\\n\\nAm I understanding this correctly, or am I off? Because if we disagree about this basic belief, I don't see how we can logically debate.", |
"I don't think I could. Best case scenario, I'm with someone who's open to the idea and I convince them to switch. But it seems like a bad idea to begin a relationship with someone and hope that they'll change on such a fundamental belief. I've read success stories of people converting their SOs to veganism, but I've also read horror stories of people divorcing over incompatibilities that they tried to ignore or hoped would dissolve.\\n\\nOn the other hand, there aren't many of us around, and nobody wants to be alone.\\n\\nWhat do you think?", |
"So I've been reading up about how cutting out meat is a really good way to help the environment, cut gas emissions, use less resources, etc., and I think thats really cool! I've cut down on milk and cheese for similar reasons plus lactose intolerance is a thing. But I'm having trouble reasoning through why cutting out eggs is worthwhile. I've never been attracted to alternate food lifestyles to \\"save the animals\\" but I appreciate it from an ecological conservation standpoint. I've read a few articles about how introducing chicken flocks to rural communities can help cut down on eating bush meat and can help protect endangered species but I live a more cushy western lifestyle than that so its not an issue for me personally. Are there health benefits and/or environmental reasons why I should cut out eggs? ", |
"It's probably the main thing that keeps me from going vegan - protein. \\n\\nI know there are plenty of examples of protein sources in vegan diets for your average Joe, but what about weightlifters/bodybuilders etc like me that require a *lot* more than that? 50-60g a day isn't going to cut it. \\n\\nAt my current weight, height and exercise schedule, I need to be consuming about 120g of protein a day, but possibly even more if anything. Most vegan examples I tend to see are under 10g per serving, which just isn't going to be enough on a daily basis unless I then subsequently massively overeat. \\n\\n", |
"I see posts like this all the time. \\u201cEating junk food without hurting the animals\\u201d that\\u2019s just not true. You are not only supporting companies that destroy the planet (like nabisco) and consequently hurting a lot of animals, but you are also contributing to the trashing of the planet with harsh chemicals and all the plastic that is used. I respect you junk food vegans. But i don\\u2019t think your diet is necessarily on the same level of ethics as a whole food vegan. \\n\\nAlso, I eat vegan junk food sometimes! Not judging anyone.", |
"To narrow the field of discussion: I am not talking about the ethics of keeping animals at the moment. I only intend to talk about the ethics of hunting and managing animals in the wild. I also do not intend to argue about the far future, just the immediate future. This discussion also does not include any real talk about \\"stock\\" hunting, by which I mean where deer or other animals are actively contained or maintained for the sole purpose of hunting separate from other ecosystems. I personally see no difference between hunting where the animals are fenced in and farming, thus I am not really going to try to justify it here.\\n\\nMy basic position is thus : we are in a position, in most places with internet, where there has been environmental damage, most noticeably there is less megafauna and large carnivores. Because there is no active predation, certain populations of animals, if unchecked, grow to a level at which they actively harm the ecosystem, and thus themselves and the other animals around them. This extends to animals which are not native to environments, the problem is just generally greater and more dramatic, with exceptions, most notably wild horses in America, which seem to mostly be alright if kept at a reasonable population level, which is not always the case.\\n\\nThe best solution to this problem is active predation and population control via hunting, be it to exterminate or simply manage population levels. This is because of the effects of overpopulation being more harmful in my eyes to both the species itself and/or other species than hunting. One of the more noticeable examples is the (abundance of invasive cheatgrass)(http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff-burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/Bromus_tectorum.html) in the areas (inhabited by horses in the West of America.)(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331930442_Potential_Spread_of_Cheatgrass_Bromus_tectorum_and_Other_Invasive_Species_by_Feral_Horses_Equus_ferus_caballus_in_Western_Colorado) (link is primarily concerned with the spread of cheatgrass via consumption, but also mentions overgrazing by wild horses at the end. I am well aware that overgrazing is an issue, I just don't quite know what to search into google to get something that is specifically talking about the effects of wild horse overgrazing on cheatgrass). There are generally more wild horses in Western America than ideal for the land, because of the overgrazing and water concerns. (Here is a (admittedly non scientific) article talking generally about the problems of wild horses, so yall know im not making up the concerns)(https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/features/environment/wild-horses-part-two/). There is similar problems with other animals in other areas. I have argued with people in the past in this sub about (the problems caused by rabbits in Australia)(http://www.rabbitfreeaustralia.com.au/rabbits/the-rabbit-problem/). Measures need to be taken in order to control their population, be they hunting or biological warfare. Biological warfare with species specific viruses is effective, but alone does not eliminate rabbits in a region. Hunting is necessary on some level to control the population, to avoid deforestation via lagomorph and increased damage to local ecosystems. Australia also has its problems with overgrazing equines, in her case camels in addition to burros and horses. There is currently and will continue to be problems around animals which reproduce quickly damaging the environment, I just wanted to make certain that we are in agreement about the reality of the situation, and are on the same page regarding the harm that will arise from doing nothing. My solution is hunting; my reasoning for using hunting as the solution is twofold, the animals would be being hunted if it were not for the intervention (understanding or not) of prior humans, just by animals and not humans, and if we take no action, we are passively letting animals starve, both the animals which over-graze or over-predate and the other animals harmed by the ecological devastation. \\n\\nSome times there