It’s true that animal agriculture has a huge impact on the environment compared to feeding crops directly to humans.
so get out of here with that nonsense that veganism is religious zealotry. I don’t have time to cite a source for each point, but they’re all super easily verified. Veganism is looking at the impact of your choices with clear eyes and choosing compassion over personal pleasure. It’s choosing to live and let live, rather than forcing death and misery on other species because you like the taste of their flesh and secretions.
It’s true that humans at all stages of life can thrive on a properly planned vegan diet, according to most major health organizations.
Wait, including newborns? I mean, I doubt there’s a vegan alive who’s against breastfeeding, but for people who can’t breastfeed, baby formula isn’t vegan, is it?
Maybe your point would stand if humans had been bred to massively over-produce milk and had their babies taken from them so even more milk could be taken from them for profit and they had no agency in how their life went, from being bred in captivity and then impregnated in order to cause them to produce more milk to being killed when they stop producing milk.
#3 is wrong (under normal circumstances, assuming the fluid was voluntarily given), and so obviously so that I’m going to assume you’re trolling and stop responding. Have a good one ✌️
It’s strongly implied in the negative sense. If we want to play the definition game, here’s Merriam Webster’s definition:
exploit (verb)
1: to make productive use of : utilize
exploiting your talents
exploit your opponent’s weakness
2: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one’s own advantage
exploiting migrant farm workers
Definition 2 is what I’m referring to. A baby consuming is certainly using milk for its own advantage, but the mother also benefits from the exchange. The mother cares about the health and comfort of the baby, and providing her milk can certainly be something she wants to do. Your argument only makes sense if you think children “unfairly” use the parents’ labor for their own gain as well (they consume far more than they contribute to family finances), vs parents willingly giving food and gifts to their children because they want to see them be happy and healthy.
The point here is “meanly or unfairly,” and a mother willingly giving her milk to her baby goes exactly counter to that.
Now, if the baby snuck into the mother’s bed and suckled without any consent or if the husband refused to purchase alternatives and essentially forced the mother to provide milk, I could see your point. But if the mother is choosing to give it, I honestly don’t see how that has anything to do with exploitation, at least in the negative sense. In the positive sense, humans absolutely exploit animals (e.g. vegans eat fruit and veggies pollinated by bees; humans are “exploiting” the bees, but the bees are also “exploiting” the flowers for pollen and nectar).
In the positive sense, humans absolutely exploit animals (e.g. vegans eat fruit and veggies pollinated by bees; humans are “exploiting” the bees, but the bees are also “exploiting” the flowers for pollen and nectar).
No, veganism as a conclusion is a combination of facts and basic moral understanding, principles like “live and let live”, “do no harm”, and the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do to you. If you’re a psychopath who doesn’t care how much harm, death, and suffering is caused in order to get sensory pleasure, I probably can’t convince you why veganism is worthwhile
do you disagree with all the ethical principles I mentioned, or the facts I listed? Or do you think that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises?
Somehow, you think this is a debate. It isn’t. It’s me fucking around because vegans are zealots that call people that don’t agree with them psychopaths (which isn’t really a useful term now, the dsm classifies things differently, but I’m okay with the colloquial usage here, no worries).
What I do disagree with is the assumption that a cobbled together set of beliefs makes someone better than another, which is exactly what someone is showing when they start throwing around terms like psychopath willy nilly like that.
Seriously, dude, you already proved my point. It was inevitable that someone would, or just happened to be you. I’ve had my laugh, you’ve had your moment of feeling superior, so I think we both had a good time :)
I don’t think people who disagree with me are psychopaths. I think that given enough time and discussion I could convince most people that based on their own principles, veganism is the right thing to do. On the other hand, people who don’t give a fuck about how they affect others, would not be sympathetic to any line of reasoning I could think of. That’s all I was trying to say there
I’m not sure why you went there, but hey, we all fuck up, right?
But you’re still making a huge assumption. You’re assuming that anyone that isn’t vegan doesn’t give a fuck about how they affect others. You’re assuming that anyone you can’t convince would be wrong, because your logic, your arguments are the right ones by default.
