I was only gone for a day or two...
I was only gone for a day or two...
I was only gone for a day or two...
You're viewing a single thread.
Until I joined Lemmy I had no idea how militant vegans could be. I sorta just assumed they were a different brand of vegetarian.
I'm not opposed to their ideaology in any way, but after reading the comments on a few posts that found their way into my feed... I had to block their communities. It didn't seem likely that I'd be reading any productive discourse there.
I was vegan for 8 years and during that time I didn't talk to anyone about it other than to say, "I don't eat that."
I say that to say this - vegans are insufferable and a large reason why I quit the community and went back to omnivore. Even after 8 years, other vegans were still 'more vegan' and would nitpick the dumbest stuff.
"Bro, did you eat a date? That killed a bee or something. Not cool."
Shut up with that. Let me eat my damn fruit.
I was healthier though. But, to be fair, I was younger.
"Bro, did you eat a date? That killed a bee or something. Not cool.”
I'm a level 5 vegan. I won't eat anything that casts a shadow.
Now it reminded me of Vladimir Sorokin's "Horse soup". Time to read it again.
Vladimir Sorokin’s “Horse soup”
https://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-horse-soup/#gsc.tab=0
(Reads blurb. What the actual fuck.)
I'm a level 2 proto-vegan, though it's functionally equivalent to a level 8 in normal terms I think.
Anyway, our food is cultivated in an open source orchard (the genomes are all fully sequenced) using plea bargains with the surrounding woodland, where we encourage feral animals to aerate and urinate on the soil and we sensually assist in the procreation of the plant reproduction taking a 1%-5% crop yield over what the flies do not touch.
You know what, it's so much easier to say you're an omnivore and end up eating meat once a year than to say you are a vegan who makes an exception about once a year. The first label would earn you a "wait so you're basically vegan?!" vs "you're not vegan then and you're a dirty cheater".
exactly. you choose your labels to best express your positions.
As you might have experienced, it's pretty hard to be vegan in a carnist world. People talk about animal abuse all the time, they confront you all the time, make fun of you. Most don't want to talk about it, they want to shut you up. The hate and ignorance is strong and different people react diffrently to that situation. Some stay quiet, like yourself, some get vocal. Some debate, some get angry. Calling vegans insufferable is like calling gays insufferable, or feminists. Some might be. We have recognized a major injustice and we want to change it.
"Bro, did you eat a date? That killed a bee or something. Not cool."
That's rage bait and you made it up. Why would anyone say that?
Hey bud you really need to get off the cross. You just compared your eating preferences which are 100% a choice to someone being born homosexual and not wanting to be killed for it or being born/transitioning to a woman and wanting the same basic human rights as the other half of our species. Honestly you need to just shut up and think about that for a hot second.
I oppose racism, sexism, trans- and homophobia. And I oppose speciesism as well. It's the same system: One group considers another group as less valuable and exploits, abuses or fights them.
You just draw the line at you own species.
Animals are innocent, vulnerable and easy to abuse because they don't have a voice and don't understand the situation we put them in. If they were human children or mentally disabled humans, we would protect them from harm because of who they are. Instead, we do the most horrible things to them, we take their freedom, their babies, their lifes. In factories, on an industrial scale. Because a pig is just a pig, right?
EDIT: Please reply, don't just silently downvote. What's your refutation?
What are you talking about? Don't you also draw a line when you choose to eat plants? I don't think they would agree to that. Untill humans develop the ability to photosynthesize, we are going to have to eat other species, there's no way around it.
Don't you also draw a line when you choose to eat plants?
I think there's a reasonable distinction here. You would presumably also draw a line between a conscious human and a brain dead human that won't ever be conscious again. As far as we can reasonably tell, consciousness requires a brain. Dogs and pigs have brains, so maybe we shouldn't torture and kill them on factory farms. We can also see them suffering and measure their physical reaction to it.
Of course there's a possibility that plants have some kind of consciousness too, but 1. that's speculation and 2. there's no way around farming them, as you have said yourself:
Untill humans develop the ability to photosynthesize, we are going to have to eat other species, there's no way around it.
Farming animals will always require far more plant deaths than growing plants for human consumption. These animals have to grow for months before being slaughtered and literally eat tons of animal feed in that time.