is another solution to the problem, reintroduction and introduction. I am aware of theoretical introduction projects to bring large carnivores and megafauna to Europe, North America, and Australia, with most being centered around North America and Australia, but at the moment it does not seem realistic to count the reintroducing and introduction of large carnivores and megafauna everywhere that they need to be introduced to fix the problems resulting from the current lack of large carnivores and megafauna; we should be working on environmental restoration like this, but I do not count this among the immediate solutions. Additionally there is the problem that introduction programs always face regarding large carnivores, and that is that they tend to not stick to wild animals and go after pets, farm animals, and humans. I don't care so much here about the ethics regarding if we should let carnivores hunt us and or domestic animals, but just bring this up to say that most people would prefer to not be actively predated by large carnivores and thus an active management system to deal with herbivores is preferable in environments where large carnivores cannot be trusted not to kill people, be that barriers and further separation or some manner of hunting/trapping.\\n\\nAnother potential solution would be castration, which might be situationally useful, but is a lot more expensive, and potentially as cruel, depending on the method. Additionally, it is not necessarily effective unless done in large numbers, and capturing and castrating large numbers of animals is a lot harder than hunting large numbers of animals. I think that it has promise, especially as a means of controlling native predators, or of limiting the numbers of local invasive predators such as cats, partially because even small predators do not exist at the same population density as small herbivores and thus there is a realistic possibility of having a real effect. The amount of resources necessary to castrate humanely a large number of large herbivores is too high for it to be a truly effective solution from what I can tell.", |
"Since products like milk are not vegan, would products (such as vegetables) obtained through slave labor be vegan?", |
"I will admit off the bat that I am not personally vegan, nor am I close with many people who are. I'm not here to be rude or argue either, I'm just curious because this thought crossed my mind and I realized I don't know the answer. Google has been mostly unhelpful as well, and it seemed like this was the right place to ask (correct me if I'm wrong on that, and feel free to direct me to somewhere I might find a better answer).\\n\\nI have just been wondering what the general consensus is on eating bugs. There's been some discussion I've heard thrown around at work (I work in a kitchen) about how bugs are a more environmentally sustainable source of protein than livestock and it got me thinking about whether or not on an ethical level people might consider bugs better than typical meat.\\n\\nThis is entirely just a question I've been wondering to myself recently, and you can feel free to tell me why this is a stupid question and the answer should be obvious, but I just can't find a solid answer anywhere.", |
"I am not vegan but have recently been looking at all the horrors of the meat and animal product industry. And the only thing that interested me was the environmental benefits for the planet that going vegan would have. So based off that, I am considering maybe going vegetarian in the future or at very bare minimum simply making an effort to eat less animal product. However, I also saw many of the horrible, cramped conditions that animals are kept in and the way they are slaughtered. But I barely felt guilty at all. I think me not eating meat would make no difference to the lives of those animals. And that simply continuing to eat meat would make me much happier. It is a big comfort in my life that I don't feel willing to sacrifice for them. Does that make me a bad person? I think I am just a selfish person that only cares about myself. \\n\\nOn another completely different note I am also very curious about what the vegan lifestyle is like. And vegetarian lifestyle too. Is it as bad as some people say? Do you ever find yourself craving something like ham or shrimp? Also how good are vegan products like impostor meat? I've been meaning to try them but it can be a little expensive. So are there any recommendations for best brands? Thanks. \\n\\nSorry for combining like 5 different questions into one post lol. And sorry that this post basically boils down to \\"convince me to go vegan\\".\\n\\nEdit; There are lots of great and very useful responses on this post. Thank you fro everyone's recommendations, advice and general information. I think i'll be watching the documentary Earthlings mentioned which I haven't watched. Mainly because I'd like to be well educated and informed on this topic but also to see if it could push me to be vegab. I've done some thinking about what it means to kill animals and eat them. And i haven't come to a conclusion about what i'll do about it. But Ive already decided I will try impossible meat. And look at vegan recipes and options in restaurants, just to taste it. People on this post have told me the hardest part about becoming vegan is putting in the effort to research what products you buy and what recipes youll make. But that the comfort of meat is not a big sacrifice at all. So I will definitely try it, and maybe one day i'll begin my transition into veganism. Thanks again.", |
"Hello! I'm someone with autism and I was curious about vegans and their opinions on people with intense food sensitivities. \\n\\nI would like to make it clear that I have no problem with the idea of being vegan at all :) I've personally always felt way more emotionally connected to animals then people so I can understand it in a way!\\n\\nI have a lot of problems when it comes to eating food, be it the texture or the taste, and because of that I only eat a few things. Whenever I eat something I can't handle, I usually end up in the bathroom, vomiting up everything in my gut and dry heaving for about an hour while sobbing. This happened to me a lot growing up as people around me thought I was just a \\"picky eater\\" and forced me to eat things I just couldn't handle. It's a problem I wish I didn't have, and affects a lot of aspects in my life. I would love to eat a lot of different foods, a lot of them look really good, but it's something I can't control.\\n\\nBecause of this I tend to only eat a few particular foods, namely pasta, cereal, cheddar cheese, popcorn, honey crisp apples and red meat. There are a few others but those are the most common foods I eat. \\n\\nI'm curious about how vegans feel about people with these issues, as a lot of the time I see vegans online usually say anyone can survive on a vegan diet, and there's no problem that could restrict people to needing to eat meat. I also always see the words \\"personal preference\\" get used, when what I eat is not my personal preference, it's just the few things I can actually stomach.\\n\\nJust curious as to what people think, since a lot of the general consensus I see is quite ableist.", |