You’ve been pretty busy trying to debate and argue. Did you ask what kind of meats I eat, how often, how I source them, or anything else that wasn’t meant specifically to debate, convert, or otherwise change my stance? No.
And that’s not unexpected. I’ve had this conversation maybe a hundred times. I can count on two hands the number of vegans that went as far as you just did by walking back their aggression. That’s actually pretty impressive tbh, because this all started with me baiting vegans. Kudos :)
Now, there is a fundamental gap between the usual vegan perspective on human/animal interactions/usage and personal beliefs. That gap is different at a level that, I agree, would not result in me converting to the vegan system. I don’t have a problem with people being vegan, I don’t want anyone to stop being vegan, or whatever. But I know vegans irl. Vegans that matter enough to me that I’ve sat and listened and done the whole Jehovah’s Witness thing (I’m poking fun, not trying to troll there, it’s meant to exaggerate the silliness of the whole thread), with laptops and phones and sources. I cook vegan for these people. Gladly, and I used to even haunt a vegan recipe C/ to expand my recipe base to make better food for them.
I only say that to let you know that it isn’t being vegan that I’m baiting and making fun of. It’s the accoutrements.
Do you see what I’m getting at? If you don’t, that’s okay. You don’t even have to take the time to try (especially if you’ve gotten this far, that’s a lot of verbiage).
Have you seen don’t fuck with cats? I haven’t, but from what I understand it’s a guy abusing kittens and posting it online, so people doxx him and go to great lengths to bring him to justice. Would you bait those people? Because I have a way lighter reaction than them to orders of magnitudes more animal abuse
You are focusing on the word religious, but it’s the zealot that’s important here. Of course you lot are zealots. It doesn’t matter what argument is made against veganism, you will defend it - vehemently.
OK, maybe not all of you are radical to the point of, I dunno, bombing meat processing plants, but online, you make a up very vocal group of people. Enough that there are memes about y’all. It’s like linux folk, or the people over on lemmygrad, the anti-woke crowd, the feminists, and other vocal groups.
Eh, the real counter argument isn’t about their beliefs. That’s fine. Most of it is sound logic.
The problem is their insistence on not only being right, but being better.
The part that makes it silly is the assumptions that chain from there being a right and wrong about what we do with dead animals. It’s a corpse. What matters is how we treat the living animals, and they are utterly convinced that not only is their way the one true way, but that anyone who believes otherwise is a bad person. I’ve been using this troll for something like a decade, and it never, ever fails to draw someone throwing around terms like evil, heartless, cruel, psychopath, etc.
That’s the thing to counter argue, not any of the ecological stuff, or the need to treat living things well.
That assumption of moral authority is the point of the troll.
Humans are omnivores, and have been for the lifespan of our species
There are a number of important nutrients that humans get from animal products that are difficult to get from plant-based sources, including vitamin B12, which is not present in land-based plant species (I’m not sure whether red algae counts as a plant, so I’m playing it safe with land-based)
That being said, a lot of people (myself included) eat far more animal products, particularly meat, than needed
There are a number of factors at play there, including government subsidies for feed crops and meat production artificially driving up its availability
From the research I’ve done, I think the most responsible diet would be a mostly plant-based one, but with the addition of chicken eggs from a responsible source, along with a basic mineral supplement for calcium/iron
animal-source foods (ASFs) are dense in bioavailable vitamins and minerals. ASFs are the only intrinsic food source of vitamin B12 [7] and contain more bioavailable forms of vitamins A and D, iron, and zinc than plant source foods (PSFs)
It wouldn’t surprise me if we evolved to have balanced diet from multiple sources because they have the nutrients we require. We most likely don’t need all the meat we’re eating and we do a terrible job in developed countries with reducing waste. But just like a purely meat based diet, a purely plant based diet is just one of the extremes. To each their own though.
Why do you need a counter argument? X being valid/true has no impact on whether Y is valid/true. Attack an argument on the merits of the argument, not on the lack of merits of an alternative.