Therefore, plant-based food minimizes both animal suffering and deaths as well as plant deaths.
I'm not convinced that plant deaths are an ethical issue in of themselves, but farming has environmental implications so it makes sense to minimize the food that needs to be grown and make the farming as environmentally friendly as reasonably possible.
no one wants to torture animals.
the vast majority of plant matter fed to animals is waste product. they eat parts of plants that people can't or won't eat. so those plants are killed first for us, then the animals. and the point of the plant objection is not the amount of suffering, but the fact that no one cares if plants are killed, and only vegetarians and vegans care if animals are killed
This is wrong. Nearly all (source) of the soy the Amazonas gets destroyed for is animal feed. We give about one third of the global grain we produce to animals, we could end global hunger if we'd give it to humans. Plus we could reforest vast regions, so we don't die, as a species. Go vegan please.
global hunger is caused by greed, not eating traditional foods
there is no reason to believe deforested areas would not become further developed if agriculture becomes untenable
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png
you can see soy cake, which would otherwise be industrial waste, makes up the vast majority of the soy crop that becomes animal feed
Soy cake can be used to produce textured vegetable protein (meat alternatives), tofu, tempeh, soy milk, protein powder, biofuels and bioplastics, for example.
Calling that industrial waste is just a complete joke.
The land could also be used to grow other crops for human consumption.
you're wrong. soy is a great example: about 85% of the global crop is pressed for soybean oil. the byproduct would be industrial waste if it weren't fed to livestock
your land use map isn't damning in my opinion: making food is a good use of land.
PLANTS HAVE FEELINGS TOO
is #22 on the Vegan Bullshit Bingo:
No, they do not. There is no serious study to suggest that they do. Plants do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli. If you really care that much about the welfare of plants, you should go vegan, since many more plants "die" for animal feeding. Do you feel bad while mowing your lawn? And would you rather rescue a potted plant than a dog from a burning house? Is docking pig tails the same as branch trimming to you? Question upon question...
The comment you responded to says nothing about feelings. Nor does it say that the commenter has any issue with the consumption of plants.
If you really care that much about the welfare of plants, you should go vegan, since many more plants “die” for animal feeding.
the point is that they don't care about the welfare of plants and you don't either. tehy also eat animals. i think you can put it together.
You are not the animals.
At best you’re a shitty white knight for the animals. You’re not even an ally if this is how you conduct yourself.
You just compared your eating preferences which are 100% a choice to someone being born homosexual and not wanting to be killed for it
All the animals on factory farms didn't choose to be born there and don't want to be killed either.
It's not about the sensitivities of humans, but the insane suffering of animals in this system of oppression.
If all yall got off the crosses we could donate all the wood and nails to Habitat for Humanity.
Just goes to show how little you care about others suffering. Social justice for me but not for others (those who I consider interior).
Correct.
You’re not the animals. You’re not even a good spokesperson for the animals.
You don’t give a shit about the animals. You're just a pathetic histrionic giving into your tendencies here to tank a conversation for a hit.
You’re not the animals.
I literally wrote that this isn't about me/humans, so yes, obviously.
There are many groups that are suffering and that I'm not part of, and I still care about what's happening to them and want the suffering to end. It seems like most lemmy users share that sentiment when it comes to oppressed humans, so I really don't get what's so hard to understand about that when I extend it to animals.
You might have the opinion that factory farming isn't a social justice issue, fine. Me having a different opinion doesn't negatively affect you in any way. Why are you so pissed at me just because I see it differently?
You jumped in on a conversation where a person compared veganism as if it’s a persecution comparable to the LBGTQ.
Veganism is A diet choice. That’s all it is. That is all you’re doing here.
This is not you living as a member of the LBGTQ.
You are not a suffragette.
There will be no pivoting off of it here today and play shitty white knight for the animals.
he is confused with figs. which are pollinated by wasps. and some vegans choose to eat them and some don't. it's really not that controversial.
What in the actual fuck. You are comparing yourself to LBGTQ and what they’ve had to endure???
You think your struggle is anything like feminism???
Maybe throw in some slavery there. Ya know, get all your basis of inappropriate covered.
Might as well go whole ass with the bullshit you’re pulling here.
you are choosing a lifestyle. Not even that. You’re choosing what you consume. That’s it. You are not persecuted for something that is NOT a choice you made. You are NOT being persecute for what appearance you were born into.