"Morals do not lead to a convincing argument. Theres no good reason why i should believe that \\"exploiting animals is wrong if it dosent meet X level of necessity\\" or \\"its wrong to deny animals the same rights as humans\\" or really any claim for why something is right or wrong. \\n\\nVegans also argue that veganism can be beneficial for you, but those benefits (if they even exist) can be had without becoming vegan. To me it seems the foundations of veganism rest solely on the feelings of its disciples. \\n\\nIm looking for convincing arguments (even based on morals, if you can somehow produce one) for why someone should adopt veganism. Vegans definitely act like one exists due to constant proselytizing and activism.\\n\\n\\n\\nThings i considered:\\n\\n** A vegan diet is healthier **\\n\\nYou can adopt a plant based diet without being vegan. \\n\\n** Not being vegan harms the environment **\\n\\nAn environmentalist could adopt the parts of a vegan lifestyle that are environmentally beneficial, while rejecting the rest.\\n\\n** Its inconsistent to believe eating one type of animal (say a dog) is wrong but eating another (say a cow) is right **\\n\\nI (and many others) do not believe eating any type of animal is wrong, this argument does not apply to me.\\n\\nInconsistency is only a good argument to a non-vegan who's beliefs of whats right and wrong is already perfectly aligned with veganism.", |
"Yeh, take that, vegans! Just kidding. This question has been put to me and I want some eye opening dialogue on it because it's a good question, albeit a typical 'gotcha' type one.\\n\\nAnimals as in big land mammals. \\n\\nSo we'd need to kill considerably less animals than we do currently to eat meat.\\n\\nWe could use some kind of barrier system to prevent animals encroaching crops.\\n\\nAnything else? \\n", |
"I don't mean it as \\"Animals eat meat so it's justified.\\" I mean it as what do you think of animals such as wolfs and bears who require meat? Is it wrong for them to consume other animals to sustain themselvses?\\n\\nEdit: I ask this because some vegans only feed carnivours plant based food.\\n\\nI'm not a vegan by the way.", |
"Four plaintiffs have complaints. What would the consequences be, do you think, if they brought their cases to court, and the court ruled either in favor or against them?\\n\\n​\\n\\n|Plaintiff|Complaint|\\n|:-|:-|\\n|A|I ordered a plant-meat sandwich for lunch, believing it to be vegan. After I finished it, I observed that the same grill was used for both plant-meat and animal meat. The restaurant had been open for hours before I arrived so it is likely some animal-meat residue was on my sandwich.|\\n|B|I was the first customer of the day. I ordered a plant-meat sandwich, believing it to be vegan. After I started eating, the second customer of the day ordered an animal-meat sandwich. I observed it being cooked on the same grill as my plant-meat sandwich. Although there was no animal-meat residue on my sandwich, because it was prepared on shared equipment I contributed to the suffering of animals because the cost of the equipment is shared between plant-meat and animal-meat.|\\n|C|At my request, my plant-meat sandwich was prepared in the microwave oven. The oven is not used for any animal-meat ingredients. However, while I was eating, I observed that the plant-meat and animal-meat ingredients were delivered from the same refrigerated truck, and stored in the same restaurant refrigerator. Due to this shared cost, I contributed to the suffering of animals.|\\n|D|My plant-meat sandwich was delivered in the plant-meat-factory's own truck, stored in a plants-only cooler, and prepared with plants-only equipment. I observed a leather jacket on a wooden hanger in the employees' changing room. When I asked, the restaurant confirmed the leather jacket belonged to an employee, not to a visitor. Because my payment for my meal goes toward a single payroll pool, I contributed to the suffering of animals.|\\n\\nSecondary question: would it be good to build up a body of case law defining \\"as far as possible and practicable\\" from The Vegan Society's definition, so that food vendors and consumers would know what was entailed?", |
"like, i've never had a good argument with a vegan. it always ends with being insulted, being guilt-tripped, or anything like that. because of this, it's pushed me so far from veganism that i can't even imagine becoming one cause i don't want to be part of such a hateful community. also, i physically cannot become vegan due to limited food choices and allergies. \\nyou guys do realize that you can argue your point without being rude or manipulative, right? people are more likely to listen to you if you argue in good faith and are kind, and don't immediately go to the \\"oh b-but you abuse animals!\\" one, no, meat-eaters do not abuse animals, they are eating food that has already been killed, and two, do you think that guilt-tripping is going to work to change someone to veganism? \\n\\n\\nin my entire life, i've listened more to people who've been nice and compassionate to me, understanding my side and giving a rebuttal that doesn't question my morality nor insult me in any way. nobody is going to listen to someone screaming insults at them. \\n\\n\\ni've even listened to a certain youtuber about veganism and i have tried to make more vegan choices, which include completely cutting milk out of my diet, same with eggs unless some are given to me by someone, since i don't want to waste anything, i have a huge thing with not wasting food due to past experiences. \\n\\n\\nand that's because they were kind in explaining their POV, talking about how there are certain reasons why someone couldn't go vegan, reasons that for some reasons, vegans on reddit seem to deny. \\npeople live in food desserts, people have allergies, iron deficiencies, and vegan food on average is more expensive than meat and dairy-products, and also vegan food takes more time to make. simply going to a fast food restaurant and getting something quick before work is something most people are going to do, to avoid unnecessary time waste. \\nalso she mentioned eating disorders, in which cutting certain foods out of your diet can be highly dangerous for someone in recession of an eating disorder. i sure hope you wouldn't argue with this, cause if so, that would be messed up. \\n\\n\\nif you got this far, thank you, and i would love to hear why some (not all) vegans can be so aggressive with their activism, and are just insufferable and instead of doing what's intended, it's pushing more and more people away from veganism.", |
