When somebody asks why you're a vegan

You're viewing a single thread.

273 comments

I've seen those videos, a lot of them. I still choose to eat meat. I totally disagree with the implication that anyone who eats meat is being willfully ignorant of evidence that would convert them.
- I think it's worse to admit that you're fine with inflicting that kind of pain on animals and still enjoy the end result. There's a reason they tell parents to be wary of kids who enjoy torture. You're just a step below that.
  
  Holy shit, you are so delusional and full of yourself. You sound like prepubescent teenagers on Xbox Live that call people "pathetic" every chance they get. 💀💀 Get over yourself.
  
  When in a series there is a serial killer it's always the person who enjoyed to torture animals as kid. Take a guess why.
  
  Because people who enjoy torture enjoy torture?
  
  If you're trying to make a comparison, it makes no sense at all.
  
  Media likes to play with stereotypes and deliver a story which seems to make sense. It's not a field study on human psychology.
- So then why do you eat meat? Are you just a selfish narcissist who thinks their pleasure is more important than anything else? Or what is it?
  Because scientific evidence hates you.
  
  Scientific evidence is unbiased, you hate them.
  
  Are you just a selfish narcissist who thinks their pleasure is more important than anything else?
  I've been a vegan for almost a decade, and I've finally started to see how self-entitled carnists are. How I used to be. I thought that I was entitled to the bodies of other living, sentient beings.
  
  Holier than thou.
  
  Maybe you should consider the possibility that some people in some aspects of life really are holier than thou and you could learn from them. Imagine someone pointing out to a serial killer how not killing is more moral and the killer answers with "Holier than thou.". Would this be a good comeback?
  
  This is not an equivalent situation, being vegan or vegetarian does not make you legitimately "holier than thou". It is not a virtuous enough decision to be "holier" than the average person, and eating meat is not a bad enough action to be comparable to being a serial killer.
  
  Just because it is not comparable to a serial killer does not mean that it's not bad enough to warrant a holier label. How do you justify killing and torturing an animal just for taste pleasure?
  
  I dont kill or torture animals, I support an industry that does by buying the products they create. That is not bad enough of an action for you to be holier.
  
  Read your comment again, slowly, and tell me you think this is a good argument.
  
  How bad would be bad enough? Is holiness quantized?
  
  I can quantify it, and so can you. I cant tell you whos correct.
  
  You apparently think there is some lower bound of an action's unholiness such that it won't contribute to an individual's overall holiness. Hence my use of the term quantized, not quantified.
  
  Of course I'm not a 'selfish narcissicist who thinks their pleasure is more important than anything else', that's total hyperbole (and the fact you exaggerated the fuck out of something doesn't make anyone think you're more intelligent or your point holds more weight).
  I will answer you, but my reasoning really doesn't matter. For me its a combination of the lack of impact I as an individual consumer can have on that industry, and the negative affects veganism can take on your nutrition.
  Also, there is ZERO scientific evidence that humans should not eat meat. Unless you're trying to say those videos are "scientific evidence" that I should be vegan, in which case I think you have psychosis.
  
  If every one went vegan like vegans do, then there absolutely wouldn't be a lack of impact, what a bizzare thing to suggest?
  If everyone acts like you and goes "ah well, I can't change anything", that flawed "logic" can be used to commit any number of atrocities.
  I do like that "scientific evidence" argument though. Like, "sorry judge there's no scientific paper decrying killing people with a car so I did it". You don't need a scientist to tell you to do an objectively good thing - in this case stopping the unnecessary culling of sentient life for your tastebuds.
  
  I understand that fully, trust me, but I only control my own actions. I do not care enough about the issues surrounding meat production to take that action knowing I will not enact any change. If I cared enough about those issues, I wouldn't care if anyone else followed. (As you have).
  That logic only applies on an individual basis, and has to be weighed against how much you care about something.
  I feel you have my point confused, you think I said: "There is ZERO scientific evidence that humans abstaining from eating meat would have a positive impact on our world."
  I said: "There is ZERO scientific evidence humans should not eat meat."
  
  What do you mean you'll have no impact?? You realised for every piece of meat you don't eat, that's less demand for an animal to be killed right? Not to mention the significant reduction in carbon emissions. That's not including the change you impart on others. I was convinced to go vegan, and I've convinced others as well.
  Your first point is just straight out wrong. Do you vote? Or is the fact your vote doesn't single handedly decide the election enough to dissuade? Your logic could be used by a murderer to go "well, there's murder in the world that I can't stop, so I might as well keep murdering!". Very very broken logic.
  I agree with you the only argument against veganism is "I don't care". But then you must accept you are a person who knowingly commits bas deeds, deeds you could easily stop today, but choose not to out of greed.
  And your third point is just weird? If you accept that scientific discourse agreed abstaining from meat has a worldly positive impact, isn't that enough? Or is the scientifically supported increase in life expectancy associated with veganism not enough?
  
  I choose not to because I do not care enough to make that decision when it will have no impact. Even if my vote has no impact, I care much more about who gets elected.
  I care much more about whether humans should dietarily eat meat than whether abstaining from eating it has monetary or carbon benefits.
  
  so if I'm a ceo trying to not waste money, and my margin for acceptable wasted product is 90% sold 10% unsold, even one person worth of lost sales of meat has a definite possibility of making me buy less next shipment. Even if they're buying it by the giant crate, if I'm buying meat crates according to a formula, your 1 purchase could be the one that sways me for or against buying another. Do that over the course of 10 years and this turns from a possibility to essentially guaranteed.
  
  I dont care enough to make that small of an impact.
  
  While I get this, maybe it's better to look at it as the individual animals you're saving. Red cross members know there are hundreds of millions of lives they can't save, and the world should change to where these people don't need the help, but they're still saving the life of someone here and now. A cow is maybe "less" than a human life, but you're saving them a lifetime of suffering.
  Even just reducing meat to where it's not a huge annoyance can still make a big difference.
  
  I can totally see the individual impact argument. Still personally I think if everyone thinks this way, nothing's gonna change. On the other hand if a sufficient amount of people tries it's gonna change everything. We just need to be enough individuals to be a movement.
  Then again "ZERO scientific evidence": yeah just fuck yourself. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study There are several studies showing that we could easily tackle the global hunger crisis, which will only worsen in the next years by going vegan. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets And that's just one example of "scientific evidence that humans should not eat meat."
  
  Neither of those links show any evidence as to why humans should not eat meat. They show evidence as to why humans eating meat could assist in dealing with the effects of climate change, but that is not the same claim.

273 comments