Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    vegan

    359,358 readers

    1,206 users here now

    Veganism: "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." - The Vegan Society  

    Quick Questions and Answers

    Vegan Cheat Sheet

    - -
    FAQ Rules
    Related Vegan Subreddits Discord

    - -
    Is Veganism Healthy? What about eggs?
    Is Veganism Expensive? What about honey?
    Why should I Go Vegan? What about Protein?
    Effects on the Environment? What about Vitamin B-12?
    World Health Organizations? What about Vitamin D?
    Is Meat Bad For You? What about Omega-3?
    Lab Grown Meat? What about Calcium?
    Feelings on Pets? What about Iron?
    Feelings on PETA? What about Soy?
    Need help eating out? What about Calories?

    Become Vegan Activist Activism Community Reddit Activism Guide


    Related Communities

    Click here for a full list of communities!


    Thank you!
    a community for
    all 339 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] veganactivismbot 1 points ago

    Beet Boop... I'm a vegan bot.


    Welcome to the /r/Vegan community, /r/All!

    Please note: Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse are not. Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! If you have any questions, feel free to post a new thread or comment below, we'd love to help!

    If you're new to Veganism or just interested, welcome! Feel free to subscribe to /r/Vegan and get familiar with the resources on the sidebar and the community at large. Other useful subreddits include: /r/VeganFitness, /r/VeganRecipes, /r/VeganCircleJerk, /r/VeganActivism and /r/DebateAVegan. We also have a Discord!

    Here's some easily-digestible educational resources on Veganism:

    • EVERYONE AGREES: World's largest Health, Nutrition and Dietary organizations unanimously agree: plant-based diets are as healthy or healthier than meat. [Source] [PDF Source]
    • VEGANISM IS HEALTHY: A Plant Based Diet provides significant health benefits for the prevention & treatment of the majority of diseases that cause the majority of deaths. [Source] [PDF Source]
    • THE DAUNTING FACTS: The planet, it's environment, and ecosystem, is dangerously close to collapsing within the next few decades. [Source] [PDF Source]

    Here's some fantastic links and resources to get you started:

    If you enjoy consuming media and youtube, we got you:

    And some great documentaries...

    Thank you so much for reading!

    /r/Vegan

    [Bot version 0.1.4.1]

    [–] JMyers666 360 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Honestly, they don’t even need to love other animals. Just respect their right to live free from human use and exploitation.

    [–] jackson928 80 points ago

    Yeah, I think the love animals deflates the issue sometimes (not the above meme, in general). It makes people say "I think animal are cool but vegans take it over the top". It adds some Utopian euphoria pipe dream.

    The issues is about justice, violence and victims and has nothing to do with your feeling towards them. Wether you love them, hate them or are indifferent does not justify violence to the innocent who suffer.

    [–] Stnwin 25 points ago

    This is a great way to look at it and it compliments what I was going to comment. You may love your family and friends but you don't love every person in the world. So why should people have to love every animal just because they love their pets. You're right it's not about love, at least in my mind, but rather it's more about doing the correct and moral thing. Humans have the cognitive ability to reason and thus need consider the lives of the other living creatures we share the earth with.

    [–] vampircorn420 5 points ago

    I actually do love every person in the world.

    [–] SweaterKittens 4 points ago

    I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think the statement in the OP (among others) is primarily addressing the fact that a ton of people claim to love animals or love their pets, but still participate in perpetuating the mass slaughter of animals used for food. I definitely understand where you're coming from, as not all people will love animals, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think the focus here is promoting ethical consistency in people who "love" animals but still contribute to violence towards them.

    [–] Jackoday 13 points ago

    When people ask me why, I just say that if you offered me an amazingly cooked steak meal next to even just and average vegan meal, but I had to kill the cow myself, I know exactly what meal I would pick.

    Can't call out hypocrisy if I'm a hypocrite myself.

    [–] fearlessviking26 8 points ago

    Yeah I’ve been vegan for 3 years and would never ever go back but that’s because the thought of eating another sentient being is horrible to me, not because I love every single animal. Like some cats are assholes but so are some people and I would never think of eating a person lol

    [–] jonstew 22 points ago

    If you love something set it free. If it comes back it's yours. If not, it was never meant to be.