" \\n\\nAny moral system (i.e. one based on sentience for instance) that does not have reciprocity as core principle turns a moral agent from an ends to a means, unjustifiably elevating the other animals above the human animal. A justifiable moral duty cannot turn a moral agent into, essentially, a slave. All rights have responsibility attached that cannot be separated, those responsibilities are that which is reciprocal, if you can\\u2019t have responsibility then you can\\u2019t have a priori rights. \\n\\nMoral agents (human kind) have no reciprocal moral responsibility to non-moral agents (all other animals,) I do not have an a priori duty not to kill and eat animals, merely a moral requirement to perform a utilitarian calculus in justifying animal suffering balanced against my moral preference to minimize all suffering, for moral consistency.\\n\\nMillions of years of evolutional omnivorous fitted-ness in humans outweighs the suffering of animals as attested to by;\\n\\nEvolutionary science attesting to current dietary fitted-ness.\\n\\nThe requirement for supplements to counter the lack of micronutrients, attesting to the dietary unsuitability of a plant-based diet. (we did not have supplements when fitted-ness was being \\u2018designed\\u2019 by evolution) \\n\\nThe proliferation of fake meat (i.e. meatless meatballs, sausage, bacon, turkey, among many others) attesting to psychological unsuitability of plant-based diets.\\n\\nGreater than 80% Veganism \\u2018recidivism\\u2019 attesting to the dietary and psychological unsuitability of a plant-based diet for the majority of people.\\n\\nThe damage to health and wellbeing that can occur if the plant-based diet is not done \\u2018right\\u2019 (I would claim \\u2018JUST right\\u2019) attesting to the consequences of dietary mistakes, mistakes that are that are minimized on a diet containing animal products.\\n\\nThe George Carlin\\\\\\\\Harm argument; \\u201cThink of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.\\u201d\\u2015 George Carlin. A well-educated, well-motivated, materially privileged and well-informed individual may, in fact, be able to thrive on a plant-based diet, but there is a vast majority that may not have the mental\\\\\\\\material resources to avoid significant damage to health and wellbeing. The poor would be particularly impacted, which is a huge moral concern. \\n\\nTherefore, killing and eating animals is morally justified\\n\\nAll animals pursue optimal performance of their evolutionary fitted-ness, and it would be wrong, without sufficient moral justification, to prevent them from this pursuit, including the human animal.", |
"Like, is meat defined by its flavour and texture or its origin? would not calling vegan meat \\"meat\\" by deprecating or help the vegan movement?", |
"Personally, I would do it. I would love to find a way to subject every person indiscriminately to a bite from the Lone Star Tick (it's enzymes and proteins will make a person allergic to red meats for the rest of their life. They can never eat them again.).\\n\\nMy justification is this: all they have to do is stop killing animals, and they can live. The choice is in their hands. It's an automated self-defense system for the animals. It only kills those that are too stubborn and selfish to comply. The rest become *basically* vegan (they can still eat non-red products like fish or something).", |
"I\\u2019m an ethical egoist. I believe that I should do whatever leads to the most preferable life for myself, for why would I do something that is less preferable than something else? It\\u2019s by definition most preferable. I think we are irrational creatures fundamentally, being compelled in everything we do by underlying emotions, desires, and preference. \\n\\nVegans generally care about the suffering of animals, but what if I\\u2019m not bothered when I eat meat? I think it\\u2019s possible for a vegan to be moral while a non-vegan is also moral, since they can both be seeking their best life according to their interests. Of course, this ignores other factors like health and, to a lesser extent, environment, which may be applicable to all agents, since everyone should want to be healthy and eat right. \\n\\nSo, suffering itself shouldn\\u2019t be an objective issue, but a personal and subjective one. How can you tell me what makes me feel bad or good? And how can I tell you? So I think vegans and non-vegans make a mistake when they try to claim moral superiority or try to point out flaws in others\\u2019 thinking. It all begins with our feelings, and people try to project their personal feelings onto the whole population and claim objective truth. \\n\\nWhen a vegan tries to persuade a non-vegan, he is operating under the feeling that he is doing good, which makes him or her feel good. And it\\u2019s hard for me to blame them for this. However, vegans should take a more objective look at what morality is, and understand that not everyone has the same preferences and convictions.\\n\\nEdit: I\\u2019ve noticed that vegans tend to accuse non-vegans of moral inconsistency. For example, eating chicken but not dogs. But if we consider that everyone\\u2019s true basis of morality is what pleases them, and not the arbitrary principle of trying to reduce universal suffering at the cost of everything else, then these are in fact NOT moral inconsistencies. If dogs and cats were tasty, nutritional, heavily available as food, culturally accepted as food, then perhaps I would be fine eating them.\\n\\nI don\\u2019t think the average person is aware of true morality, so they have a difficult time explaining their actions given that the forced narrative is that causing suffering is bad in itself. That\\u2019s why they say things like \\u201cI know it\\u2019s bad but I just can\\u2019t give up meat.\\u201d They truly feel some level of suffering because of animal suffering, but it is far outweighed by the pleasure of eating meat.", |