It is a far cry from being watched out for and spotted and then targetted to how vegans target others.
Stop appropriating an actual minority group that had to defend their rights just to live with the same rights as others.
You talk like you’re the actual cow getting slaughtered for burgers.
you’re not that cow either.
And you’re not even a good spokesperson for that cow. At best you’re just a shitty white knight. You don’t even care about cows that are getting slaughtered cuz you wouldn’t tank a conversation so badly as you had if you actually gave a fuck and wasn’t just stroking off to your own ego for picking dumb fights with shit ideals about your grandeur. Worst ally ever.
Between them and Linux evangelicals, this place can be pretty annoying at times.
Spoken like a meat eating windows user
Windows eating meat user
Do you think that's an insult?
meat eating windows user (derogatory)
Can I get this on a name tag?
No. If he wanted to insult you, he'd call you a MacOS User /s
Oh you must also be a reddit uaer... Here you go: /s
Lol pretty sure /s has been around LONG before Reddit
reddit is like 20 years old and rose to prominence in the web 2.0 boom. I'm pretty sure you're wrong
I tried to find historical articles about it, but couldn't find any. But I swear I used it and saw it all the way back in the AIMs chatroom dialup days
There is a wiki article about it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_indicator
I wish we could take these two comments and have them always show up on the front page.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as vegan, is in fact, GNU/vegan, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus vegan.
Linux evangelicals
We just want to save your code from eternal damnation
I've just discovered a new game: start posting how you love windows, meat and Elon, place bets who will attack you first
My money would be on Elon. Windows users and carnivores are quite common here, but hatred of The Musk is near universal.
It was honestly more fun to irk the "grammer" police on reddit using misspellings and improper vocabulary.
to irk the “grammer” police on reddit
Hmm...
Squints
You done messed up.
to irk the “grammer” police on Reddit
FTFY
I see, I still giggle when I do it, on Lemmy to!
Don't forget to support capitalism as well!
I use arch btw
You know I really hate vegans, but I FUCKING REALLY HATE Linux evangelicals, and they are FUCKING EVERYWHERE HERE.
Anyway, fuck veganism and linux
Exactly my experience. I often heard stories of vegans being like that, but I never ever saw it so I thought it was just made up to belittle vegans.
Then I joined lemmy and found out that I'm apparently in favour of massacres, slavery and rape because I consume meat/milk/eggs from time to time.
I imagine the vast majority of vegans just go about their lives and resprectfully discuss the ethics of animal consumption when the topic comes up, but these loud militant members really make vegans look bad and they sure as hell make it so that even less people consider going vegan
Yes, them calling me a rapist totally made we want to be like them and adopt their ideology.
Their strain of it appears to be poison religion like fundamentalist Christianity or Islam. A fanatic is a fanatic, whatever paint they're dipped in. Guess they're just trying to fill a hole in themselves.
any movement will have more or less militant members. that's life.
I'm curious. You eat meat, but you're not in favour of massacres. Alright, explain it to me.
I'm not in favor of it, but I'm not going to stop eating meat. The second lab grown meat is available to people in my economic tier I'll switch exclusively to that.
I'm really hoping that lab grown meat will be available soon. I have a weird genetic issue where my body doesn't like to absorb certain vitamins from food so I get basically nothing from raw veggies, negligible amounts from cooked veggies, and a tiny bit more from meat, eggs and dairy.
I take prescription vitamins, but according to my Dr I need to eat meat/animal products with them or risk going into a deficiency again... the last time I was deficient I had seizures and serious neurological issues.
I hate the meat industry and factory farming, but also want my brain to function and to not have seizures.
Lab grown meat will solve this dilemma for me.
I also have severe malabsorption and can't process most veg at all. I have been told hundreds of times that I am lying, and that I don't need to eat meat. To some of these people it is better for us to suffer than to eat meat, while they claim to subscribe to a philosophy of reducing suffering.
Yeah, it's frustrating to say the least.
If I went vegan I'd probably suffer a very slow, agonizing death from my brain going haywire and seize until I go into psychosis and die. If my body could take it I'd probably be a vegetarian and eat only local eggs and cheese, but it's a bad idea according to my doctor. It sucks.
