I am enjoying watching vegans battle everyone. Most people are not prepared for a conversation on veganism. Vegans have been refining these arguments for a decade now and can present clear sharp moral stances with a counter to everything you have to say. They also have the easier side to argue.
Im not a vegan but I'm not talking shit to a vegan for fear of getting dragged into a veganism debate.
Vegans have been refining these arguments for a decade now and can present clear sharp moral stances with a counter to everything you have to say.
this doesn't make them right, and in fact often leads them to use easily debunked but rhetorically impressive arguments. that's called sophistry.
I disagree. The arguments vegans use are far more morally consistent and thought out than non vegans. Non vegans don't reason themselves into the position and often don't have a good justification for why they're not vegan. When they are pushed they fall apart instantly.
Non vegans don’t reason themselves into the position
most of the time, maybe. but ex-vegans certainly do, among others.
The arguments vegans use are far more morally consistent and thought out than non vegans.
it's true that vegans often think far more about the moral arguments around veganism. i, however, find the arguments to be unconvincing, and often sophistic.
The rhetorically impressive and easily debunked argument:
A) Slavery of sentient beings is wrong
B) Animals are sentient
∴ Enslaving animals is wrong
i used a plural. it's not just one argument. you're not being very honest about the breadth of the arguments made.
animal agriculture isn't slavery. i don't believe even vegans believe this syllogism rings true. if they did, we'd have a lot more harriet tubmans and a lot fewer tash petersons.
Most people are not prepared for interested in a conversation on veganism.
Vegans have been refining these arguments preaching at people who didn't ask for a decade now
and can present clear sharp moral stances with a counter to everything you as a gleefully evil animal abuser no matter what you have to say.
They also have the easier side to argue.
That part is arguably true. Which is all the more reason for evangelical vegans NOT to have to behave like they're missionaries educating savages every time they manage to trick a non-vegan into engaging with them.
Dietary choices, religions, and dietary choices treated as if they were a religion are like penises: it's fine that you have them and it's super that you enjoy them, but you are not allowed to try to force them on me without my consent.
I follow a plant based diet and agree with just about everything you wrote. I find that hardcore vegans can act like religious zealots yelling at little nine year old girls on the street for wearing a rainbow colored t-shirt.
Your freedom ends, where the freedom of others begins. Why would that not include animals?
Why would that not include animals?
three separate reasons.
they aren't people. the don't participate in our society. tehy don't respect the freedoms of others.
Yeah. I do agree with vegans in that humans should transition to a diet that's more sustainable and removes the animal suffering from the equation - and I do put in some effort to reduce my use of animal based products but: god damnit some people of that community are some seriously insufferable people to converse with
Exactly. There are ethical, environmental and health reasons to decrease humanity’s meat consumption. But screaming slurs with religous zealousy burning in your eyes will not win over the majority of the population. If you push people, they push back. Especially on morals, which is the least efficient argument to have a plant based diet - yet it’s the one some vegans like to push the most, as it makes them feel better about themselves.
I know exactly what vegans know, about eg. dairy industry and the rape of cows. Seen many sickening documentaries, and I believe that in a 100 years we will look back on exploiting/killing animals for dairy/meat as we do now on slavery.
Still, I eat meat.
Much less meat than I did years ago, but I have no intention to fully stop, as the alternatives are not yet practical, affordable, or tasty enough for me. If a lot of people decreased their meat consumption, our planet would be much better - how about we take that first step together, instead of insulting each other?
I am enjoying watching vegans battle everyone. Most people are not prepared for a conversation on veganism.
I think it is good that they prefer to not have to argue about the validity of their choices, so stay in their own communities. going to c/vegan and being a shit head should be instance-wide bannable (even if it's temporary). but when they are in other communities they should be respectful of others choices, not sandbag them with sophistry.
going to c/vegan and being a shit head should be instance-wide bannable (even if it's temporary).
Are we singling out c/vegan as snowflakes, or are we planning on making being a shithead in communities a banable offence?
going into a community and being a shithead should be a temporary instance-wide ban, yea. don't go into c/DBZ and say "funimation sucks. dbz sucks. dragonball sucks. you are a bunch of dumb babies".
No one hates vegans. Almost everyone hates vegan extremists. No one cares what you eat. You want to eat brown slop and claim its the best thing ever fill your boots. You want a vegan pet, get a rabbit. Just don't try to shame everyone else into doing what you want and don't feed a carnivore a vegan diet and no one will say anything.
Even flat-earthers have refined their arguments over the years, which doesn't make them any less stupid. I have zero moral problems with my meat consumption and I'll debate it with anyone.