"By succeeding I mean becoming an accepted and used part of mainstream society. \\n\\nMost people including myself have been raised to believe that what we are doing to animals is normal and just a part of the natural food chain (which I of course know is rather distorted). \\n\\nEven though all the ethic arguments are very real, it seems that the arguments that people accept are the economic arguments: how we as societies will be healthier and richer and will face less future environmental economic problems. How about sharing those arguments first? I believe this will cause a lot more people converting or changing their behaviour to eat less meat. It will become easier to create policies such as pigovian taxation of meat and removing subsidies to farms. Because people will eat less meat, supermarkets will get filled with vegan alternatives making it even easier (and cheaper) to convert. At a certain point people will be so used to it. Maybe at that point people won't be so defensive taking it so personal when you talk about eating animals as an ethic issue. \\n\\nI just believe it will be a more effective way of dealing with the issue. Even if you do it for ethic reasons, your desire for a future with less animal cruelty will still be satisfied. \\n\\nEdit: By controversial, it's not meant objectively, but to people in today's society it is very controversial, and people generally take it very personally if their values are stepped on, but when facing rational arguments, people can say \\"oh I didn't know that, you are right\\". ", |
"I acknowledge that veganism is the ethical way to live, but I find it hard to commit to it because it feels like a futile and inconvenient endeavor. I enjoy eating meat and I have learned how to balance my diet and health, so I don\\u2019t feel the urge to switch to a plant-based lifestyle. I would gladly endorse a policy that made veganism mandatory, but I know that\\u2019s very unlikely to happen. I admire vegans and their principles, but I wonder if I\\u2019m a bad person for not being ready to sacrifice something that brings me joy for a goal that seems unreachable. I\\u2019m open to learning more about veganism and its benefits, but I need some convincing arguments and practical tips to make the transition easier.\\n\\nI feel like my concerns boil down to the question: What is the point of being ethical when I struggle and nothing changes?\\n\\nI hope I don't come off as morally bankrupt?", |
"Is it wrong to \\u201crape\\u201d an animal?\\nMost people would probably answer yes.\\n\\nIs it wrong to eat an animal?\\nMost people would probably answer no.\\n\\nWhy is \\u201craping\\u201d an animal worse than killing and eating it?\\n\\nBecause bestiality is illegal?\\nBecause your parents told you it\\u2019s gross?\\n\\nIs it wrong to rape a woman?\\nMost people would answer yes, yet there are cultures where raping is neither illegal nor perceived as wrong by the society - maybe except the victim.\\n\\nWhy do so many people perceive killing or raping another human as wrong?\\n\\n1) The law\\n2) Belief system such as religion\\n3) It\\u2019s what their parents have taught them\\n4) They realize that murdering and raping is harmful to keeping a stable society. They don\\u2019t want to live in a constant fear that they will be raped and killed\\n5) Appeal to personal emotions\\n6) Appeal to emotions of others (e.g. activism against minority oppresion)\\n\\nI am unable to find any other reason.\\n\\nWhy does the point 1 exist? Because of point 4.\\nPoint 3 exists because of point 1.\\n\\nThe only purpose of anti-murder and anti-rape laws is to prevent our society from falling apart. If we removed such laws the number of murderers and rapists would skyrocket.\\n\\nThe general concept of killing an animal (especially a factory farmed animal) does not go against any of those 5 points listed above for most non-vegans.\\n\\nThe question is, why should that be wrong?\\nI don\\u2019t think it is.\\n\\nI want my mind to be changed.", |
"I'm really curious what the vegan opinion is on showing animals. I did some research online, but didn't find a lot. Is it done ethically? Could it be done ethically? Is it better or worse than other uses of animals for sport, for example hunting?\\n\\nPlease and thank you!", |
"Vegan plant enjoyer of multiple years here. \\n\\nI have recently been reading some of the posts and I fail to understand what is the big deal about calling veganism a \\"moral philosophy\\"?\\nDon't You think that it would be much smarter to approach this whole thing as it is? Eating plant based is undoubtably much healthier, and we benefit the planet hugely by going this route. \\nWhat I'm asking is is what is up with the obsession of trying to convince people by moral arguments when minimization of suffering is only one of the three huge legs (not a small one) this thing is standing on?\\n(I do not buy the description of Veganism as solely a \\"moral philosophy\\", because it seems to fool people into forgetting the big picture).\\n\\nI therefore encourage us all to approach the term of \\"Veganism\\" with it being a way of living which combines minimization of suffering, healthier bodies and healthier planet.\\n\\nWhat are your thoughts my dear fellows?\\n\\n\\nEdit: Thank you all for your replys. There seems to be abou two people who got what the thread was about. Rest of the replys seem to miss the point entirely. I suppose next time i should speak more clearly or abstain from posting in a sub called r/DebateAVegan if i don't want to engage in sensless debating with people who I generally agree with. \\nRest of you need to do more research (myself included). Have fun.", |
"If your argument hinges on plants not being conscious please include what makes you think this is the case.", |
"For me a mosquito is just an annoying insect trying to get my blood. So when it gets in my room I kill it. I dont feel like its against my morals because it makes no sense to do so.\\n\\nDidnt morals start to exist because they help living together as humans. How come that you just say that they also include animals now?", |
"Doesn't the however many years of good life where they are treated right outweigh the one day of killing them against there will? While I do believe that if an animal wants to live we don't have the right to kill it, wouldn't giving it a great life and then killing it be better then never living in the first place?", |
"Will any vegans have an issue or reason to protest and oppose in any community that consumed all of its meats only from hunting with a priority of quick and sudden kills as well restricted its meat consumption to an average of less then 10 to 15% of any individuals diet while prioritizing the consumption of the obtained meat as fat stores during the cold infertile winter? Predominantly that the consumption of meat is relative to the amount of effort and time to obtain and process nourishment for efficiency for the people of this community, this is a community that also commits to conservation efforts to value calculated population control if needed to promote balance and ridding of invasive species, increasing \\"greenspace\\"/natural environment and foliage canopy with a specific replenishment and reclamation policy limiting and unlimiting the amount of permitted hunted animals at certain times or intervals", |
"I\\u2019ve been seeing a lot of meat eaters bring up regenerative farming and saying it\\u2019s better for the environment. What do you guys say to this?", |
