You gotta let people be people. Shaming someone for their dietary choices is not cool. Not everyone shares the same beliefs and that is fine.
I personally believe that people should not eat meat unless they have what it takes to kill it themselves so they understand what goes into it. Too many people eat meat all the time without understanding that something has to die for it to get there. I also disagree with mass agribusiness indoor livestock operations.
Some beliefs lead to immoral outcomes. I’m absolutely certain you can think of quite a few beliefs like that, right? Just picture a hill billy from Alabama, are all his beliefs fine?
In the end, morals is applied ethics, and politics is applied morals. We absolutely should legislate and not tolerate bad beliefs. The vague idea that “everyone has their own belief/opinion and we have to respect it” is a thought terminating cliche that makes the world a worse place. My dad wants me to respect his antivax beliefs, my grandfather wants me to respect his climate change denialism beliefs. Should I?
Well said, I’m glad to finally meet someone with your views that is able to express themselves.
I would say no to your question as those beliefs are contradicting science and they could cause harm to people. My beliefs do not contradict established science. I would also point out that not all rural Appalachian people are bigots, but I understand the point you were making with it. The difference in our views is that I don’t see animals as people. I understand their intelligent, and I believe some may be sentient such as elephants and whales. I am against killing elephants and whales.
If you are curious to see it from my perspective, participate in a somewhat poor analogy. Imagine someone came out and said they believe that killing a tree is the same as committing murder, that trees are people. After all, we have proven that they communicate with other trees and with mycelium in very complex and even selfless ways, probably to an even higher degree than we have yet discovered. This person is adamant that the trees are being oppressed and that we need to stop farming trees for paper products. They say that you are a bad person for causing unnecessary suffering and destruction to trees. But imagine that you disagree with them, you do not see trees as people. You understand that trees are living and communicating and you would like to see less cut down, but you still use them for firewood to heat your house. You see it as no less humane to grow them and cut them down than it is to let them die from burning to death or being eaten alive by bugs or disease.
Not the best example, and there are plenty of holes you could point out of you feel so inclined, but hopefully the core of it can grant atleast a small glimpse into how I see the issue we are discussing.
More info on the trees talking thing. I find it fascinating that they have a whole complex economy going on underground, trading and even investing resources. DYK that as a last act when a tree is dying, it gives its resources to saplings that are of a different species than itself before it goes. There’s some good podcast on it “radiolab, from tree to shining tree”. Also an quick Google search article.
https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/underground-mycorrhizal-network
There is an obvious difference between kicking a puppy and cutting a tree. Trees do not have brains. Trees also cant move to get away from a predator, so why would they develop emotions we have? As complicated as my right hand is, it isnt sentient.
I see what you are saying about digging holes, there are a lot of arguments we could go on but the issue doesn’t need to be overcomplicated. The animal industry absolutely is terrible for sentient beings and terrible for the environment, and being vegan vastly reduces the plants or animals we kill.
Neuroscience agrees that other mammals and birds are able to experience suffering. They feel pain and stress and fear. The majority agrees they are conscious of their emotions even. To ignore that is a conscious decision on your side. You decide their suffering is worth it, but you don’t want people to confront you with it because it makes you uncomfortable. How ironic.
When someones dietary choice causes huge amounts of needless suffering and death to the victim (the innocent animal that was exploited and killed) then that’s not “fine”. That’s a serious injustice that should be pointed out (at the very least)
i know this may be a shock but fish haven’t reached the industrialization part of civilization yet. they do not have the capabilities to grow crops and harvest them and make dishes
Think about the argument you’re making here: “Wild animals do X, therefore humans should be allowed to do X”.
I hope you understand how horrible this argument is. Here’s a fun little list of things animals do:
Why do you think I was talking about the legal framework? We take active measures in stopping animals from eating humans. You could make an argument that we even punish animals when they do eat a human, granted we have a chance to do that. Bears, wolves and dogs are shot regularly, after they have attacked a human. Sharks also have been killed when it was thought that they actively prey on humans. We do not allow it.
When you want to talk about laws it is considered murder to slaughter a person as feed for animals. It is also considered murder to kill a person to eat them. Murdering people is forbidden by law.
Nothing like going to my local farm and eating their meat while watching a movie about how GOOD the meat I’m eating is because some other meat is so terrible.
Thanks for the idea :) I’m gonna bring it up for the next local farm-to-table
That is your belief. I respect it. My mom is a vegetarian and I respect her beliefs, she would cook meat for us as she respected ours.
To me, the world has been eating itself since the beginning of life. Wild animals die horrible slow deaths from sickness to starvation over the course of days/weeks to being eaten alive or left to die, and that is the natural way of things. If you want to live you have to die. You don’t have to agree with me, but you should accept that different people see things differently than you.
I don’t expect a person at the bottom of the economic scale to feed their family with expensive alternatives that they don’t understand, and you should’t shame them for doing the best they can with what they have or what they know. If someone has the means to eat along with their beliefs, then more power to them. But shaming others is not the way.
Lead by example. Offer affordable alternatives, give positive publicity, not negative publicity, to let people see how your way can be good. Allow people to see your way. Don’t force them or they’ll just dig in deeper on their own beliefs.
