This meme changed zero minds but made a few vegans feel pretty special.
This meme really only makes sense in response to something. I’ve definitely heard many non-vegans complain that a vegan diet is restricting. Most of those people do only eat like 3 veggies ever.
That being said, it’s a meme, not a philosophical treatise.
Maybe not this single one, but if there’s a running discourse that shows veganism is perfectly common and normal, more people are willing to become vegan. This is part of the nudges we humans are prone to.
Well I mean I can imagine on living without meat. But I can’t life without cheese. I mean what meaning does life have if you can’t eat cheese?
Vegans aren’t doing this to feel special, stop projecting. We just want people to stop harming animals and the only way to do that is to keep talking about it. Of all the responses vegans get, this is the most annoying one to hear.
I find vegans tend to have less empathy for their fellow man than we meat-eaters have for animals. It comes across as smug (and let’s be honest, it’s less insulting to call them smug).
You do realise that meat-eaters eat animals that were killed for them to be eaten? Please explain to me how this is more empathetic than posting a meme that triggered some meat-eaters.
You do realise that meat-eaters eat animals that were killed for them to be eaten?
Yup. Animals that lived lives in the first place because they were going to be eaten. Why should anyone have an ethical problem with that? But honestly, I don’t think it’s just “were killed for them to be eaten” to you. I live in a deer population control zone. Hunters have a critical task of preventing deer overpopulation from devastating the area. Got any problems with the venison steak I had last week from deer that HAD to be killed?
Please explain to me how this is more empathetic than posting a meme that triggered some meat-eaters.
More empathetic? Because I’m not an anti-natalist. I know those animals would not have been born if not farmed. This is not a vacuum choice between “cows die” and “cows live”. It never was, and it never will be. I know that most of them live better lives and die easier than their non-domesticated counterparts. Ever watch a cat play with a mouse, slowly torturing it to death? My local farm (plants) have animals that do exactly that every day with the goal of killing off pest animals so they won’t destroy the harvest (a single pest animal like a squirrel can destroy 40 or 50 tomatoes in an hour).
Let’s go another way. Statistically, odds are pretty good that my death will be 100x worse than how a farm animal dies. So no, me being ok that death exists in our world is NOT a lack of empathy. You don’t get to make up my morals for me. The way I see it, giving farm animals a peaceful life is the height of empathy… so I look at you (your words) “triggering some meat-eaters” and note that statistically many of the people you go out of your way to “trigger” are going to end up dying long and painful battles with cancer. My view of empathy? Give them just a LITTLE bit more bloody peace while they’re alive.
Here’s my empathy. I fight for animal right laws. I strongly supported the free range chicken law that just passed in my state. I reject unethical and inhumane ways of treating and killing animals. But I’m not uneducated. I know how farming works. I know how the delicate relationship between agriculture and horticulture, while not perfect, leads to less death and less environmental impact than EITHER side of those alone.
Vegans are letting some crayola-colored dream be the enemy of good. And it’s nothing more than flat-earther, tinfoil, antivax gibberish to me. And I don’t care as long as they leave people alone.
That is the most insane sentence I’ve read. Vegans aren’t slaughtering and eating you. What empathy do you have for animals you choose to exploit and kill for taste preference? Vegans want people to stop doing a bad thing, that doesn’t mean we don’t care about those people, but it does usually mean that we have to argue with them.
That is the most insane sentence I’ve read. Vegans aren’t slaughtering and eating you
Do you actually think you’ll change anyone’s mind by calling their well-conceived ethical frameworks “insane”? THIS is why you get the reputation of being smug. My life’s knowledge, my grasp of philosophy, it’s all worthless shit to you because I am morally convinced that it’s acceptable to kill and eat animals. It doesn’t matter why I’m convinced that (and I’ve learned the hard way it’s not worth anyone’s time to discuss the reasoning or the why’s). I am beneith you.
Calling vegans “smug” is nicer than calling them dehumanizing and ignorant.
What empathy do you have for animals you choose to exploit and kill for taste preference?
As I said in another comment, proselytizing zealous vegans like to strawman non-vegans as all sitting there with a piece of bloody steak on a fork saying “I know some poor cute fluffy animal died a painful death for this but I LOVE the taste of murder”. That’s not us. If you can’t see that, perhaps the first step in your recovery is to actually start to.
Vegans want people to stop doing a bad thing, that doesn’t mean we don’t care about those people, but it does usually mean that we have to argue with them.
As do I, and I have taken a lot of abuse from vegans over the years standing up to those bad things.
And more… That is Word. For. Word. what that guy on the subway says about my gay friends divorcing each other. Word. For. Bloody. Word.