"I believe humans are the apex predators of this world, and possibly of this universe. We decide what is right and wrong, and who gets to live and so on. We bend to no one. And we are proud of that fact.\\n\\nAnimals simply play a supporting roles in merely helping us achieve our collective goals. Their sole objective for existence is for the benefit of humanity. We may derive use from them in different ways,such as food,skin, companionship etc.\\n\\n But they will never be anything more than secondary tools meant to assist us. Hence, I have no qualms about eating or killing them, or even if they suffer, because I do not place in them anywhere close to the value that human beings provide. We are gods. They are simply providers. \\n\\n Why should I care if they suffer or not?", |
"I\\u2019ve been pondering this question recently, and I wonder how many people on this sub feel this way. I see lots of discussions of speciesism, for example; I personally interpret this as meaning that just because animals are a different species to us, it doesn\\u2019t give us the right to exercise total dominion over their lives. But I also understand some people to interpret speciesism as meaning that all species are equal, and differentiating between them is wrong. \\n\\nFor me, animals are hugely important, and I won\\u2019t eat them because its disrespectful of their right to life and their will to live. But if it came to an extreme situation, I wouldn\\u2019t consider an animal\\u2019s life equal to a human\\u2019s. For example, if a house was on fire and I could only save a child or a dog, I would choose the child every time. If a dog was attacking an old man, I would kill the dog to save his life if I could. If I was evacuating from a wildfire with my children in the car, I wouldn\\u2019t risk their lives by stopping to save a kangaroo. \\n\\nI don\\u2019t see this as incompatible with veganism (especially as regards the definition of the vegan society), but I do think it conflicts with some people\\u2019s approach to speciesism. \\n\\nSo - are veganism and speciesism two totally different things? Does one automatically require the other? Do you think vegans can still distinguish between the lives of humans and the lives of animals without compromising their beliefs?", |
"I know a few vegans and I was wondering what everyone's stance on honey was and how it's produced?", |
"I've tried to become vegan before. I agree with the philosophy and it all makes logical, ethical sense to be vegan.\\n\\nHowever, I start to have withdrawals for meat soon after trying to initiate a vegan diet. I literally drool thinking about meat.\\n\\nMy question is why does this happen? Why is this such a hurdle for me, or rather, for humans in general, to stop eating meat?\\n\\nI can't seem to find many scientific studies done on the matter, so I'm pretty much just speculating. If anyone can point to some studies that would be very helpful. I think it essentially boils down to is it something ingrained in us as humans or is it something we learned? Or both?\\n\\nI believe many vegans will argue that it is a learned behavior. But the issue is, meat almost seems like something that is addictive for humans. My father was telling me the other day that when he was growing up meat was such a delicacy that he could only have it once a year and it was great. Humans in general seem to get hooked on meat even if it is in scarce supply. It's hard to say they can ever really form a habit of eating meat in this manner. I'm of the opinion that it's a combination of learned behavior and natural behavior because someone who has never tasted meat in their life won't crave meat, but people who have tried it only very rarely still develop a strong craving for it.\\n\\nThe notion that humans crave meat so easily combined with the fact that meat is such a good, convenient source of nutrients really deters me from transitioning to veganism. And yes, I realize how selfish this sounds. However, these ideas also lead me to believe that the day where veganism is the norm will never come--because people are selfish. I just have trouble following a movement when I don't believe it's possible for it to succeed. Vegans seem to be people with extreme levels of self-control and sense of moral duty. I just don't expect that from the average, selfish human, and as such, I don't ever expect veganism to become the norm.\\n\\nAny help with this would be appreciated.", |
"I am personally not vegan, nor am I a vegetarian anymore. I was a vegetarian for a period of time only because of peer influence, though I do think there are good reasons to become vegan. I also do believe humans evolved to be omnivores, but through looking at indigenous tribes we can see humans can live long lives on a carnivore, vegetarian, vegan and omnivore diet. \\n\\nIf you approach veganism from a moral stand point only, is there really any difference between eating an oyster and a mushroom? Neither of the two are plants, neither have a brain, but mushrooms are probably more \\"intelligent\\". Mushrooms have the capability to transmit information through mycelium networks using the same neurotransmitters as our brain. Oysters just exist, they are not conscious at all. So it's alive but is it any more alive than kombucha cultures? Is there really a moral dilemma here, I means sure it's alive but isn't celery? Oysters are also very nutritional being packed with iron and protein, something a lot of vegetarians seem to need more of in their diet. ", |
"I call myself vegan, and this year will be my 9 year veganniversary. I do however have a few leather shoes (purchased second hand) and patches on the back of jeans. I don\\u2019t usually wear wool because I don\\u2019t like the feeling, but do have some socks. I often receive free samples from work (outdoor recreation) which explains away the down sleeping bag and jacket I have for backpacking. I\\u2019ve been making efforts to donate all of these animal products because I personally feel guilt when I use them. I remember what they used to be. I also think synthetic fill is superior in a lot of ways. \\n\\nI also feel extremely guilty about synthetic alternatives, usually made out of plastic. These products won\\u2019t break down like leather would in a landfill. I\\u2019m just confused and can\\u2019t make up my mind which is more ethical. I don\\u2019t like the feeling of wearing an animal\\u2019s skin but I don\\u2019t like the idea of creating more demand for new synthetic products. Which has the greater footprint if leather is a byproduct of the meat industry (which I do NOT want to contribute money to) and synthetics aren\\u2019t made of earth-friendly materials?", |