If you believe that then you should work to change people’s minds, like actually research how to do that. The way you currently approach it will only make people disagree with you out of spite. Good luck to you.
Some people really think being a good example of the product of their beliefs and being obnoxiously obtuse and argumentative about their beliefs are equally effective at persuading others to think like them.
I can tell you no person ever in the history of humanity was convinced by the latter.
Worse, if someone attempts to convince me of something I already think is wrong and uses an argument that I am convinced is flawed, they will only make me more sure I was right in the first place.
Wait do you think farming doesn’t hurt animals? I’m all for not eating meat, but pretending you’re not harming millions of insects, birds, and various mammals every time you eat a salad, you’re confused about how food production works.
The moral thing people can do is stop making so many people. And hopefully we find ways to produce food in a better way one day. But farming on the scale that feeds billions of people is absolutely fucked.
If you have the choice to avoid certain types of foods that kill more animals than other types of foods I don’t see much difference other than a relativism. So no coffee. No tea. Only organic local foods that are in season grown on a small farm you personally know the SOPs of…
Btw I avoid meat almost entirely. I just think the moral righteousness I see from Whole Foods Amazon vegetarians to be wholly laughable.
Taking a step crazier, there are some animals that produce SO MANY calories that they represent less animal deaths per calorie than eating crops. Cows and Pigs are an example of that. I’m not going to get into hard numbers because everyone likes to hate on the other side’s numbers and my experience living in a farming community looks more like the numbers that make animals look bad. If you want to math it out, the farm industry estimates about 40 mouse deaths per acre farmed, and vegan advocates defend a 15 total animal deaths per hectare figure. Grass-fed cows are more death-efficient than corn (the gold standard efficient crop, if less efficient than potatoes) at around 10 deaths-per-acre of farmland. I’ve never seen an acre of farmland without at least 10 animal carcasses on it in a full growth+harvest cycle.
How many people do you estimate could be fed with grass-fed cows? What about the usage of water? What is with the thousands of hectare of forest that have been rode for pastures? What about the water you need for this type of farming? What about the fact that, if everybody would switch to a meatless diet you would need much less farmland overall?
I know why you do not want to get into hard numbers. Because they would refute your weak arguments.
How many people do you estimate could be fed with grass-fed cows?
Why are we going back to “grass-fed”? Do you have plans for that inedible plant waste that currently only ends up in animals or landfills?
What about the usage of water?
What about it? I’m not sure you understand how water works in agriculture/horticulture. Are you looking at “water footprint”? That’s its own complicated topic with as many landmines. I’d like to point out that cows are basically as efficient as nuts (or any real vegetable protein), and even the waterfootprint site just suggests having a mix of chicken and beef.
From your unkind reply to me elsewhere… If you had to pick between the environment and fewer animal deaths, which would you choose? I like to talk cows with vegans because a mixed diet with beef as the only meat clearly consists of fewer animal deaths than a vegan diet. 700,000 calories a death is pretty hard to beat. Environmentally speaking (and water), the best way to get protein is from animals that have to die and locally sourced chicken. Chicken are pretty death inefficient though, aren’t they?
What is with the thousands of hectare of forest that have been rode for pastures?
What about factory farms in third world countries with no safety controls? There’s as much of a veg-packing industry as there is a meat-packing one. Are you going to stop eating vegetables because SOME FARM SOMEWHERE does something wrong? The meat I eat doesn’t come from places where “thousands of hectares of forest have been rode for pasture”.
What about the fact that, if everybody would switch to a meatless diet you would need much less farmland overall?
You seemed to have backed yourself into a corner with a non-argument argument. Is this from a position that land usage is unacceptable? Because the world is nowhere near overpopulated yet. Is this from an environmental standpoint? Then land use is the wrong figure. Are you really happy if we use less farmland but produce MORE net GHG? We need more farmland per calorie of crop if we don’t have sufficient fertilization. But the fertilizers (synethic and manure) are the potential problem. To use less farmland overall, you need to produce more GHG overall. The balance for farmland is to have localized ecosystems of livestock fertilizing local plant farms which in turn use their waste to feed.
I’m gonna be crystal clear. I’m NOT saying beef is perfect. I prefer chicken and seafood from an environmental perspective. But I know a lot of vegans care more about “saving animal lives” than they do the environment. So I talk cow. I’ll concede it straight - beef should NOT be foundational to your diet any more than veganism should be if your goal is a single sustainable diet for the entire world.
If you dont want to contribute to the comodification of sentient beings you’d also have to quit your job unless it somehow has literally zero impact on your physical and mental well being. Anyone got a job like that?
So, unless they can reduce the harm they cause to 0%, any and all attempts to reduce it are futile and pointless? This is the nirvana fallacy, and I hope you understand how horrible that would be if we lived by that rule. For example, I can’t stop all racism, all human exploitation, all sexism because I live in a capitalistic hellscape built on the suffering of others. Therefore, I don’t actually need to try, correct?