That said, the main argument in favor of eating meat is that humans evolved to eat meat, so our bodies need nutrients that are easier to find in meat (e.g. certain types of protein). However, meat was a much smaller portion of our diets in the past than it is today, so this argument is actually in favor of eating less meat, but still including meat in your diet.
The concepts of veganism aren’t really at odds with meat consumption. In many (most?) cases, vegans care most about the ethical treatment of animals (as opposed to vegetarians, who are more often motivated by nutrition), and our current meat processing industry is a lot less ethical than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago when most meat was either free range or wild. So I think it’s totally reasonable to take a middle ground and defend meat consumption on nutritional grounds while also defending veganism on ethical grounds.
I’m zealously against rape, zealously against slavery, why should people not be zealously against what they consider industrial mass murder of innocent lives? Zealousness isn’t bad in and of itself
“what they consider” being the important part here. People are zealously against what they consider the dilution of the “white gene pool”. Does that make them right? People are zealously against what they consider robbery by the state of their hard earned money. Should we condone it because they are zealous?
Yes, zealousness isn’t bad in and of itself, nothing is. Everything is a matter of perspective. Maybe murder of humans could be considered a valiant, virtuous, and veritably honorable thing to do if one thought it could fend of the mass extinction event we are in. Rape could be justified by rapists as a necessary action to spread their seed.
Vegans aren’t the only people with justifications for what they do and what they consider right.
The difference between veganism and religion is that one is based on facts, the other is not.
so get out of here with that nonsense that veganism is religious zealotry. I don’t have time to cite a source for each point, but they’re all super easily verified. Veganism is looking at the impact of your choices with clear eyes and choosing compassion over personal pleasure. It’s choosing to live and let live, rather than forcing death and misery on other species because you like the taste of their flesh and secretions.
Wait, including newborns? I mean, I doubt there’s a vegan alive who’s against breastfeeding, but for people who can’t breastfeed, baby formula isn’t vegan, is it?
Not trying to rag on the point you’re making btw
I think there is vegan formula, and using breastmilk is vegan since it’s consensually given, including breastmilk shared by other mothers
the definition of veganism says nothing about consent, only exploitation. breastmilk is as vegan an cows milk.
Maybe your point would stand if humans had been bred to massively over-produce milk and had their babies taken from them so even more milk could be taken from them for profit and they had no agency in how their life went, from being bred in captivity and then impregnated in order to cause them to produce more milk to being killed when they stop producing milk.
This is a stupid take, even for you
therefore
#3 is wrong (under normal circumstances, assuming the fluid was voluntarily given), and so obviously so that I’m going to assume you’re trolling and stop responding. Have a good one ✌️
#3 is a bare fact.
it’s the very definition of exploitation. consent plays no part in it.
You’re not being exploited if you consent. Cows can’t consent, mothers can. That’s the argument.
If we could somehow communicate w/ cows and get their consent, then cows milk could be vegan.
the definition of exploitation makes no mention of consent, and no clarification about consent is made in the vegan society definition.
It’s strongly implied in the negative sense. If we want to play the definition game, here’s Merriam Webster’s definition:
Definition 2 is what I’m referring to. A baby consuming is certainly using milk for its own advantage, but the mother also benefits from the exchange. The mother cares about the health and comfort of the baby, and providing her milk can certainly be something she wants to do. Your argument only makes sense if you think children “unfairly” use the parents’ labor for their own gain as well (they consume far more than they contribute to family finances), vs parents willingly giving food and gifts to their children because they want to see them be happy and healthy.
The point here is “meanly or unfairly,” and a mother willingly giving her milk to her baby goes exactly counter to that.