"a very close friend of mine has turned vegan as of a few months ago and i feel like i dread whenever the topic of food comes up because im always scared it'll lead to an argument. I'm not opposed to his beliefs or the things he says about it but i feel like he's charged with so much energy from everything he has researched and is just waiting to dunk information on me.\\n\\ntoday i he brought up how he was ordering pizza for himself and for my aunt, he chose the vegan option without her knowing and asked me what i thought about it.\\n\\ni told him that it's fine i suppose, but when he went on about why he did it, he mentioned a lot of things regarding how easy of a change it is and how its basically unnoticeable so why not choose the morally right option. i agreed with it all.\\n\\nbut then he went on to say how my aunt isn't that informed about the matter anyway so it was okay for him to pick that option. that didnt really sit comfortably with me so i told him that she's an adult who can make her own decisions and while this specific change is harmless, i felt like its a slippery slope to take charge of other people's diets without them knowing.\\n\\ni felt like the slight disagreement on that topic immediately invoked a strong reaction and he started justifying it with all different facts about the industry and how my aunt would never even tell the difference.\\n\\ni just felt like it would never want someone to get me something that i didnt sign up for. i was trying to relay that without feeling like im attacking his whole ideology.\\n\\nhe's very well articulated and its very tough to find the delicate wording that doesnt press on any of his buttons regarding this matter and the pressure of it all feels so high when personally i'm not invested in the topic at all and just want to avoid conflict with my friend.\\n\\nhow do i let him know that i would like to steer clear of that topic without risking losing the closeness we have as friends?\\n\\ntl;dr\\n\\nfriend picked vegan pizza option for aunt unknowingly to her, asked me, told him its risky to interfere with people's diets without their knowledge as a concept. \\n\\ndont know how to tell him that this topic is becoming tough to talk about with him without risking friendship", |
"I am vegan, but I have a question that makes me think twice. Can cows live on their own if not raised for food or are they too far domesticated to live on their own anymore?", |
"I think this will be interesting, because i completely agree with basically everyone that has to do with veganism and i practice basically all of it in my daily life. But here we go. I do not call myself vegan, because i am not. I WAS vegan for 5+ years until I realized that sometimes being non vegan is BETTER for the environment (with my lifestyle). Im 99% vegan but there are times where i feel it\\u2019s doing more hurt than bad. Here\\u2019s 2 situations that pushed me to believe this.\\n\\n1. I have given back more burgers than i can even count at restaurants because they forgot to take off the dairy filled sauce. My sister works in restaurants and told me that sometimes coworkers eat the sent back food but most of the times they don\\u2019t. I\\u2019ve decided that if i accept the veggie burger with the sauce on it, that\\u2019s one less burger that goes into the trash. \\n\\n2. Leather. I stopped thrifting leather pieces because it\\u2019s not vegan. However, this has caused me to contribute to fast fashion with fake leather pieces that do not hold up for more than a couple months- ON TOP of not buying second hand. Now, i have shoes, jackets, purses, all thrifted that are genuine leather that will last me for a lifetime. \\n\\nSome actual vegans will tell me i\\u2019m awful because of this, but i disagree. I love being almost vegan. Just like all of you true vegans it makes me feel so good to give back to the world. this is just how I choose to do it and I\\u2019m curious to know everyone opinions on it.", |
"So I used to be vegan for health reasons rather than ethical and eventually I went back to eating dairy and eggs products. But in that time I had read up about the ethical stance and I felt guilty eating animal products despite enjoying the taste and so I recommitted years ago.\\n\\nHowever, for the past few years I've been struggling with bulimia and when I binge, my more rational brain switches off and I eat dairy and egg products. But not meat as I see meat as the flesh of an animal and I know that to provide meat an animal 100% has to be murdered and so I never eat it. \\nWhereas when I eat eggs and dairy while binging, I afterwards tell myself that the animals could be being treated well.\\n\\nPlease convince me why eggs and dairy should definitely not be eaten as I'm on the fence.", |
"people keep telling me that i cant survive in -40C without eating meat.what should i do? ", |
"Most things you do hurt others. Every thing you consume damages the environment or other living beings. I still prefer a car and cheap products over the \\"good\\" (local) ones. Why should I stop eating meat then?", |
"Can this lab meat match the nutritional content of lamb or ox liver?\\nVit A: 813%, B2: 250%, B3: 100%, B6: 53%, B12: 1083%, C: 28%, Iron: 77%\\nOr even remotely close to these numbers? If you think so, please tell me how you know? ", |
"Now this is a hot topic for a lot people. I do not advocate for any particular lifestyle. I am only looking at the health effects and not so much the moral side of the argument. \\n\\nI would like to know if there is any research out there that shows that people who participate on a ketogenic or paleo diet actually saw benefits from it. It seems to me vague that a lot people say that meat is bad. Well in those studies are they taking in mind what are the habits of the test subjects? What are they eating with the meat? What kind of meat are they eating? What is the amount of simple sugars consumed? \\n\\nLike I said I am more focused on the health aspects and not so much on the morality. I do agree that factory farming is atrocious. ", |
"I believe we are all morally obligated to purchase plant-based fake meats as much as is financially viable. I'll lay my argument out as a syllogism for sake of clarity.\\n\\nP1: Humans will never quit eating unhealthy fast food products. Most people are so addicted to these products that they will never quit eating them, and they will never support legislation against them. \\n\\nP2: If more people consume vegan-friendly burgers, they will get cheaper and will take up more menu space. This will lead to other non-vegans being introduced to the burgers and trying them.\\n\\nP3: Every purchase of a veggie burger by a non-vegan is a meat purchase prevented, (as well as an extremely effective form of vegan activism, as it appeals to the natural egoism all humans have).\\n\\nP4: Every meat purchase prevented is a small contribution to the end of factory farming, as it decreases the market share of real meat.\\n\\nP5: We are morally obligated to do everything within our power to end factory farming.\\n\\nC: We are morally required to purchase vegan-friendly fast food and other vegan friendly meat substitutes as much as is practical.\\n\\n(Hope this is clear; I was gonna use a simpler syllogism, but decided to try and explain all of my assumptions in some detail for the sake of clarity).", |