My arguement is if you want to reduce crulety, you have options to do so in your own life, which are far more productive than simply yelling at people online for not doing it the exact same way as you. You refusing to work somewhere you can support less exploitative practices because your comfortable in your job is no different then someone telling you they’re not changing their diet because it works for them. You have the means and the capacity to change yourselves, yet you’d rather yell at people online to change themselves.
I don’t yell at people. And I also don’t think a Meme is similar to yelling at someone…
Perhaps people feel much more attacked than what is the intention of the one who posted the meme. It can’t be that we aren’t allowed to make jokes or talk about veganism online because people are selectively oversensitive. This meme is really really mild when compared to a lot of the other jokes posted here. Especially when you compare it to the amount of mockery and jokes many vegans and vegetarians have to endure in their personal life.
Meat eaters can’t expect to bite all the time but than get all cranky when someone stubs them back.
Good thing I wasn’t directly replying to the meme itself. I was replying to what’s a now deleted comment. Wonder why they deleted it, maybe all that yelling they were doing turned out to be ineffective.
Thinking diet shaming can work to turn people Vegan is like thinking body shaming can make people skinny.
So ethics aren’t a concern for you. How about the adverse health effects, or environmental impacts of the meat industry? Any considerations there, or is all about how delicious steak is to you?
You know there’s a lot of valid ethical frameworks that do not espouse veganism?
It’s safer to say “YOUR ethics aren’t a concern to him”, or to me. There’s a lot of philosophers who eat meat. And it’s not hypocritical. They just think you’re wrong. You aren’t God (and even if you were, God doesn’t get to decide ethics).
As for adverse health effects, I have known dozens of ex-vegans, one with an degree in nutrition, who left veganism despite their ethics, for health reasons. Generally speaking, it’s easier to “accidentally” have an reasonably ok diet with a full balanced mix of foods than it is for a vegan to intentionally have one.
or environmental impacts of the meat industry?
This is actually an incredibly complicated accusation, and unless you enter the conversation with the conclusion in mind, there’s not enough evidence/arguments out there to show that it’s “the meat industry” that’s the real environmental problem with our food industry. As someone who has shared a table with experts on a few occasions and then done some of my own armchair research, I’m convinced the two real problems are non-local food and factory farming. The former creates polluting logicistical overhead in transport and over-storage of food (fossil fuels for driving, non-recyclable plastics, etc) and the latter in willful destruction of environment to get more output cheaper, when we have plenty of room and plenty of margins to “do it right”
As for “to do it right”, part of doing it right is acknowledging that we have a compost/manure shortfall against crops NOT because we’re not producing enough manure but because we don’t have localized meat farms balanced in each area around their crop farms, and/or that it’s considered acceptable to use fertilizers despite the presence of manure that would better fertilize a crop. So the better answer? Local meat, and transition away from factory farms. And if you’ve got the land and the courage for it, keep some chickens for eggs and goats for meat/manure.
My 2c anyway.
or is all about how delicious steak is to you?
AND it is about how delicious a steak is to me. Have you ever walked a local farm with the people who do all the work? Helped them pick out the pigs for the meal? Known the love that is involved in the whole process, and the fact that the animals have it 100x better than they’d have had it in nature.
So yes, there is nothing like cutting into that pork chop having a REAL appreciation for the pig’s sacrifice, a real appreciation for the work everyone put into it all.
My ethical concerns go beyond raising animals, it’s the unnecessary killing them without their consent where it becomes problematic. Particularly when the “sacrifice” is for the trivial reason to satisfy the killer’s taste buds; when our taste buds can be satisfied in so many ways that don’t involve a victim.
And yes, I grew up on a farm where we raised all our own meat, including pigs. I’ve personally killed more animals than the average person, and I can say with certainty that every animal wants to live. To violently take another’s life “because it tastes good” and then go through such convuluted reasoning to justify it is very puzzling to me. It suggests a lack of empathy that seems to be endemic in our society. To speak of “the love” that is involved in the process doesn’t hold much weight with me. Serial killers love to kill, don’t they?
Understand that you don’t get to pen the ethical frameworks for the world, only for yourself. Even in ethical frameworks where “consent” and “killing” are given extreme weight, there are always other factors… And under most of the foundational ethical frameworks (Utilitarianism and Natural Law Theory come to mind), the argument for necessary-veganism is unsupportable.
So if you want to hate meat eating, say “I think it’s wrong to eat animals” or “my morals don’t allow it”. Don’t tell people who eat meat they don’t care about ethics, because that statement is simply dead wrong.
Particularly when the “sacrifice” is for the trivial reason to satisfy the killer’s taste buds
My biggest complaint about proselytizing vegans is the way they oversimplify the equation. Like every single person who ever eats meat for any reason stops with a fork in their hand saying “Is this bite of food more important to me than murder? YES IT IS”.
To violently take another’s life “because it tastes good” and then go through such convuluted reasoning to justify it is very puzzling to me.
With all due respect, reality is not as simple as you’re making it out to be. If you cannot see that there’s more to the discussion than “meat tastes good” and “animals don’t want to die”, then nobody can help you. But pretending that people use convoluted reasoning to justify it is an ignorant take, whether willful or out of being blinded by your own zealous position on the matter.