I didnt call your ethical framework insane, I’m talking about your statement saying you have more empathy for animals than vegans have for you, which is beyond ridiculous to say. You literally strawmanned my argument, I didn’t appeal to cuteness or scary words. It’s a logical question that you just didnt answer. Taking ‘abuse’ from vegans… maybe we are just convinced its morally okay, or does being a victim not feel good to you? As for the last thing you said, I have literally no idea what you are talking about.
I didnt call your ethical framework insane, I’m talking about your statement saying you have more empathy for animals than vegans have for you, which is beyond ridiculous to say
Have you ever heard of the personal incredulity fallacy?
You literally strawmanned my argument
Did I? What exactly do you think my ethical framework is if it’s not either ignorance or lack of empathy… when you directly accused me of having less empathy for animals?
It’s a logical question that you just didnt answer.
Where do you ever ask me a question that I didn’t answer?
Taking ‘abuse’ from vegans… maybe we are just convinced its morally okay, or does being a victim not feel good to you?
Rephrase please, so I don’t get you even more on the defensive by answering the wrong question. Because this one came across as a softball one that you would not like the answer to.
As for the last thing you said, I have literally no idea what you are talking about.
I have sat through a “discussion” where several of my gay friends were told “we want people to stop doing a bad thing, that doesn’t mean we don’t care about those people”. I have a friend who was kicked out of his home at 15 to almost that exact phrasing. Preachy Vegans come across EXACTLY like that to everyone else in the world. When I look a preachy vegan in the eyes, I see that bigoted Catholic dad who kicks his kid to the curb.
Do you have kids? What would you do if one of them came out non-vegan to you? What if they decided their calling was ranching? I’ve got a cousin who got a degree in dairy farming and he LOVES it.
No I heard your sentence and called it stupid and I still can’t believe you are going with it because it is laughable. Go on, explain how you are nicer to animals more than vegans are to you. You are still alive so we haven’t eaten you yet… Do you kill and eat people you care about?
You said you are taking ‘abuse’ from vegans in the same comment you said you see nothing wrong with killing and eating someone. I can’t take your victim point seriously when you refuse to acknowledge the feelings of your victims.
As your your gay friends thing, its a false equivalence despite what the words are. Gay people don’t have victims. Nonvegans do. I’m defining “bad thing” as an action that harms others. Being gay is also not a choice and is nothing like being nonvegan. You aren’t a fucking minority for being nonvegan. What a dumbass insulting argument.
I occasionally think about all the gametes I’m eating in vegetables. Other than rocky mountain oysters, I’m rarely eating sperm or ova when eating meat. There’s roe occasionally, I suppose.
What three animals everyone else eating? We’ve got chickens, ducks, pigeons, quail, geese, cranes, turkeys, cows, deer, elk, moose, antelope, armadillo, beaver, bobcats, coyotes, foxes, lynx, bear, bison, caribou, goat, musk ox, pronghorn, sheep, muskrat, opossums, pigs, porcupine, rabbits, squirrels, pheasant, chukars, and tons of tasty insects to choose from.
You forgot the many difference species of fish/creatures-of-the-sea.
I didn’t even go there because of so many tasty options to list!
Tell me with a straight face that you eat a fucking squirrel
THAT’S the one you take issue with? Lol
In not sure anyone is eating muskrat or opossum outside West Virginia mountain hermits, people born before 1890, and anyone who self identifies as a trapper.
There’s parts of the Florida Panhandle where opossum is a serious delicacy. They even have a festival in August.
Huh. Weird.
Muskrat was classified as non meat for Catholics, so some people ate it, but anyone I know who did is dead now.
Well squirrel was the funniest one within that context imo.
Eat the elongated muskrat!
Squirrel are fantastic.
They’re the least “gamey” out of most small game, less so than rabbit, and taste something like leaner dark meat chicken.
Awesome in a crockpot substituted for chicken in most recipes. Can fancy up squirrel with a Sous vide to make squirrel confit bánh mì tacos, or keep it old school and make squirrel pot pie.
I grew up eating squirrel. Its very common in rural areas,
Dove, too.
Knew someone that tried to eat possum once, said it was the nastiest, greasiest thing he’d ever tried.
You have to catch the possum first, then corn feed it for about a month or two to get the nasty taste out of the meat before you eat it. So basically, turn it into a pet, then kill and eat it.
Is… is that actually true, or are you having a laugh? I genuinely cant tell.
but if its true, thats an awful lot of effort to make something nasty taste decent.
Its how they did it for the Possum Festival in Florida when I was growing up, so its a thing, But I can’t imagine anyone would do it just cause they like possum though.
They’re good too.
“very common” is generous. I grew up in rural GA and never once saw someone actually eat squirrel
I used to live in rural Kansas, so yes
I’m from Kentucky, friend. I’ve definitely had a squirrel or two in my day.
Tennessee checking in - I’ve had squirrel as well.
Squirrel is actually pretty good. Some of those others though…
Man the size of the of the ones in my neighborhood could replace our thanksgiving turkey if it wasn’t illegal to hunt them (I checked).