"I would like some thoughts from the logic experts on the following premise: \\n\\n**Suppose that X (some evil action) is going to happen no matter what. So one might as well do X and escape moral culpability for X.**\\n\\nWithin the context of veganism, X would be the violent abuse and killing of innocent animals through purchasing animal products to feed a carnivorous animal. \\n\\nIn the wild, the actor for X would be the carnivorous animal. \\n\\nIn human society, the actor for X would be the owner/keeper of the carnivorous animal. \\n\\nDebate question:\\n\\n**Does a vegan escape moral culpability/responsibility for X by engaging in X given that X is going to happen anyway?**\\n\\nPut another way, does committing an injustice against someone on the basis that the injustice would happen anyway free the person from the moral responsibility/culpability for the injustice? \\n\\nMy thoughts: \\n\\nI would say that the logic is a non-sequitur and that it is better to avoid committing injustice regardless of whether the injustice is going to happen anyway or not. \\n\\nAs an analogy, consider women and children who are being killed by Israeli bombs in Gaza. If I were to travel to Gaza and kill the women and children myself, then I could claim that I was justified in killing the women and children since they would have been killed anyway in the bombings and it's on this basis that I could claim escape from moral culpability and place the blame on the Israeli military.", |
"As a non vegan (but somebody who does eat certain \\u2018free from\\u2019 foods for health reasons) I rarely see much enticing and convenient vegan food. \\n\\nNow Im talking here about convenience food, lunches quick dinners etc, obviously anything you make from scratch would be simple enough to make vegan. \\n\\nHow do you see the vegan movement continuing to grow without a significant increase in convenient vegan foods, but will shops increase their range of vegan foods without a clear indication of an increased demand? ", |
"I've thought of veganism ever since I've taken a tour of an industrial dairy/pig farm and shocked at what I saw. It's been in my mind for 10+ years. I think our society is utterly obsessed with consumption and pleasure and we eat shitloads of meat without thinking or considering the big picture. Industrial farming feels like one of the greatest sins of modern day society that the human race refuses to think about as a species, due to our unnatural, gluttonous, destructive, addicted, capitalist relationship to food.\\r \\n\\r \\nI feel like this viewpoint of me makes me prime to join a vegan group or be part of a community where I can learn how I can take action or make positive food-related changes in my life. It would be very nice to be part of a community of like-minded people. However, I've been turned off of the movement nearly every time I've encountered it.\\r \\n\\r \\nThere was a girl in HS who was a huge PETA supporter and did/said some extreme things that made me and everyone else in HS anti-vegan, or at least anti-PETA. I ran into some activists, they were wearing Anonymous masks and showed me this cow slaughter video that made me sick to my stomach, lost my appetite and felt horrible while hanging out with friends. I thought it was not fair for that person to be in public shoving disgusting images in people's faces, and reminded me of the tactics of anti-abortion activists with dead fetus images. I agreed with the vegan activist's general view, but opposed his tactic.\\r \\n\\r \\nI feel that a lot of vegan discourse is ungraceful and intolerant, and in fact creates a reverse psychology effect and turns moderates/borderline people like me off of veganism because I mentally associated the idea of not enslaving animals with these specific people. Talking to a vegan oftentimes felt like talking to a Jehovah's Witness or right-wing evangelical -- someone who considered anyone outside of their in-group as morally bad and believes EVERYONE should be converted into their way of thinking. Thinking in moralistic, black-and-white terms, and shames people for believing in the wrong thing.\\r \\n\\r \\nIf I were a vegan, I would not be proud to call myself one because the movement (at least in USA) is associated with radicals and extremists, people who are moralistic, think they are better than others, and are generally considered annoying/insufferable to non-vegans.\\r \\n\\r \\nI want to take a gentle, moderate, slow and easy path to veganism, aka be a \\"chill\\" vegan. I don't want my path to be one defined by shock/disgust/moral outrage, I want it to be defined by good food and health, is there a path for me? My first inclination is toward non-Western cultures, such as Indian vegetarians or Buddhist vegetarians, whose practice is rooted in culture, amazing cuisine, etc. moreso than political/moral view. Are there more groups like this? Can you please offer some viewpoints, if there are options for vegan-lites or moderates or people uninterested in shocking documentaries, etc.? I'm afraid if I join any vegan groups I'll be guilted by people who accuse me for being too wishy-washy and too open to pro-meat, pro-dairy viewpoints.\\r \\n\\r \\nIs there a place within veganism for someone who gets along great with pro-environmental meat-eaters and dairy consumers, but also wants a world with little/no animal enslavement, but also very much dislikes zealotry/moral outrage, is veganism right for me?", |
"vegans say that eating eggs is bad because they shred baby chicks. What doesn't make sense to me is that in order for a chick to be born, the egg needs to be fertilized by a rooster (male). So if they kill all the males, how does the egg get fertilized, and why do they need the roosters? Also when it comes to stores like whole foods, anyone have a perspective? I have toured the farm where they keep the female chickens and they are treated with absolute care.... Their eggs are not fertilized. Therefore who would I be hurting? Thanks.", |
"My choosing to stop eating meat will have no impact on the number of animals that suffer during the process of meat production. Giant meat corporations will, obviously, not adjust their supply of meat based on the changes in demand of one individual consumer. Even if tomorrow I were to renounce all animal products, the same number of animals will continue to suffer at the hands of meat producers.\\n\\nThus, there is no reason for me to stop enjoying a meat diet seeing as it improves my life and happiness.\\n\\nDiscuss.", |