It suggests a lack of empathy that seems to be endemic in our society
You do understand that from a psychological point of view, human empathy and animal empathy are different factors and rationally exist in different amounts. Honestly, my personal take is that zealous vegans show less empathy towards fellow man than other people. LOOK at the way you’re thinking about supermajority of humanity? Why should I not see that as a lack of empathy as well?
And for that matter, there are several empathy-related disorders where a person’s mispaced empathy goes so far as to affect their relationships and quality of life. And again, that’s only for that rare person staring at meat on a fork commenting about how murder tastes good. The ones who simply categorize animals or plants or insects differently from you in their empathy don’t suggest anything of the sort.
Serial killers love to kill, don’t they?
Tell it to me straight. Are you so far gone that you cannot understand the moral, ethical, or psychological difference between being an actual serial killer and simply not being vegan?
Quite the opposite actually, as a farmer raising my animals ethically is a daily fact concern. I just don’t buy into your supposition that raising them is inherently unethical.
How about the adverse health effects
If I live long enough that eating meat is the primary thing that got me killed, I see that as an absolute win. I like riding motorcycles, I also like beer and sugar and baked goodies. I fully expect something else to get me well before a lifetime of eating meat has the chance. And I’m okay with that, I’d rather live a few years less and get to keep partaking in the things I enjoy. Plenty of people live into their 80s without giving up meat, and living into my 80s sounds plenty long to me.
environmental impacts of the meat industry
I believe that until nuclear is being seriously considered as the solution for clean electricity, then it isn’t worth worrying about which of my habits are supposedly causing the climate crisis.
Any considerations there, or is all about how delicious steak is to you?
I wouldn’t say it’s “all about” how delicious steak is. But I would say that in all of your examples “less steak” doesn’t seem to be the most prudent place to start, or to consider at all.
I’ve watched animals die in nature. Unless I’m talking to an anti-natalist, I cannot fathom how they think the life of a farm animal is worse than the life of a wild animal. To me, it comes back to a colorblind view of the trolley problem: “It only matters if we’re part of decision that leads to pulling the trigger”
I really feel like the preachy vegans have crossed some line and cannot be reasoned with. And the non-preachy vegans don’t go out of their way to have the discussion (more’s the pity, since they’d probabliy have a more balanced view before turning preachy)
Is it still anecdotal if literally any farmer will tell you the same? Because they will.
A surprisingly large amount of effort goes into trying to keep the livestock from hurting themselves or getting themselves killed. That’s inevitable when essentially turn off natural selection, they end up losing any sense of self preservation. And why not, they do have multiple humans who’s entire career centers on keeping them alive until they’re ready for slaughter.
enslaved animals try to commit suicide after being forcefully impregnated and kicked around and having their children stolen from them immediately after birth
They live more comfortably than you do. In an environment literally designed to maximize their ability to grow.
Y’all continually fail to understand that farmers have a direct financial incentive to keep these animals happy and healthy. Stressed animals don’t grow nearly as well as happy animals, and small animals don’t make money.
Taking proper care of the animals is more profitable in the long run, even if you assume that all farmers are heartless monsters who enjoy watching needless suffering (we aren’t by the way).
They live more comfortably than you do. Food and water freely available, plenty of space, other animals to socialize. No worries or responsibilities, not even a real concept of the outside world. The farm is all they’ve ever known, and it’s all they ever need to know.
They are hearty for sure and that can be seen as an urge or will to live. Animals are dumb and have a shocking lack of self preservation. Are you talking about conscious ‘I want to live, I better not do that’ or ‘I will find a way to live in my circumstances’?
So did the animals in the ecosystem that go wiped out to make factory farms that make fruits, vegetables, coffee, etc. There’s no innocent way to feed oneself in a factory goods based society. Only slightly less guilty ways.
I disagree with the comment on the point about it being a leftist naivety, but it is naïve nonetheless. Life feeds on life and all that. That they’re sentient doesn’t matter, some people argue plants are sentient too (not that I necessarily agree)
You, like many users on this thread are ignoring the evidence because you don’t like the outcome. You not understanding the pain does not mean no pain. Life for some means death for others. Period.
You can not avoid it on a micro or macro scale, all you can do is change WHAT you kill.
deleted by creator
You gotta let people be people. Shaming someone for their dietary choices is not cool. Not everyone shares the same beliefs and that is fine.
I personally believe that people should not eat meat unless they have what it takes to kill it themselves so they understand what goes into it. Too many people eat meat all the time without understanding that something has to die for it to get there. I also disagree with mass agribusiness indoor livestock operations.
Some beliefs lead to immoral outcomes. I’m absolutely certain you can think of quite a few beliefs like that, right? Just picture a hill billy from Alabama, are all his beliefs fine?
In the end, morals is applied ethics, and politics is applied morals. We absolutely should legislate and not tolerate bad beliefs. The vague idea that “everyone has their own belief/opinion and we have to respect it” is a thought terminating cliche that makes the world a worse place. My dad wants me to respect his antivax beliefs, my grandfather wants me to respect his climate change denialism beliefs. Should I?
Well said, I’m glad to finally meet someone with your views that is able to express themselves.