Dam, man, that sucks. Hey, quick question, if they made lab grown human meat, would you try it?
Grown from my own cells? Fuck yes.
What about someone else's? My body sucks I don't want to eat any part of it
With consent, and with cells from someone I know/love - Sure!
and with cells from someone I know/love
what's wrong babe? you've barely even touched your cannibal steak.
Idk if it would be better or worse if I knew who it was from.
This is how you get prions...
Absolutely! I'm hoping it's available soon since it's more ethical than my current options.
Edit - missed the human part lmao. I would probably try it if it hurt no one and was offered to me
Ah, so you're saying you don't like it, but you find it an acceptable sacrifice to make in exchange for yummy food?
100% yes. I am fully aware that being vegan is, in my opinion, the more ethical option but I can and will continue to eat meat because 1 it's cheap, it's plentiful, I know how to and can cook with it well and because yes it tastes so fucking good. I don't mean this as a 3edgy5me thing but fuck me I love a nice ribeye stake with butter and garlic cloves and a baked potato.
Okay, but you have to know about plant-based steaks and vegan butter. And of course you know about vegan garlic and vegan potato, because all garlic and potato is vegan. What's the extra cost of a vegan steak compared to an animal steak in your area? In mine it's around 3 dollars.
I have never seen a plant based stake at my local grocery stores. The next time I am there to pick out a stake, I will also look and ask specifically for a plant based one, and I will try it. But I have had other stuff like plant based burgers, and while they are ok, they just can't hold up to the taste of a meat burger.
plant-based steaks
I've tried plenty of different plant based meat substitutes and so for, not one of them can hold a candle to the real taste. Like, it is not even close in my opinion. I can see the market for it, but plant based diet can be incredible when not trying to impersonate meat. Like lentils with curry. Not meat required and super tasty.
So would argue that meat substitutes are the wrong way to go if you want to eat tasty non meat stuff.
Plant-based meat tastes like what vegans think meat tastes like. I'd much rather eat the vegan foods that are prepared without imitation ingredients.
I'm not vegan but I eat plenty of incidentally vegan meals, and all of the best ones have been the ones that weren't trying to imitate another food. They just can't get the texture right and I'd rather not eat some squishy disc of beans and wheat while trying to convince myself it's a burger. It's not. I know it's not and pretending doesn't make it any more of one. Give me a good soup or curry or pasta dish instead.
Never fails in a discussion about how fundamentally shitty vegans are that there will be a ton of vegans invading the thread to prove the point definitively.
I stick with Margaret Cho’s advice on vegans from her Assassin tour back in 2005:
And especially, especially, don't fuck with vegans. Do not look vegans in the eye. If you get into an argument with a vegan, say "I'm wrong" and run away as fast as you can. Do not fuck with vegans because they will fuck you up...BECAUSE THEY'RE HUNGRY.
Every vegan I have met is one form of little removed or another, without exception
Inflammatory prejudices are only bad when others have them. They're definitely the hateful ones, so lets spread some hate about them.
I haven't given out a quarter of the verbal abuse that has been heaped on me by people who feel morally superior over their diet.
I'm sorry to hear that. The thing is, you mainly hear from those who are the most vocal, and those tend to be the most angry and therefore unreasonable. And those probably had their fair share of verbal (and/or physical) abuse from meat eaters, as vegans are hated on by a much, much larger part of society than the other way around. (That doesn't justify their hate, of course)
It's all a self reinforcing dynamic of groups riling each other up, unfortunately.
Look, I really dgaf about all of you 'no really guise veeegans are nice!' when my entire life has been episode after episode of the opposite.
the vast majority of vegans are not represented by a tiny segment that has found lemmy.
If Lemmy had its version of r/atheist users, they're either vegan, Linux obsessed, or politics obsessed.
Hey. Do you have time to talk about our lord and saviour, Linus Torvalds?
Oh yeah, I love Linus Tech Tips, it's one of my favorite YouTubes.
Savior? Do you mean Terry Davis, AKA King Terry the Terrible?
It would have to be the Linux crowd, just by force of numbers.
oh there's a shitton of r/atheists here too, and some are supermods.
Vegans being annoying was a thing awhile ago, but they really chilled out. This is a smaller band of die-hards.