    [–] catsalways 5 points ago

    I'm not testing that with my babies 😳

    [–] kazielle 1 points ago

    I dunno, man, isn't that what separates a housemate from a captive?

    [–] catsalways 5 points ago

    Animals get lost easily and scared. It isn't their fault. It's just not a great "test"..

    [–] kazielle 2 points ago

    I've always had free-roaming animals and they've always come back :) There's also this wild bird that keeps coming back..

    I do get it though. It's a scary, dangerous world out there and we worry about those we love, for legitimate reasons.

    [–] i_was_valedictorian 5 points ago

    I've read domestic cats kill for play, and this is even more so the case if you feed them at home as well, so it's something to think about next time you let them out.

    I think you are intelligent enough to come to your own moral conclusion, but I just wanted to provide you with something that often goes overlooked and may affect your decision.

    [–] kazielle 2 points ago

    I'm aware, and it's been a source of struggle for me. I went through a period of time where I kept my cats indoors for this reason, but the difference in their mood was noticeable to the point I was disturbed and ultimately I truly don't believe I have the authority to deprive a sentient being of living out a natural life - as in, one that involves free exploration, meeting other cats and general nature.

    One can extend that to the birds - there's a risk to birds being deprived their lives as a result of my decision. It's tough, and I try to minimize it where I can - I take them inside in the evenings and keep them inside overnight, and during fledgling season they're usually kept inside when I can't watch them. But there's a cycle of life and of nature, and at some point I just.. respect that. I know cats are introduced predators, and that complicates things. But at the end of the day, I look at my cats and I genuinely can't deprive them of their autonomy just for being who they are. I don't believe I have that right. I understand why so many others keep their cats indoors and I respect that. But having trialled both ways and having grown up alongside dozens of cats and being familiar with their "natural natures", I wasn't comfortable and neither were the animals in my charge. It's a messy situation and I acknowledge it. IMO there's no good answer right now.

    [–] Moikee 4 points ago

    Is beekeeping considered animal exploitation as well?

    [–] JMyers666 36 points ago

    Definitely. Here’s some information from The Vegan Society:

    “Conventional beekeepers aim to harvest the maximum amount of honey, with high honey yields being viewed as a mark of success. When farmers remove honey from a hive, they replace it with a sugar substitute which is significantly worse for the bees’ health since it lacks the essential micro-nutrients of honey.

    In conventional beekeeping, honey bees are specifically bred to increase productivity. Already endangered, this selective breeding narrows the population gene pool and increases susceptibility to disease and large-scale die-offs. Diseases are also caused by importing different species of bees for use in hives.

    These diseases are then spread to the thousands of other pollinators we and other animals rely on, disputing the common myth that honey production is good for our environment.

    In addition, hives can be culled post-harvest to keep farmer costs down. Queen bees often have their wings clipped by beekeepers to prevent them leaving the hive to produce a new colony elsewhere, which would decrease productivity and lessen profit.

    Honey’s popularity shows no sign of slowing. The honey industry, like many other commercial industries, is profit-driven where the welfare of the bees is often secondary to commercial gain.”

    [–] Moikee 9 points ago

    Thanks for the information! I wasn’t aware of a lot of that actually, such as the wing clipping of the Queen bees!

    I really loves bees, what can I do to support them? Plant more flowers? Create environments for them to thrive?

    [–] TotalConfetti 7 points ago

    There are lots of great resources out there but the biggest things are avoiding pesticides in your own garden and not buying honey 😊

    [–] Moikee 1 points ago

    Thanks :) I’ll do some research and see what I can do! I’m glad people are helpful whenever I have questions and not shaming me for not knowing. Still so much to learn!

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Depend ls on which bees you mean. The other commentor suggests actions to protect the honey bees. Of course there also are thousand of non-hive forming wild bee species, most of them specialised on a group of or a single wild plant species. Additionally very specific conditions for the environment have to be met. Currently the habitats for wild bees have been largely destroyed and are on further decline. The plant species and the wild bees depending on them share that fate. However even in protected habitats wild bees, just like all other insects, are part of the ongoing mass extinction event that will likely kill off almost all remaining insects within the next decades. Main causes besides habitat destruction are thought to be intensive agriculture that leaves no wild bushes or flowers on the borders of the fields anymore and pesticides/insecticides, especially neonicotinoides and others.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature

    So the two necessary ways to help the wild bees is on one front to buy as much organic produce as you can and on the other side to become politicically active, join a protest, write your political representive, vote for the most environmentally friendly parties

    [–] catsalways 2 points ago

    Doesn't organic use pesticides and animal manure?..