I would say no to your question as those beliefs are contradicting science and they could cause harm to people. My beliefs do not contradict established science. I would also point out that not all rural Appalachian people are bigots, but I understand the point you were making with it. The difference in our views is that I don’t see animals as people. I understand their intelligent, and I believe some may be sentient such as elephants and whales. I am against killing elephants and whales.
If you are curious to see it from my perspective, participate in a somewhat poor analogy. Imagine someone came out and said they believe that killing a tree is the same as committing murder, that trees are people. After all, we have proven that they communicate with other trees and with mycelium in very complex and even selfless ways, probably to an even higher degree than we have yet discovered. This person is adamant that the trees are being oppressed and that we need to stop farming trees for paper products. They say that you are a bad person for causing unnecessary suffering and destruction to trees. But imagine that you disagree with them, you do not see trees as people. You understand that trees are living and communicating and you would like to see less cut down, but you still use them for firewood to heat your house. You see it as no less humane to grow them and cut them down than it is to let them die from burning to death or being eaten alive by bugs or disease.
Not the best example, and there are plenty of holes you could point out of you feel so inclined, but hopefully the core of it can grant atleast a small glimpse into how I see the issue we are discussing.
More info on the trees talking thing. I find it fascinating that they have a whole complex economy going on underground, trading and even investing resources. DYK that as a last act when a tree is dying, it gives its resources to saplings that are of a different species than itself before it goes. There’s some good podcast on it “radiolab, from tree to shining tree”. Also an quick Google search article. https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/underground-mycorrhizal-network
There is an obvious difference between kicking a puppy and cutting a tree. Trees do not have brains. Trees also cant move to get away from a predator, so why would they develop emotions we have? As complicated as my right hand is, it isnt sentient.
I see what you are saying about digging holes, there are a lot of arguments we could go on but the issue doesn’t need to be overcomplicated. The animal industry absolutely is terrible for sentient beings and terrible for the environment, and being vegan vastly reduces the plants or animals we kill.
Neuroscience agrees that other mammals and birds are able to experience suffering. They feel pain and stress and fear. The majority agrees they are conscious of their emotions even. To ignore that is a conscious decision on your side. You decide their suffering is worth it, but you don’t want people to confront you with it because it makes you uncomfortable. How ironic.
Lol it does not make me uncomfortable. Everything dies somehow, modern slaughterhouses are a lot more humane than mother nature.
When someones dietary choice causes huge amounts of needless suffering and death to the victim (the innocent animal that was exploited and killed) then that’s not “fine”. That’s a serious injustice that should be pointed out (at the very least)
Wait, fish can eat other fish, but I can’t? How’s that fair?
animals in the wild do a lot of unethical shit
Monsters, all of them. Someone should eat them, just to keep the others safe.
i know this may be a shock but fish haven’t reached the industrialization part of civilization yet. they do not have the capabilities to grow crops and harvest them and make dishes
I mean, meat is still murder, right?
So you’re using the “Lions rape and murder, therefore it’s okay to do the same.” argument?
Weak.
Where do you stand on roe? Fish eggs.
Think about the argument you’re making here: “Wild animals do X, therefore humans should be allowed to do X”. I hope you understand how horrible this argument is. Here’s a fun little list of things animals do:
That’s your take on my argument. I haven’t extended it beyond the ethics of meat eating.
Than why am I not allowed to eat other humans? They are made out of meat, too. And why do we not allow animals to eat humans?
We do actually allow animals to eat humans. There is no law anywhere that forbids a shark from eating a person.
As for people eating people, it’s a cultural taboo, like putting your elbows on the dinner table.
Why do you think I was talking about the legal framework? We take active measures in stopping animals from eating humans. You could make an argument that we even punish animals when they do eat a human, granted we have a chance to do that. Bears, wolves and dogs are shot regularly, after they have attacked a human. Sharks also have been killed when it was thought that they actively prey on humans. We do not allow it.
When you want to talk about laws it is considered murder to slaughter a person as feed for animals. It is also considered murder to kill a person to eat them. Murdering people is forbidden by law.
I’ll be thinking of you while I eat my steak today
I won’t think about you at all.
Watch dominion while you eat
Nothing like going to my local farm and eating their meat while watching a movie about how GOOD the meat I’m eating is because some other meat is so terrible.
Thanks for the idea :) I’m gonna bring it up for the next local farm-to-table
deleted by creator
That is your belief. I respect it. My mom is a vegetarian and I respect her beliefs, she would cook meat for us as she respected ours.
To me, the world has been eating itself since the beginning of life. Wild animals die horrible slow deaths from sickness to starvation over the course of days/weeks to being eaten alive or left to die, and that is the natural way of things. If you want to live you have to die. You don’t have to agree with me, but you should accept that different people see things differently than you.
I don’t expect a person at the bottom of the economic scale to feed their family with expensive alternatives that they don’t understand, and you should’t shame them for doing the best they can with what they have or what they know. If someone has the means to eat along with their beliefs, then more power to them. But shaming others is not the way.
Lead by example. Offer affordable alternatives, give positive publicity, not negative publicity, to let people see how your way can be good. Allow people to see your way. Don’t force them or they’ll just dig in deeper on their own beliefs.
deleted by creator
If you believe that then you should work to change people’s minds, like actually research how to do that. The way you currently approach it will only make people disagree with you out of spite. Good luck to you.