"Chilling out" is of course a terrible metric when animal abuse is on the line but being good to animals would make you vegetarian, not vegan, and yet that was never where the righteousness was coming from.
Quite a bit of their content is antagonizing and alienating. What a shame.
‘Plant based’ was a rebrand of veganism because of what vegans did to veganism.
I like how they expect everyone to share there ethical views. Fun fact: most people don't.
In 5+ decades of living I have never once met a sane vegan, not once.
And I've met hundreds...
For the most part, the "unreasonable vegan" stereotype comes from two places.
There's a 3rd source: Trying for 3 decades to have a reasonable conversation with one, with hundreds of attempts made.
I'd be interested in seeing a trace of one of those conversations.
No you wouldn't, they never go anywhere except to heated exchanges of unpleasant labels.
There's really no use in talking to them, nor anything to be learned or won. It's just losses for everyone.
I am a vegan. Is this conversation unreasonable?
Are you talking to the same person, or the same few people, repeatedly? There certainly are people out there who just are unreasonable. You can't expect individuals to change.
Otherwise, I guess (and I admit that this is biased in my favor) that you simply disagree with each other at a foundational level, and that's causing you to talk past each other.
I think that most people don't really know how to discourse with people who have differing ethical foundations, because it can lead to situations where a person who meets all the societal criteria of a "good person" is nonetheless committing (according to whatever ethical precepts) a horrible crime. But, in this context, accusing someone of committing a horrible crime is not unreasonable; in fact, it's too reasonable; it involves prioritizing reason over tact and politeness.
Are you talking to the same person, or the same few people, repeatedly?
Roughly 10% are repeat conversations, though I've rarely had a contact be kept past 3 exchanges, and not a 'few' people by any metric.
you simply disagree with each other at a foundational level, and that’s causing you to talk past each other.
I appreciate how you are trying to make this a 'both sides' thing, but it really isn't and I have no way of imparting 30 years of frustrating experience in a way you will find meaningful.
Since you claim to be a reasonable vegan, then maybe this is the best place for this:
These are the questions I would usually ask to vegans I meet in the world and online. Most responses are immediate verbal abuse and a refusal to continue communications.
I sincerely hope you are a better person than that and I can FINALLY have this discussion start to finish.
What are your plans for all the currently living domesticated animals if, hypothetically, meat eating is made illegal?
I haven't here advocated for making meat-eating illegal. If nothing else, at the current moment, that's infeasible for a number of reasons, and even if it became mostly feasible, there would probably always have to be some exceptions (e.g., people who have very specific dietary requirements, although maybe lab-grown meat could plug that hole?).
That said, thinking purely hypothetically, I recognize two likely endgame scenarios.
Have you ever considered that being raised by humans for consumption is literally the most wildly successful species survival strategy that natural selection has ever thrown up?
This is completely irrelevant. For me, veganism is basically just what happens when you take utilitarianism and extend it to include the experiences of non-human animals. I care about individuals. I don't care one whit about species per se.
Meat is one of the most nutrient dense foods out there and is likely the entire reason we were able to develop these incredibly energy and nutrient expensive brains, have you considered what the long term species ramifications are for us if we choose to stop a standard practice that has been with us since before our species was even human yet?
Do you not think the critical need for specific supplements to maintain good health is a sign that the diet was never intended for our normal operation?
I'll take both of these at the same time, because my thoughts on them are basically the same.
We were not designed by a god. We were not "intended" for anything. Evolution has no normative value. To believe that it does is pseudoscience (or, perhaps, pseudo-philosophy).
People who argue that veganism is "unnatural" are arbitrarily picking out one out of the innumerable ways that the lives of humans today differ from those of the past. If I suggested that we ought to revert to being subsistence hunter-gatherers in Africa living in groups of ~100 people, you would call me insane. So the mere fact that something is different from the conditions in which we evolved means absolutely nothing.
The question is simply this: can we reduce suffering? If we can, we should, regardless of how "unnatural" the solution is.
If you can provide me a scientific argument against veganism in principle, that would be worth considering. Merely gesturing at the need for supplementation says nothing to me. If it works, it works.
What is your stance on pets?
I haven't figured this one out for myself yet. I think the anti-pet people have compelling arguments, and I have a lot of cognitive dissonance over that fact.
I would like to hear your opinion on parents raising their infants to be vegan from birth.