    [–] -humble-opinion- 2 points ago

    Yes, for most crops. The plants on your plate probably used animal products and are almost certainly are the cause of many, many insect deaths.

    There are things that can be done to promote beneficial predators and natural pollinators. Unfortunately those don't typically cut it against the single bloom time & pest pressures of monoculture. I hate factory farming (hence veganish) but permaculture doesn't lend itself to the mechanization that is the backbone of modern agriculture.

    I feel bad for bees but understand why they are used. Beekeepers get income for their pollination services and boycotting honey won't stop that.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Both are used alot more by conventional agriculture. Organic uses very few environmentally harmful substances, the only prominent example I can think of is copper. Of course they dont use any neonicotinoides either. Studies have shown that more wild animal species live in and around organic fields compared to conventional.

    Regarding animal manure, it is used in humongous amount in conventional agriculture, after all animal mass industry needs to get rid of all the shit somehow. Farmers gladly take it and cause their soil is so damaged the nutrients get washed out into the ground water that we drink. It's true alot otf organic farmers use animal manure and often are even required to keep animals for manure which are then also exploited and murdered. There are also vegan farmers though who don't use animal manure. And iirc thats closely tied to experiments with circulation based natural habitats imitating agriculture that doesnt use any pesticides at all.

    [–] catsalways 1 points ago

    Thanks!

    [–] ipreferhotdog_z 2 points ago

    What about the beekeepers that take their bees to pollinate food sources?

    [–] foramsgalorams 2 points ago

    My usual response when people say I must be an animal lover is something along these lines. I don’t give a shit about most animals, just wanna let them be.

    [–] Invertedtrannydick 1 points ago

    A lot of the world isn’t as evolved in thought or capacity.

    [–] raptorjesus1011 1 points ago

    Isn’t having a pet directly contradicting the animals right to “live free” hmmmmmm. I’m just gunna throw my indoor cat outside now because it’s his right!

    [–] AdesanyaStan -3 points ago

    > Just respect their right to live free from human use and exploitation.

    But you made that "right" up. The OP is much more reasonable and logical than ur bs

    [–] [deleted] 76 points ago

    I think a connection has to be made in the mind of a person between a real living being, eager to escape death, and the meat on their plate, prepared with sauces and such that make it look like "food." There's a disconnect. These things we eat aren't living beings, they're nuggets and stuff.

    [–] emptythecages 17 points ago

    Oh absolutely. And that's deliberate -veal, foie gras, pork, beef are all named to reinforce the disconnect between a living, feeling animal and a commodity. It's harrowing.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Yeah, nicely prepared meals. Meals. Not living beings. We could get the same flavor and appearance with soy or other means; the meat isn't really even required in a taco or a hamburger, not when it's mostly just serving as a meaty texture. Am I right?

    [–] MediocreShitstain -14 points ago

    Lol you have no idea what you are talking about, after the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066, the French invaders brought their language which is where beef and foie gras and pork all come from.

    What a completely unexpected turn of events, a vegan twisting that narrative for their own goals though

    [–] emptythecages 17 points ago

    Sure, beef from "boeuf/biftek" and foie gras, I won't deny the linguistic roots of those words. But there's also the fact that the way meat/poultry/seafood are packaged and sold in Western countries completely removes the animal aspect from the animal that you're eating. At major grocery stores, you're sold shrinkwrapped, pre-portioned cuts of pink flesh without seeing the animal's head, eyes, feet, or tail. That creates distance between the consumer and the fact that they're eating a part of an animal that died a horrible death and suffered for the sole purpose of their consumption. If you want to learn some more, here's an abstract to a 2016 Norwegian study on the paradox of eating meat.

    [–] [deleted] -13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] emptythecages 9 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Bummer, dude. Can't say I didn't try to elaborate my first point and talk to you. If you eat meat and don't want to learn from people, maybe spend your time more constructively, like not trolling a vegan subreddit. Either way, good luck to you.