Some people really think being a good example of the product of their beliefs and being obnoxiously obtuse and argumentative about their beliefs are equally effective at persuading others to think like them.
I can tell you no person ever in the history of humanity was convinced by the latter.
Worse, if someone attempts to convince me of something I already think is wrong and uses an argument that I am convinced is flawed, they will only make me more sure I was right in the first place.
deleted by creator
You’re doing the thing that creates the opposite world you wanna live in again.
Except for the civil rights movement. Or Indian independence under Ghandi.
Who is being oppressed? Are you not free to perdue your own dietary choices?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Wait do you think farming doesn’t hurt animals? I’m all for not eating meat, but pretending you’re not harming millions of insects, birds, and various mammals every time you eat a salad, you’re confused about how food production works.
The moral thing people can do is stop making so many people. And hopefully we find ways to produce food in a better way one day. But farming on the scale that feeds billions of people is absolutely fucked.
deleted by creator
Yeah. But not all of it. Factory produce framing is murder too.
deleted by creator
We were taking about the death of animals.
If you have the choice to avoid certain types of foods that kill more animals than other types of foods I don’t see much difference other than a relativism. So no coffee. No tea. Only organic local foods that are in season grown on a small farm you personally know the SOPs of…
Btw I avoid meat almost entirely. I just think the moral righteousness I see from Whole Foods Amazon vegetarians to be wholly laughable.
In my experience, my organic local crops still involve animal deaths. And need cows to fertilize.
Balanced is simply better than vegan. Not everyone eats balanced, but people who do should not be shamed for it.
deleted by creator
As long as you eat food and consume basic household goods you’re doing so.
Taking a step crazier, there are some animals that produce SO MANY calories that they represent less animal deaths per calorie than eating crops. Cows and Pigs are an example of that. I’m not going to get into hard numbers because everyone likes to hate on the other side’s numbers and my experience living in a farming community looks more like the numbers that make animals look bad. If you want to math it out, the farm industry estimates about 40 mouse deaths per acre farmed, and vegan advocates defend a 15 total animal deaths per hectare figure. Grass-fed cows are more death-efficient than corn (the gold standard efficient crop, if less efficient than potatoes) at around 10 deaths-per-acre of farmland. I’ve never seen an acre of farmland without at least 10 animal carcasses on it in a full growth+harvest cycle.
How many people do you estimate could be fed with grass-fed cows? What about the usage of water? What is with the thousands of hectare of forest that have been rode for pastures? What about the water you need for this type of farming? What about the fact that, if everybody would switch to a meatless diet you would need much less farmland overall?
I know why you do not want to get into hard numbers. Because they would refute your weak arguments.
Why are we going back to “grass-fed”? Do you have plans for that inedible plant waste that currently only ends up in animals or landfills?
What about it? I’m not sure you understand how water works in agriculture/horticulture. Are you looking at “water footprint”? That’s its own complicated topic with as many landmines. I’d like to point out that cows are basically as efficient as nuts (or any real vegetable protein), and even the waterfootprint site just suggests having a mix of chicken and beef.
From your unkind reply to me elsewhere… If you had to pick between the environment and fewer animal deaths, which would you choose? I like to talk cows with vegans because a mixed diet with beef as the only meat clearly consists of fewer animal deaths than a vegan diet. 700,000 calories a death is pretty hard to beat. Environmentally speaking (and water), the best way to get protein is from animals that have to die and locally sourced chicken. Chicken are pretty death inefficient though, aren’t they?
What about factory farms in third world countries with no safety controls? There’s as much of a veg-packing industry as there is a meat-packing one. Are you going to stop eating vegetables because SOME FARM SOMEWHERE does something wrong? The meat I eat doesn’t come from places where “thousands of hectares of forest have been rode for pasture”.
You seemed to have backed yourself into a corner with a non-argument argument. Is this from a position that land usage is unacceptable? Because the world is nowhere near overpopulated yet. Is this from an environmental standpoint? Then land use is the wrong figure. Are you really happy if we use less farmland but produce MORE net GHG? We need more farmland per calorie of crop if we don’t have sufficient fertilization. But the fertilizers (synethic and manure) are the potential problem. To use less farmland overall, you need to produce more GHG overall. The balance for farmland is to have localized ecosystems of livestock fertilizing local plant farms which in turn use their waste to feed.
I’m gonna be crystal clear. I’m NOT saying beef is perfect. I prefer chicken and seafood from an environmental perspective. But I know a lot of vegans care more about “saving animal lives” than they do the environment. So I talk cow. I’ll concede it straight - beef should NOT be foundational to your diet any more than veganism should be if your goal is a single sustainable diet for the entire world.
If you dont want to contribute to the comodification of sentient beings you’d also have to quit your job unless it somehow has literally zero impact on your physical and mental well being. Anyone got a job like that?