I mean tbf, the majority of Americans don’t eat anything aside from chicken pork and beef, with the occasional turkey
True, but the majority of Americans also eat only a handful of plants, especially when counting brassica as one plant.
That’s only true because turkeys aren’t that good.
Turkey is amazing when done right. Though I guess that can be said for damn near anything.
Fucking heretic.
yeah they’re mid af
The amount of work required to make a decent turkey simply isn’t worth it when so many better poultry options exist. The best prepared turkey isn’t going to come close to a good roast duck.
To get 80k they’re obviously counting variations. How many breeds of cow have I eaten?
I don’t have access to that many animals, nor that many plants. Maybe 5 animals and about two dozen plants.
OP probably meant fish, octopus, and squid
lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats
Skip a bit, brother
Pls don’t eat fox or lynx, they cute.
Not after you cook them?
And the slothes, and the orangutans, and breakfast cereals
I eat meat AND vegetables
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
- Eat their young
- Grape
- Murder each other for status or access to women
- shit on the floor in public
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
So ethics aren’t a concern for you
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)
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.
enslaved animals try to commit suicide after being forcefully impregnated and kicked around and having their children stolen from them immediately after birth
wow i fucking wonder why dude
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
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…
You not understanding the pain or finding a way to measure the pain does not mean there is no pain.
deleted by creator
I don’t care for debate so I’m just gonna share this tofu stir-fry recipe I like. I sub gochujang for the sambal oelek and skip the peanut garnish
now that’s what i call praxis
This is the way
See, that’s what I’m talking about. I’m saving that :D
I’ve never heard of sambal in my life, much less gochujang, but I guess we’re going on an adventure.
Sambal is fantastic. Gochujang is too, and pretty much required for any kind of korean cooking.
You had me until skipping peanuts.
Okay, but what if nut allergy :(
Its hard out here, being a vegan allergic to nuts.
You can eat both vegetables and dead animals at the same time. We call that a stew.
Is it vegan to sit on that high horse?
Sorry, was I supposed to eat them while they are alive?
No, just supposed to let them live
Says who?
Basic empathy for fellow sentient beings
I’m French so I’d eat Kermit too.
Hon hon hon hon
Oui Oui Baguette
A lot of people in the comments can’t seem to make the distinction between what they have been fed since they were little and that they are used to, and what is good, or tastes good.
There’s more than three affordable animals lmao. Even if you count fish as one you still have crawfish, shrimp, fish, beef, chicken, pork, lamb, venison, turkey, etc. This also doesn’t even account for the million ways to prepare the meats
Who’s gonna fall for this ragebait?
apparently many people on this thread
So you love plants? Name all plats then!
Man, here’s the thing. I can’t digest fermenting ogliosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols.
So no beans, mushrooms, onions garlic wheat rye or barley, apples, apricots, most berries, etc etc etc.
I also lead a “fairly” active lifestyle against my own wishes. So where does my protein come from? Meat. Chicken, eggs, and hard tofu.
If I cut meat from my diet, I’m eating three meals a day of hard tofu. What even is the point of life, then?
Maybe it goes to show you just how yummy those 3 animals are?
-
There’s more than three animals that you can eat.
-
You don’t even eat all 80000 of those plants.
-
Plants make excellent side dishes, unfortunately I can’t spend a third of my day shoveling quinoa and lentils by the bucket load just to get enough protein, so meat it is.
I cut beef out of my diet almost entirely, both because it’s unsustainable for the ecology (cattle require more resources per pound than any other animal) and because red meat isn’t as good for you. Also it’s expensive.
This is the fair and balanced take. Of course it would be better for the planet and our wallets to not eat meat, but our diet more or less requires some amount of meat for iron and protein; the responsible thing to do is to be selective about types and frequency. We don’t need meat in every single meal or even every single day, but you’ve got a better chance of pitching meatless Monday to most Americans than full vegetarianism. And even a small reduction is better than no reduction.
Vegans, even life long vegans, exist. We do not need meat. And the reformist position overlooks the question whether it actually works. Convincing 10 people to CONSISTENTLY AND FOREVER decrease their meat intake by 10% is the same as convincing just 1 person to go vegan (aka 100% reduction). I don’t have studies either way, but anecdotally people are extremely bad at keeping up dietary/lifestyle changes, but veganism is a lot simpler. “No animal products” is simpler than “have I reached my 90% yet?”.
Again, would love some studies on this, but it just seems more like wishful thinking. Additionally, we could just encourage both.
Convincing 10 people to CONSISTENTLY AND FOREVER decrease their meat intake by 10% is the same as convincing just 1 person to go vegan (aka 100% reduction).