Flat earth is not at all comparable to Veganism. Vegans don't need to make up anything to justify their side. They simply care for animals and therefore they don't eat them.
I'm not vegan so I'm not taking you up on that debate.
They also have the easier side to argue.
no, they don't
Ok what's the moral justification for eating meat?
i don't need one. there is no reason for me to believe it's immoral. it's probably amoral.
Do you think that animals have consciousness? Do they feel pain, fear? Is it moral for you to inflict pain and fear on a conscious being? What about 1,000,000 of those beings? Would you butcher a toddler for meat? What about an animal with similar (or more) depth of emotion and cognition than that? Is it okay because they are other species? What about the deforestation caused by animal agriculture? What about the impact on climate change? I think there are many valid moral arguments that you are outright dismissing with a mere hand wave. I hope you give it some more thought
if you have an argument that it is immoral, make it. i don't care for your interrogative style.
I like to give people questions to ponder and explore. I think my arguments are very clear from the questions I have raised. Suffering of conscious beings is a negative thing. Particularly the egregious conditions in which we raise our "meat". This isn't even considering the horrible conditions that humans suffer working in and around the meat industry.
I like to give people questions to ponder and explore.
if you don't wan to construct an argument that's fine, but the socratic method isn't terribly convincing for me and many others.
You can't appreciate a philosophical argument on a philosophical issue? I suppose that can be valid. It seems to me you don't want to consider the ideas I have raised in good faith
i'm willing to consider a fully formed argument. i'm not willing to be pestered by an endless interrogation.
Suffering of conscious beings is a negative thing.
can you support this claim?
There's obviously no way to prove this sort of statement, however every conscious being I've asked has told me they don't like suffering. Additionally, almost all conscious beings specifically go out of their way to avoid suffering. I personally find this evidence sufficiently convincing.
but pain in and of itself isn't bad. it can be justified or unjustified.
We're not simply talking about pain, though. I like the painful sensation from hot peppers, for example, but I wouldn't ever wish to subject myself to the systematic violence and awful conditions that farmed animals face.
and I wouldn't wish for you to be treated like an animal, either.
Can you supply a convincing argument for suffering? We are fully capable of living with much, much less meat production. Why should we continue to inflict pain on things which can experience it? It seems manifest to me
Can you supply a convincing argument for suffering?
i'm not saying it's a moral good. i'm saying it's amoral. as in it is neither good or bad in itself.
We have agency over our actions and the ability to reduce the negative impacts we have on the world. We are unique in this ability, and we should exercise it
it's not clear that animal suffering is a negative.
Would you kick a dog in the street? Shoot a cat with a bb gun? These are things that happen with frequency, but I wouldn't do because I think that causing pain to another animal, senselessly, is a bad thing.
Would you raise a chicken in complete darkness for its whole life? Would you raise a cow in a suffocatingly small pen among its excrement? Impregnate a cow constantly and steal its babies away for meat so you can continue to milk it until it dies? Animals feel pain. They communicate, they suffer, they mourn.
If you can supply an argument that causing suffering of innocent animals is good/doesn't matter, I'm all ears.
Is it moral for you to inflict pain and fear on a conscious being?
i suppose that depends on circumstances.
What about the deforestation caused by animal agriculture?
that's bad. buying beans doesn't fix it though.
This is a strawman. No one is arguing buying beans fixes deforestation. However, if less meat is produced (ie less animals are raised for slaughter), then less deforestation will come as a result of the meat industry. If legume farming was destroying the rainforest, I'd have a problem with that too
If legume farming was destroying the rainforest,
turns out, a lot of the the deforested amazon is being used to grow soy.
This was the case, and is certainly problematic. Take it a step further -- who or what is consuming that soy? Animal agriculture, by and large. Therefore this is an argument for veganism, or at least reducing consumption.
the vast majority of the world's soy (about 85%) is pressed for oil in an oil press for human use. the byproduct of the press is called soy meal or soy cake, and would be a waste product if we didn't find a use for it. currently, almost all of it goes to feed livestock, (about 70% of the entire crop-weight).
soybeans are used by people, and we feed the trash to livestock.
This seems to reinforce my point. Surely 75% of production is not simply wastage otherwise. This is even ignoring the fact that I provided a source showing that deforestation by soy is far less problematic than it used to be.
you are outright dismissing with a mere hand wave.
i am not. i have been fighting with vegans, primarily on issues of the environment, for i think 8 or 9 years now. i have heard about every argument (though i'm always excited to find a new one!), and i have not been convinced by any of them that i have a duty to be vegan.