So, unless they can reduce the harm they cause to 0%, any and all attempts to reduce it are futile and pointless? This is the nirvana fallacy, and I hope you understand how horrible that would be if we lived by that rule. For example, I can’t stop all racism, all human exploitation, all sexism because I live in a capitalistic hellscape built on the suffering of others. Therefore, I don’t actually need to try, correct?
So your “argument” is, if we can’t be 100 % cruelty free, we shouldn’t reduce cruelty?
My arguement is if you want to reduce crulety, you have options to do so in your own life, which are far more productive than simply yelling at people online for not doing it the exact same way as you. You refusing to work somewhere you can support less exploitative practices because your comfortable in your job is no different then someone telling you they’re not changing their diet because it works for them. You have the means and the capacity to change yourselves, yet you’d rather yell at people online to change themselves.
I don’t yell at people. And I also don’t think a Meme is similar to yelling at someone…
Perhaps people feel much more attacked than what is the intention of the one who posted the meme. It can’t be that we aren’t allowed to make jokes or talk about veganism online because people are selectively oversensitive. This meme is really really mild when compared to a lot of the other jokes posted here. Especially when you compare it to the amount of mockery and jokes many vegans and vegetarians have to endure in their personal life.
Meat eaters can’t expect to bite all the time but than get all cranky when someone stubs them back.
Good thing I wasn’t directly replying to the meme itself. I was replying to what’s a now deleted comment. Wonder why they deleted it, maybe all that yelling they were doing turned out to be ineffective.
Thinking diet shaming can work to turn people Vegan is like thinking body shaming can make people skinny.
deleted by creator
Imagine being a pro-capitalism vegan lmao
deleted by creator
Nah.
Steak is delicious, and at the end of the day it’s only a cow.
Plenty of foods are delicious.
So ethics aren’t a concern for you. How about the adverse health effects, or environmental impacts of the meat industry? Any considerations there, or is all about how delicious steak is to you?
You know there’s a lot of valid ethical frameworks that do not espouse veganism?
It’s safer to say “YOUR ethics aren’t a concern to him”, or to me. There’s a lot of philosophers who eat meat. And it’s not hypocritical. They just think you’re wrong. You aren’t God (and even if you were, God doesn’t get to decide ethics).
As for adverse health effects, I have known dozens of ex-vegans, one with an degree in nutrition, who left veganism despite their ethics, for health reasons. Generally speaking, it’s easier to “accidentally” have an reasonably ok diet with a full balanced mix of foods than it is for a vegan to intentionally have one.
This is actually an incredibly complicated accusation, and unless you enter the conversation with the conclusion in mind, there’s not enough evidence/arguments out there to show that it’s “the meat industry” that’s the real environmental problem with our food industry. As someone who has shared a table with experts on a few occasions and then done some of my own armchair research, I’m convinced the two real problems are non-local food and factory farming. The former creates polluting logicistical overhead in transport and over-storage of food (fossil fuels for driving, non-recyclable plastics, etc) and the latter in willful destruction of environment to get more output cheaper, when we have plenty of room and plenty of margins to “do it right”
As for “to do it right”, part of doing it right is acknowledging that we have a compost/manure shortfall against crops NOT because we’re not producing enough manure but because we don’t have localized meat farms balanced in each area around their crop farms, and/or that it’s considered acceptable to use fertilizers despite the presence of manure that would better fertilize a crop. So the better answer? Local meat, and transition away from factory farms. And if you’ve got the land and the courage for it, keep some chickens for eggs and goats for meat/manure.
My 2c anyway.
AND it is about how delicious a steak is to me. Have you ever walked a local farm with the people who do all the work? Helped them pick out the pigs for the meal? Known the love that is involved in the whole process, and the fact that the animals have it 100x better than they’d have had it in nature.
So yes, there is nothing like cutting into that pork chop having a REAL appreciation for the pig’s sacrifice, a real appreciation for the work everyone put into it all.
My ethical concerns go beyond raising animals, it’s the unnecessary killing them without their consent where it becomes problematic. Particularly when the “sacrifice” is for the trivial reason to satisfy the killer’s taste buds; when our taste buds can be satisfied in so many ways that don’t involve a victim.
And yes, I grew up on a farm where we raised all our own meat, including pigs. I’ve personally killed more animals than the average person, and I can say with certainty that every animal wants to live. To violently take another’s life “because it tastes good” and then go through such convuluted reasoning to justify it is very puzzling to me. It suggests a lack of empathy that seems to be endemic in our society. To speak of “the love” that is involved in the process doesn’t hold much weight with me. Serial killers love to kill, don’t they?
Understand that you don’t get to pen the ethical frameworks for the world, only for yourself. Even in ethical frameworks where “consent” and “killing” are given extreme weight, there are always other factors… And under most of the foundational ethical frameworks (Utilitarianism and Natural Law Theory come to mind), the argument for necessary-veganism is unsupportable.
So if you want to hate meat eating, say “I think it’s wrong to eat animals” or “my morals don’t allow it”. Don’t tell people who eat meat they don’t care about ethics, because that statement is simply dead wrong.
My biggest complaint about proselytizing vegans is the way they oversimplify the equation. Like every single person who ever eats meat for any reason stops with a fork in their hand saying “Is this bite of food more important to me than murder? YES IT IS”.