Now, if the baby snuck into the mother’s bed and suckled without any consent or if the husband refused to purchase alternatives and essentially forced the mother to provide milk, I could see your point. But if the mother is choosing to give it, I honestly don’t see how that has anything to do with exploitation, at least in the negative sense. In the positive sense, humans absolutely exploit animals (e.g. vegans eat fruit and veggies pollinated by bees; humans are “exploiting” the bees, but the bees are also “exploiting” the flowers for pollen and nectar).
that’s a contradiction for vegans to resolve.
and i’m referring to definition one, and the vegan society doesn’t distinguish at all.
i think this is a tenet of so-called “anarcho” capitalism.
And you start from a base assumption that any of that matters in terms of food.
It’s like a retronym, picking facts to claim as a basis for a belief that’s rooted in a moral code.
No, veganism as a conclusion is a combination of facts and basic moral understanding, principles like “live and let live”, “do no harm”, and the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do to you. If you’re a psychopath who doesn’t care how much harm, death, and suffering is caused in order to get sensory pleasure, I probably can’t convince you why veganism is worthwhile
Lmmfao.
There it goes. Straight to “oh, we’re super moral, and you’re evil/crazy if you don’t agree”
And you’re not a zealot talking like that. Okay champ, you are good boy, sure, you go.
do you disagree with all the ethical principles I mentioned, or the facts I listed? Or do you think that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises?
Somehow, you think this is a debate. It isn’t. It’s me fucking around because vegans are zealots that call people that don’t agree with them psychopaths (which isn’t really a useful term now, the dsm classifies things differently, but I’m okay with the colloquial usage here, no worries).
What I do disagree with is the assumption that a cobbled together set of beliefs makes someone better than another, which is exactly what someone is showing when they start throwing around terms like psychopath willy nilly like that.
Seriously, dude, you already proved my point. It was inevitable that someone would, or just happened to be you. I’ve had my laugh, you’ve had your moment of feeling superior, so I think we both had a good time :)
I don’t think people who disagree with me are psychopaths. I think that given enough time and discussion I could convince most people that based on their own principles, veganism is the right thing to do. On the other hand, people who don’t give a fuck about how they affect others, would not be sympathetic to any line of reasoning I could think of. That’s all I was trying to say there
Well, that’s a very nice way to say it :)
I’m not sure why you went there, but hey, we all fuck up, right?
But you’re still making a huge assumption. You’re assuming that anyone that isn’t vegan doesn’t give a fuck about how they affect others. You’re assuming that anyone you can’t convince would be wrong, because your logic, your arguments are the right ones by default.
You’ve been pretty busy trying to debate and argue. Did you ask what kind of meats I eat, how often, how I source them, or anything else that wasn’t meant specifically to debate, convert, or otherwise change my stance? No.
And that’s not unexpected. I’ve had this conversation maybe a hundred times. I can count on two hands the number of vegans that went as far as you just did by walking back their aggression. That’s actually pretty impressive tbh, because this all started with me baiting vegans. Kudos :)
Now, there is a fundamental gap between the usual vegan perspective on human/animal interactions/usage and personal beliefs. That gap is different at a level that, I agree, would not result in me converting to the vegan system. I don’t have a problem with people being vegan, I don’t want anyone to stop being vegan, or whatever. But I know vegans irl. Vegans that matter enough to me that I’ve sat and listened and done the whole Jehovah’s Witness thing (I’m poking fun, not trying to troll there, it’s meant to exaggerate the silliness of the whole thread), with laptops and phones and sources. I cook vegan for these people. Gladly, and I used to even haunt a vegan recipe C/ to expand my recipe base to make better food for them.
I only say that to let you know that it isn’t being vegan that I’m baiting and making fun of. It’s the accoutrements.
Do you see what I’m getting at? If you don’t, that’s okay. You don’t even have to take the time to try (especially if you’ve gotten this far, that’s a lot of verbiage).
Baby boy, you at it again.
You done gone and kicked the beehive.
Shut yo damn fool mouth and make me a mess of collards and pintos like a good kitchen monkey. I’ll be there Saturday.
I get what you’re saying.