I think it is funny to make this an ethics discussion when there is plenty of evidence that bacon and sausage cause digestive tract cancers. Meat is also pretty expensive unless heavily subsidized.
I think the main focus should be on educating people that a healthy diet contains a very small amount of meat even though the meat industry has managed to make people think it should be in every meal.
I am enjoying watching vegans battle everyone. Most people are not prepared for a conversation on veganism. Vegans have been refining these arguments for a decade now and can present clear sharp moral stances with a counter to everything you have to say. They also have the easier side to argue.
Im not a vegan but I'm not talking shit to a vegan for fear of getting dragged into a veganism debate.
this doesn't make them right, and in fact often leads them to use easily debunked but rhetorically impressive arguments. that's called sophistry.
I disagree. The arguments vegans use are far more morally consistent and thought out than non vegans. Non vegans don't reason themselves into the position and often don't have a good justification for why they're not vegan. When they are pushed they fall apart instantly.
most of the time, maybe. but ex-vegans certainly do, among others.
it's true that vegans often think far more about the moral arguments around veganism. i, however, find the arguments to be unconvincing, and often sophistic.
The rhetorically impressive and easily debunked argument:
A) Slavery of sentient beings is wrong
B) Animals are sentient
∴ Enslaving animals is wrong
i used a plural. it's not just one argument. you're not being very honest about the breadth of the arguments made.
animal agriculture isn't slavery. i don't believe even vegans believe this syllogism rings true. if they did, we'd have a lot more harriet tubmans and a lot fewer tash petersons.
That part is arguably true. Which is all the more reason for evangelical vegans NOT to have to behave like they're missionaries educating savages every time they manage to trick a non-vegan into engaging with them.
Dietary choices, religions, and dietary choices treated as if they were a religion are like penises: it's fine that you have them and it's super that you enjoy them, but you are not allowed to try to force them on me without my consent.
I follow a plant based diet and agree with just about everything you wrote. I find that hardcore vegans can act like religious zealots yelling at little nine year old girls on the street for wearing a rainbow colored t-shirt.
Your freedom ends, where the freedom of others begins. Why would that not include animals?
three separate reasons.
they aren't people. the don't participate in our society. tehy don't respect the freedoms of others.
Yeah. I do agree with vegans in that humans should transition to a diet that's more sustainable and removes the animal suffering from the equation - and I do put in some effort to reduce my use of animal based products but: god damnit some people of that community are some seriously insufferable people to converse with
Exactly. There are ethical, environmental and health reasons to decrease humanity’s meat consumption. But screaming slurs with religous zealousy burning in your eyes will not win over the majority of the population. If you push people, they push back. Especially on morals, which is the least efficient argument to have a plant based diet - yet it’s the one some vegans like to push the most, as it makes them feel better about themselves.
I know exactly what vegans know, about eg. dairy industry and the rape of cows. Seen many sickening documentaries, and I believe that in a 100 years we will look back on exploiting/killing animals for dairy/meat as we do now on slavery.
Still, I eat meat.
Much less meat than I did years ago, but I have no intention to fully stop, as the alternatives are not yet practical, affordable, or tasty enough for me. If a lot of people decreased their meat consumption, our planet would be much better - how about we take that first step together, instead of insulting each other?
I think it is good that they prefer to not have to argue about the validity of their choices, so stay in their own communities. going to c/vegan and being a shit head should be instance-wide bannable (even if it's temporary). but when they are in other communities they should be respectful of others choices, not sandbag them with sophistry.
Are we singling out c/vegan as snowflakes, or are we planning on making being a shithead in communities a banable offence?
going into a community and being a shithead should be a temporary instance-wide ban, yea. don't go into c/DBZ and say "funimation sucks. dbz sucks. dragonball sucks. you are a bunch of dumb babies".
No one hates vegans. Almost everyone hates vegan extremists. No one cares what you eat. You want to eat brown slop and claim its the best thing ever fill your boots. You want a vegan pet, get a rabbit. Just don't try to shame everyone else into doing what you want and don't feed a carnivore a vegan diet and no one will say anything.
Even flat-earthers have refined their arguments over the years, which doesn't make them any less stupid. I have zero moral problems with my meat consumption and I'll debate it with anyone.
Flat earth is not at all comparable to Veganism. Vegans don't need to make up anything to justify their side. They simply care for animals and therefore they don't eat them.
I'm not vegan so I'm not taking you up on that debate.
no, they don't
Ok what's the moral justification for eating meat?
i don't need one. there is no reason for me to believe it's immoral. it's probably amoral.