This one I'm not sure about, at least right now, simply due our lack of knowledge. My guess is that it's theoretically possible to raise an infant as a vegan without any problems, but that it's more difficult to do it right. I don't know if I'd trust myself to do it. I think this is a problem that will require a lot of studies to figure out, but I also think it's worth figuring out.
A mass holocaust, akin to what Denmark did
...I'm trying to be respectful but I cannot in this circumstance. Your utilitarianism equates mass slaughter with 'the least suffering'. That is monstrous.
I don’t care one whit about species per se.
It's clear that you value your ideals over practical considerations. Species extinction is a great tragedy, and it is happening at a frightening pace. Domestication is mutualism, animals receive great benefit from it in the form of better nutrition and medical care. You treat it as some form of inhumane torture and deny its greatest benefit. I cannot accept your arguments here.
We were not designed by a god.
And here the bullshit begins. I never ONCE fucking invoked a supernatural deity here and was SPECIFICALLY referring to how our diets have shaped our physiology over the last several hundred thousand years. Honestly I wanted to just stop this discussion here and block you, but I am trying to be a better person no matter how hard you make it.
It is an unarguable fact that animals are specialized to their diet, and this manifests in actual physical differences between species, this has nothing to do with religion or theism and frankly I am absolutely incensed you would take this bullshit tactic. But of course it's one I'm familiar with as most of you use it.
f I suggested that we ought to revert to being subsistence hunter-gatherers in Africa living in groups of ~100 people, you would call me insane.
No I wouldn't, not at all, in fact I abhor the fact that agriculture ever became a thing. The problem is with our current population, infrastructure, and biodiversity loss, it is impossible. I want to say a bunch of unkind words to you for making such a ridiculous assumption about my position, but I am being polite and not replying in such a manner.
If humanity was less than a billion people it MAY have worked but that ship has long sailed.
If we can, we should, regardless of how “unnatural” the solution is.
I STRONGLY disagree, and have demonstrated already how your utilitarianism's goal of 'less suffering' is pretty arbitrary and your outcomes do not fit its claim. We are the products of a ridiculous amount of specialization that even cutting edge medicine is only now beginning to understand, your embrace of 'unnatural' solutions (which is a stupid phrase all things considered we are a part of nature) is ill-planned as far as outcomes. You make ASSUMPTIONS that certain outcomes are the only result with no evidence, when the real world is rarely ever amenable to such clear cut cause and effect relationships.
If you can provide me a scientific argument against veganism in principl
It has never been my position to change your or any other person's opinion of veganism, I know how useless it is to try and convince others they are being irrational.
I have a lot of cognitive dissonance over that fact.
It is an established fact that pets are healthier and longer lived than their wild cousins, this is one case where you choose to ignore your utilitarianism because it conflicts with your groupthink. If your goal is to reduce total suffering then every pet should have a home and every home should have a pet.
My guess is that it’s theoretically possible to
There is clear evidence that even non-vegan infant formula causes long term health issues and that the only complete nutrition we have now for infants is human breast milk. I do not see how a vegan solution could even come close.
Children have died because vegan parents refused to compromise their ideals. This has happened multiple times resulting in arrests and convictions for child abuse.
You have a fucktonne of these very dangerous assumptions about outcomes that are not supported by observation and study, and you hold your ideals above them both.
I have to thank you for actually responding back meaningfully, though your answers only served to illustrate what I feel are the dangerous failings of vegan ideology.
First: your tone is highly combative. I wouldn't be shocked if this is part of why you don't have productive conversations most of the time. I'm a pretty coolheaded person, but being Internet-shouted at does not tend to bring out the best in people.
Ironically, given the vegan stereotype, you are the one why has levied personal accusations, not me.
Your utilitarianism equates mass slaughter with ‘the least suffering’. That is monstrous.
What?
Does "mass slaughter" not describe the current state of affairs, except on a daily basis? Something like a billion animals per day (including fish)? 1 billion pigs, each of which us as smart as a toddler, per year?
I'm proposing slaughtering animals that were already going to be slaughtered. The only difference is timing, right? Seriously, am I missing something?
Surely the anti-vegan position must also consider mass slaughter, in the most dispassionate and literal sense of the word slaughter, to be acceptable.
Species extinction is a great tragedy, and it is happening at a frightening pace.