With all due respect, reality is not as simple as you’re making it out to be. If you cannot see that there’s more to the discussion than “meat tastes good” and “animals don’t want to die”, then nobody can help you. But pretending that people use convoluted reasoning to justify it is an ignorant take, whether willful or out of being blinded by your own zealous position on the matter.
You do understand that from a psychological point of view, human empathy and animal empathy are different factors and rationally exist in different amounts. Honestly, my personal take is that zealous vegans show less empathy towards fellow man than other people. LOOK at the way you’re thinking about supermajority of humanity? Why should I not see that as a lack of empathy as well?
And for that matter, there are several empathy-related disorders where a person’s mispaced empathy goes so far as to affect their relationships and quality of life. And again, that’s only for that rare person staring at meat on a fork commenting about how murder tastes good. The ones who simply categorize animals or plants or insects differently from you in their empathy don’t suggest anything of the sort.
Tell it to me straight. Are you so far gone that you cannot understand the moral, ethical, or psychological difference between being an actual serial killer and simply not being vegan?
Quite the opposite actually, as a farmer raising my animals ethically is a daily fact concern. I just don’t buy into your supposition that raising them is inherently unethical.
If I live long enough that eating meat is the primary thing that got me killed, I see that as an absolute win. I like riding motorcycles, I also like beer and sugar and baked goodies. I fully expect something else to get me well before a lifetime of eating meat has the chance. And I’m okay with that, I’d rather live a few years less and get to keep partaking in the things I enjoy. Plenty of people live into their 80s without giving up meat, and living into my 80s sounds plenty long to me.
I believe that until nuclear is being seriously considered as the solution for clean electricity, then it isn’t worth worrying about which of my habits are supposedly causing the climate crisis.
I wouldn’t say it’s “all about” how delicious steak is. But I would say that in all of your examples “less steak” doesn’t seem to be the most prudent place to start, or to consider at all.
I’ve watched animals die in nature. Unless I’m talking to an anti-natalist, I cannot fathom how they think the life of a farm animal is worse than the life of a wild animal. To me, it comes back to a colorblind view of the trolley problem: “It only matters if we’re part of decision that leads to pulling the trigger”
I really feel like the preachy vegans have crossed some line and cannot be reasoned with. And the non-preachy vegans don’t go out of their way to have the discussion (more’s the pity, since they’d probabliy have a more balanced view before turning preachy)
deleted by creator
I’ve raised quite a few farm animals. They don’t have an urge to live. My goodness do they take every chance to get themselves killed…
Maybe a problem with your farm?
deleted by creator
Is it still anecdotal if literally any farmer will tell you the same? Because they will.
A surprisingly large amount of effort goes into trying to keep the livestock from hurting themselves or getting themselves killed. That’s inevitable when essentially turn off natural selection, they end up losing any sense of self preservation. And why not, they do have multiple humans who’s entire career centers on keeping them alive until they’re ready for slaughter.
wow i fucking wonder why dude
They live more comfortably than you do. In an environment literally designed to maximize their ability to grow.
Y’all continually fail to understand that farmers have a direct financial incentive to keep these animals happy and healthy. Stressed animals don’t grow nearly as well as happy animals, and small animals don’t make money.
Taking proper care of the animals is more profitable in the long run, even if you assume that all farmers are heartless monsters who enjoy watching needless suffering (we aren’t by the way).
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Dude, cows live in giant fields grazing on beautiful rolling hillsides.
deleted by creator
They live more comfortably than you do. Food and water freely available, plenty of space, other animals to socialize. No worries or responsibilities, not even a real concept of the outside world. The farm is all they’ve ever known, and it’s all they ever need to know.
deleted by creator
They are hearty for sure and that can be seen as an urge or will to live. Animals are dumb and have a shocking lack of self preservation. Are you talking about conscious ‘I want to live, I better not do that’ or ‘I will find a way to live in my circumstances’?
deleted by creator
So did the animals in the ecosystem that go wiped out to make factory farms that make fruits, vegetables, coffee, etc. There’s no innocent way to feed oneself in a factory goods based society. Only slightly less guilty ways.
deleted by creator
Oh boy I love leftists naivety
Most people, including leftists, are meat eaters.
Did you assume he was a lefty because he used a word with more than 4 syllables?
He has “anarchist” in the nickname lol
deleted by creator
I disagree with the comment on the point about it being a leftist naivety, but it is naïve nonetheless. Life feeds on life and all that. That they’re sentient doesn’t matter, some people argue plants are sentient too (not that I necessarily agree)
deleted by creator
Oh man, do I have some bad news for you…
Plants CAN feel pain.
You not understanding the pain or finding a way to measure the pain does not mean there is no pain.
deleted by creator
That one article, yes, but there are more. I trust you know how to use search, but: https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group-of-scientists-suggest-that-plants-feel-pain.htm We’ve known for a while that trees do this, and fungi are notorious for this.
You, like many users on this thread are ignoring the evidence because you don’t like the outcome. You not understanding the pain does not mean no pain. Life for some means death for others. Period. You can not avoid it on a micro or macro scale, all you can do is change WHAT you kill.
deleted by creator