Do you think that animals have consciousness? Do they feel pain, fear? Is it moral for you to inflict pain and fear on a conscious being? What about 1,000,000 of those beings? Would you butcher a toddler for meat? What about an animal with similar (or more) depth of emotion and cognition than that? Is it okay because they are other species? What about the deforestation caused by animal agriculture? What about the impact on climate change? I think there are many valid moral arguments that you are outright dismissing with a mere hand wave. I hope you give it some more thought
if you have an argument that it is immoral, make it. i don't care for your interrogative style.
I like to give people questions to ponder and explore. I think my arguments are very clear from the questions I have raised. Suffering of conscious beings is a negative thing. Particularly the egregious conditions in which we raise our "meat". This isn't even considering the horrible conditions that humans suffer working in and around the meat industry.
if you don't wan to construct an argument that's fine, but the socratic method isn't terribly convincing for me and many others.
You can't appreciate a philosophical argument on a philosophical issue? I suppose that can be valid. It seems to me you don't want to consider the ideas I have raised in good faith
i'm willing to consider a fully formed argument. i'm not willing to be pestered by an endless interrogation.
can you support this claim?
There's obviously no way to prove this sort of statement, however every conscious being I've asked has told me they don't like suffering. Additionally, almost all conscious beings specifically go out of their way to avoid suffering. I personally find this evidence sufficiently convincing.
but pain in and of itself isn't bad. it can be justified or unjustified.
We're not simply talking about pain, though. I like the painful sensation from hot peppers, for example, but I wouldn't ever wish to subject myself to the systematic violence and awful conditions that farmed animals face.
and I wouldn't wish for you to be treated like an animal, either.
Can you supply a convincing argument for suffering? We are fully capable of living with much, much less meat production. Why should we continue to inflict pain on things which can experience it? It seems manifest to me
i'm not saying it's a moral good. i'm saying it's amoral. as in it is neither good or bad in itself.
We have agency over our actions and the ability to reduce the negative impacts we have on the world. We are unique in this ability, and we should exercise it
it's not clear that animal suffering is a negative.
Would you kick a dog in the street? Shoot a cat with a bb gun? These are things that happen with frequency, but I wouldn't do because I think that causing pain to another animal, senselessly, is a bad thing.
Would you raise a chicken in complete darkness for its whole life? Would you raise a cow in a suffocatingly small pen among its excrement? Impregnate a cow constantly and steal its babies away for meat so you can continue to milk it until it dies? Animals feel pain. They communicate, they suffer, they mourn.
If you can supply an argument that causing suffering of innocent animals is good/doesn't matter, I'm all ears.
i suppose that depends on circumstances.
that's bad. buying beans doesn't fix it though.
This is a strawman. No one is arguing buying beans fixes deforestation. However, if less meat is produced (ie less animals are raised for slaughter), then less deforestation will come as a result of the meat industry. If legume farming was destroying the rainforest, I'd have a problem with that too
turns out, a lot of the the deforested amazon is being used to grow soy.
This was the case, and is certainly problematic. Take it a step further -- who or what is consuming that soy? Animal agriculture, by and large. Therefore this is an argument for veganism, or at least reducing consumption.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/victories/amazon-rainforest-deforestation-soy-moratorium-success/
the vast majority of the world's soy (about 85%) is pressed for oil in an oil press for human use. the byproduct of the press is called soy meal or soy cake, and would be a waste product if we didn't find a use for it. currently, almost all of it goes to feed livestock, (about 70% of the entire crop-weight).
soybeans are used by people, and we feed the trash to livestock.
Can you supply a source for this please?
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png
This seems to reinforce my point. Surely 75% of production is not simply wastage otherwise. This is even ignoring the fact that I provided a source showing that deforestation by soy is far less problematic than it used to be.
but just being vegan doesn't cause this to happen.
It's simple economics. Less demand, less supply.
that's not causal.
i am not. i have been fighting with vegans, primarily on issues of the environment, for i think 8 or 9 years now. i have heard about every argument (though i'm always excited to find a new one!), and i have not been convinced by any of them that i have a duty to be vegan.
I think it is funny to make this an ethics discussion when there is plenty of evidence that bacon and sausage cause digestive tract cancers. Meat is also pretty expensive unless heavily subsidized.
I think the main focus should be on educating people that a healthy diet contains a very small amount of meat even though the meat industry has managed to make people think it should be in every meal.
Lol they fuck they can, they couldn't even properly present and defend their own sources.
https://lemm.ee/comment/14432604