If you care about biodiversity, you really don't want to be arguing the anti-vegan position. A huge portion of species extinction is a result of habitat loss, a huge portion of which is caused by clearing land for cattle ranching. If you want to reduce your personal impact on biodiversity, don't consume cow products.
Domestication is mutualism, animals receive great benefit from it in the form of better nutrition and medical care. You treat it as some form of inhumane torture and deny its greatest benefit. I cannot accept your arguments here.
I can't see how you can possibly argue that animals in the meat industry have a good quality of life (on average; I'm sure there are exceptions). Jesus, have you seen the conditions they're kept in? Have you seen the chickens so large they can barely move? Have you seen what they do to male chicks? This is, like, the core emotional reason why people go vegan to begin with.
And here the bullshit begins. I never ONCE fucking invoked a supernatural deity here and was SPECIFICALLY referring to how our diets have shaped our physiology over the last several hundred thousand years. Honestly I wanted to just stop this discussion here and block you, but I am trying to be a better person no matter how hard you make it.
Please, please. Please assume good faith on my part. (Don't be so unreasonable.)
Of course you never invoked a deity. That was a rhetorical gesture on my part. The point is that there is no telos in nature. You cannot get directly from a state of affairs to a conclusion about how things ought to be.
I have particular qualm with arguments of the form "We evolved doing X, therefore we're meant to do X, therefore we should continue doing X", because they typically imply that evolution has some kind of normative quality to it, which it simply doesn't.
No I wouldn’t, not at all, in fact I abhor the fact that agriculture ever became a thing.
You know what? I respect that stance. I used to believe it wholeheartedly, but I have a lot of reservations about it these days. I don't think you should judge me too harshly for assuming the opposite, though---you're part of an extreme minority.
But my original point stands---unless your argument is that we should live as much like hunter-gatherers as possible, in which case, well, I suppose that's a consistent position---but in that case, I think you ought to be focusing your energies arguing against cheeseburgers, because "plant-based"-type vegans have a diet much closer to prehistoric humans than the average Westerner.
We are the products of a ridiculous amount of specialization that even cutting edge medicine is only now beginning to understand, your embrace of ‘unnatural’ solutions (which is a stupid phrase all things considered we are a part of nature) is ill-planned as far as outcomes. You make ASSUMPTIONS that certain outcomes are the only result with no evidence, when the real world is rarely ever amenable to such clear cut cause and effect relationships.
The original question was: "Do you not think the critical need for specific supplements to maintain good health is a sign that the diet was never intended for our normal operation?" But it seems that what you really mean is: since vegans need to take supplements, maybe it's impossible for the vegan diet to ever be truly healthy. Maybe that should have been obvious, but I'm autistic, so I tend to assume that people mean exactly what they say.
My answer to the latter question is: maybe! But I'm doubtful. I see vegans who are doing just fine, so I really do think there's no fundamental reason why a vegan diet can't be healthy. And, really, I don't even see how it could be true. In the worst case, anything that we normally get from animals can be synthesized, or even grown in a lab.
In any case, I see suffering and I think we should be willing to take personal risks to reduce it. I don't think that idea, on its own, is so crazy. Remember, I am not arguing in favor of, like, legislation; I'm arguing that people should make these choices voluntarily.
It is an established fact that pets are healthier and longer lived than their wild cousins, this is one case where you choose to ignore your utilitarianism because it conflicts with your groupthink.
I did say I was undecided. I'm not interested in arguing over points that I haven't even endorsed.
There is clear evidence that even non-vegan infant formula causes long term health issues and that the only complete nutrition we have now for infants is human breast milk. I do not see how a vegan solution could even come close.
Why on Earth would I have an ethical objection to voluntarily-given human breast milk? That is vegan, by any reasonable definition. I thought you were talking about raising an infant with, like, vegan baby food.
I have no objection to the substance of animal products itself, or else I wouldn't be suggesting lab-grown meat as a future possibility.
Having personally known several perfectly normal and sane vegans, maybe your "reasonable conversation" is a bit more combative than you believe. Vegans are just normal people. Some will be crazy. Some will be normal. If your experience with your hundreds of vegans you've met is 100% unreasonable, then you're definitely the problem. Someone choosing to avoid animal products for personal health or environmental reasons, or any other personal reason, is inherently not unreasonable. They might be unreasonable if they try to force their ideas on others, but defending their own choices isn't unreasonable. Tone down your confirmation bias and aggression, and you might find that just like every large enough group, people are still people and they vary.