Have you seen don’t fuck with cats? I haven’t, but from what I understand it’s a guy abusing kittens and posting it online, so people doxx him and go to great lengths to bring him to justice. Would you bait those people? Because I have a way lighter reaction than them to orders of magnitudes more animal abuse
You are focusing on the word religious, but it’s the zealot that’s important here. Of course you lot are zealots. It doesn’t matter what argument is made against veganism, you will defend it - vehemently.
OK, maybe not all of you are radical to the point of, I dunno, bombing meat processing plants, but online, you make a up very vocal group of people. Enough that there are memes about y’all. It’s like linux folk, or the people over on lemmygrad, the anti-woke crowd, the feminists, and other vocal groups.
I’m not vegan, but what are the counter arguments? It tastes good? It’s convenient?
Eh, the real counter argument isn’t about their beliefs. That’s fine. Most of it is sound logic.
The problem is their insistence on not only being right, but being better.
The part that makes it silly is the assumptions that chain from there being a right and wrong about what we do with dead animals. It’s a corpse. What matters is how we treat the living animals, and they are utterly convinced that not only is their way the one true way, but that anyone who believes otherwise is a bad person. I’ve been using this troll for something like a decade, and it never, ever fails to draw someone throwing around terms like evil, heartless, cruel, psychopath, etc.
That’s the thing to counter argue, not any of the ecological stuff, or the need to treat living things well.
That assumption of moral authority is the point of the troll.
Humans are omnivores, and have been for the lifespan of our species
There are a number of important nutrients that humans get from animal products that are difficult to get from plant-based sources, including vitamin B12, which is not present in land-based plant species (I’m not sure whether red algae counts as a plant, so I’m playing it safe with land-based)
That being said, a lot of people (myself included) eat far more animal products, particularly meat, than needed
There are a number of factors at play there, including government subsidies for feed crops and meat production artificially driving up its availability
From the research I’ve done, I think the most responsible diet would be a mostly plant-based one, but with the addition of chicken eggs from a responsible source, along with a basic mineral supplement for calcium/iron
This is one argument @darganon. We need nutrients from a variety of things. We can live without some of them but that can come at the cost of health later in life e.g Vegetarian women more likely to fracture hips in later life.
Furthermore:
Source
Then there’s land-use:
Source
It wouldn’t surprise me if we evolved to have balanced diet from multiple sources because they have the nutrients we require. We most likely don’t need all the meat we’re eating and we do a terrible job in developed countries with reducing waste. But just like a purely meat based diet, a purely plant based diet is just one of the extremes. To each their own though.
Why do you need a counter argument? X being valid/true has no impact on whether Y is valid/true. Attack an argument on the merits of the argument, not on the lack of merits of an alternative.
That said, the main argument in favor of eating meat is that humans evolved to eat meat, so our bodies need nutrients that are easier to find in meat (e.g. certain types of protein). However, meat was a much smaller portion of our diets in the past than it is today, so this argument is actually in favor of eating less meat, but still including meat in your diet.
The concepts of veganism aren’t really at odds with meat consumption. In many (most?) cases, vegans care most about the ethical treatment of animals (as opposed to vegetarians, who are more often motivated by nutrition), and our current meat processing industry is a lot less ethical than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago when most meat was either free range or wild. So I think it’s totally reasonable to take a middle ground and defend meat consumption on nutritional grounds while also defending veganism on ethical grounds.
I’m zealously against rape, zealously against slavery, why should people not be zealously against what they consider industrial mass murder of innocent lives? Zealousness isn’t bad in and of itself
“what they consider” being the important part here. People are zealously against what they consider the dilution of the “white gene pool”. Does that make them right? People are zealously against what they consider robbery by the state of their hard earned money. Should we condone it because they are zealous?
Yes, zealousness isn’t bad in and of itself, nothing is. Everything is a matter of perspective. Maybe murder of humans could be considered a valiant, virtuous, and veritably honorable thing to do if one thought it could fend of the mass extinction event we are in. Rape could be justified by rapists as a necessary action to spread their seed.
Vegans aren’t the only people with justifications for what they do and what they consider right.
You get it :)
I ain’t mad at what people do with their own lives, but vegans are so easy to troll with this because it’s true.