I don’t think so. 10 people reducing it by 10% is nothing in a society where everyone claims they have reduced it and only eat happy to be killed animals from their uncles farm. On the other hand one vegan could show hundreds of people that there is no magic to not abusing animals and change some. It is not only about the personal impact but when veganism hits a critical mass and changes society.
Considering half the country threw a temper tantrum over being asked to wear a mask during a respiratory pandemic, I don’t think you’re being realistic in your view of everybody being able to go vegan. Many of these people threw a fit over AOC “wanting to take away your cheeseburgers” even though that wasn’t what she was proposing; they just knew that it would rile up the rural base.
I think it’s much more reasonable to convince people to make two easily implemented changes: no more meat at breakfast, and meatless Mondays. With these two easy changes, only 12 out of 21 weekly meals is eligible for meat, which is a ~43% reduction. Not everybody will do it obviously, but the same people willing to cut 10% will probably cut 43% when presented in this way. Especially if you bring up the financial cost, health risks, and storage inconvenience of buying and eating so much more meat than is necessary.
I also think it’s a little silly to say that it’s easier to go vegan. You need to study food labels and nutrition facts to see if there is some animal byproduct involved. When you go out to eat, it’s not always clear whether options on the menu are vegan friendly, but restaurants are getting better about that nowadays. But I think you’re also assuming that people have the means to always choose a product that may be significantly more expensive. I think you’ll have better luck convincing people to occasionally think about whether their stirfry really needs steak or if mushrooms are actually enough to carry that earthy, satisfying bite they’re looking for this time.
Vegans, even life long vegans, exist. We do not need meat
I know lifelong smokers. The human body is resilient. If your argument is that veganism is healthy, you need a lot more than “I’m vegan and I’m not dead”.
I mentioned elsewhere about protein intakes. It’s not a controversial take that protein is one of the most important things we need in a day, that protein is easiest to find in meat, and that our body isn’t as good at digesting plant protein. For the rest, telling someone to go plant-based when you need a lot more than just a multivitamin to hit the Iron and B-12 content you need.
Whether or not veganism can be healthy (it might be), it is a known quantity that naive veganism is absolutely unhealthy. So my problem with “getting them vegan is easier than getting them to cut 10% meat” is that you’re trying to create naive vegans. That means you’re trying to create smokers.
Personally I like fish, I meal prep mostly with fish and they’re far easier to farm and it’s less damaging than most land animals.
Of course it would be better for the planet and our wallets to not eat meat, but our diet more or less requires some amount of meat for iron and protein
I think people really get a skewed view of this. It’s better for our planets if we eat less meat, and if people who need high protein intake won’t stop eating meat it’s a bit better if you eat zero meat to competensate. But it’s a “little vs a lot” thing . We still need meat to support the horticultural industry.
I mean, the cows and pigs in my area serve the important purpose of providing much of the fertilizer for all the vegetable farms in my area. They would still be there, getting fed, if nobody ate them or drank their milk. Their deaths would just be more of a waste. There is a point where too many cows/pigs are producing more fertilizer than crop farms need. But you want to hear something scary? WE AREN’T THERE YET; not even close. In the US at least, we only produce enough manure to support 20% of our horticulture, and the rest is supplemented by compost and synthetic fertilizer. And that synethetic fertilizer? Pretty terrible for the ecosystem and wild animals as well.
The real answer is that we haven’t solved the problems. It does “feelgood” to know that we can genuinely help a little by eating a little less meat. And we should all be doing that. But all of us going vegan is a real problem for reasons unrelated to the (very real) nutritional issues.
The meme is questionable, no argument (aren’t most?)
But point 3 is just straight up wrong.
- There’s vegan body builders, including some that have literally never eaten a single piece of meat.
- There’s also a SIGNIFICANT difference between “enough protein to be healthy” and “enough protein for my entirely optional hobby”.
- 90% of the (wannabe) body builders I know still supplement with artificial proteins (powders, shakes, bars, etc.). You could do the same with vegan sources
- Most people also forgo taste pleasure anyway, eating just rice and chicken, or plain greek joghurt. At that point, might as well eat a block of Tofu
Counterpoint. Nutritionists (many, not all) tend to agree that protein is under-represented in the average non-plant-based diet already, and the body processes plant protein at 50-67% effectiveness compared to a similar amount of animal protein. And people with particular common medical issues have nutritional need for higher protein amounts. My wife’s nutritionist wants her at 100-120g protein per day, counting plant proteins at 50% (so 240g if plant). Her food intake is about 12-1500kcal.
I challenge you to find a healthy way to to hit 180-240g of protein at a reasonable calorie intake. The best I can find is about 20 to 1 (which would be 3600 calories of high-protein meals to hit 180g). Or she could eat one 600cal steak and then whatever else she plans on in the day.
More importantly, my doctor wants me around the same, if only 100g. But I don’t want to eat 3000calories a day.
-