Edit: for the record, I'm not vegan.
Yep, that's always the response. 'it's not the inherent radicalism of vegan ideology that is the problem, but the fact that you didn't talk nice to them (which I am assuming because I wasn't there).
Reported and blocked.
What radicalism? What part of that ideal is radical? Also, a bizarre reaction. "My beliefs were challenged in the slightest, therefore this person must be silenced." Weirdo.
Calling a group of people insane is so cool and good 👍🏻
I'm not vegan. But I find it very shady to talk shit about people like this.
Some seeming innocent ideals breed significantly more fanaticism across all class and culture lines, we should all have learned that by now.
I have met 1 and married her. But yo be fair she is just vegetarian whi developed a dairy allergy knocking out the non veg part of her diet
Makes a dumb good steak too
I have to admit, diet restriction vegans (and not the ones that just think meat is icky and can get a doctor to sign off on it) do not fall into the general stereotype but then only one of them ever had a chance to speak to me and she would sneak chicken occasionally so I don't really consider her vegan as such. Also she was a work associate and I normally never bring up the subject in the office.
There may be reasonable vegans out there, and I have actively sought them on forums and IRL through school clubs and protests. I have never IRL raised my voice, never used a derogatory label harsher than 'leafeater' and that only once. Yet I am so ridiculously burned out by the arguments and harsh words I've endured that I'm done holding any hope out any longer.
I call those ideolgical vegans and yes they drive me nuts too
In respect for your wife and those like her, from now on I will try and use 'ideological vegan' to describe the specific subgrouping.
Thanks for being the one sane person in this thread.
You sound like what I like to call a "debatist." No one wants to be challenged on their personal choices. You don't seem to be approaching this concept with an open mind. Can you define what makes anything they say unreasonable? I am not vegan, but I can recognize, definitively, that veganism is better for the environment (by far), healthy (if you make sure you're getting all the nutrients you need, just like any diet), and less cruel to animals. You can choose to disagree that those conclusions mean you need to cut out animal products, but those aren't opinions up for debate. Farming meat is far worse for the environment, vegan diets are perfectly healthy, and obviously, killing animals isn't something the animal wants.
Again, you can disagree with their conclusion that those reasons mean you shouldn't eat animal products, but denying that they're true is like denying climate change. I'm not vegan, so clearly I didn't come to the same conclusion, but I'm not trying to purport that anyone that does is somehow unreasonable.
No one wants to be challenged on their personal choices.
Yet that is what every vegan does to carnists, in many cases very viciously. I am NOT going up to vegans and telling them to stop being vegan, nor am I judging them for their dietary choices. I ask them questions like 'What would be your plans for all the current living domesticated animals in the hypothetical situation where eating meat is outlawed?' and they flip their shit on a regular basis. I go out of my way to present everything I ask as neutral as possible but all my effort has never once mattered.
illing animals isn’t something the animal wants.
I think you are attributing human qualities to nonhuman consciousnesses. There's a lot of evidence that the concept of death doesn't even exist in most animal minds, as well as the fact that animals in the wild suffer FAR more disease, discomfort, illness and death than domesticated and cared for livestock.
"debatist"
That isn't even a real word... I'm sorry I can't take you seriously anymore.
Every vegan
Factually incorrect and anecdotal
the concept of death doesn't even exist in most animal minds
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8602129/
Good read, though anyone that's seen a pet mourn their owner or their friend knows that's not true already.
can't take you seriously anymore
It's a portmanteau of debater and statist. Frankly, I don't care what you think about me. You're clearly biased beyond any reason as to the motives of others, to the point of making false blanket statements about entire groups. Any time someone says "all _____ are _____," there is a problem and they should be questioned. Did the vegans you approach solicit your question? If they did not, then mind your own business. If they did, and "flip their shit," (X to doubt on the reliability of this narrator) then that one person had an issue. The sheer fact that you can easily find very chill vegans online or irl without much effort means you're a statistical anomaly, an asshole, or misrepresenting the truth.
Crazy, I know tons of vegans and never met an insane one.