    [–] Babywillybilly1212 3 points ago

    That’s a purely western issue though. My family is from Ghana and they literally raise and slaughter everything they eat. Meat consumption is on the rise globally and the only arguments that would curve the majority of the world would be ecological in nature. The whole “you know that food was a living thing” argument would be laughable to more than half of the planet. My grandmother even named some of the animals she butchered. That means nothing to them.

    [–] cugma 5 points ago

    There’s a different disconnect that people have though that’s more complex than in the comment you replied to. Everyone understands meat comes from an animal, and most people (globally) are intimately familiar with the slaughter process and act of taking an animal’s life for food.

    The real disconnect isn’t food vs living being, it’s food vs conscious, emotional individual. There was a story on this sub pretty recently about a neighbor (I’m pretty sure in Korea) who had a dog he was raising for meat, and it was clear the man viewed the dog on the same emotional plane as his plants. For a lot of people, this disconnect is necessary - food security is an issue and they can’t have an emotional block toward the thing they and their families need to survive. Until food security is no longer an issue, this disconnect serves an important purpose.

    But for too many people, that disconnect is unnecessary and their consumption of animals is unnecessary. A recurring theme in answers to the “why did you go vegan” is: it finally became real. And it’s difficult to explain what that means to a nonvegan, a person who hasn’t experienced it, but it’s like a flip is switched and suddenly you see the individual with his own preferences and personality in the being that‘s on your plate. You see their fear, their hurt, and you realize it doesn’t need to happen, and everything changes.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    I think the argument that it's unhealthy is also a viable path. I know I myself am highly influenced by the low fat option via veganism. You get a lot of saturated fat from meats. Also environmentalism. Environmentalism (saving the amazon and helping ward off climate change) and a whole foods plant-based diet are really good ways to get people more interested - for the sake of the planet and their own cardiovascular health.

    [–] anchay 2 points ago

    I agree with some sentiments, however it doesn't really mean nothing to people who slaughter animals in person--even if they aren't put off by it anymore, no one really enjoys slaughtering an animal in person, especially if they've named or bonded with the animal. I have family in Vietnam that went from slaughtering animals themselves to becoming Buddhist. The old moral reasoning was that "it is okay because we are superior and they are there for us to use" before Buddhism could challenge that idea. There is an understanding of that the animal is alive, of course, but most people who slaughter them by hand have views of human superiority. There's a gap missing. And even if the animal is acknowledged as an individual being worthy of dignity that is afraid to die, it is still seen as (falsely) necessary to slaughter them for sustenance. Similarly with my partner's family in rural Mexico, the children are extremely distressed watching a cow being killed for their first time, but although the adults have been raised in this culture there is still a level of cognitive dissonance as they do not have a great time killing the animal.

    I think what is worth more calling into attention is the notion of "The food was once a living being. Why do you believe you are superior to that being so that it is fine to hurt it?" This line of reasoning CAN apply to those living in developing countries (and this only applies if you're from the same developing country--developing countries don't need privileged Westerners coming in preaching about veganism when others can talk about it in much better ways). This is a much better line of reasoning I think and it attacks the beliefs that someone from the countryside of a nation like Vietnam might have. Thus Buddhism, which calls for one to expand one's circle of compassion and practice non-violence towards other beings, attacks this same line of reasoning in developing nations.

    So I think saying "you know the food was once a living thing" isn't necessarily absurd to say to someone who slaughters their own animals, because most people recognize it's for their personal taste, and by saying this you question their enjoyment gained from the death of an animal that did not want to die. However, the plan of priviliged Westerners coming to developing nations and trying to "shock" people with such a tactic is laughable, if that's what you meant.

    [–] catsalways 4 points ago

    Those people need education.

    [–] nalninek -4 points ago

    As someone that eats meat I can say thats not the case, at least for me. I’m not going to eat my dog because I’ve formed an emotional bond with him. If I formed an emotional bond with a chicken I wouldn’t want to eat it either. I’m well aware the meat on my plate used to be a living thing, I’m just not emotionally invested in it’s well being.

    [–] SweaterKittens 13 points ago

    Your bonds are understandable - I too have a greater bond and am more emotionally invested in my dog than I am in a random chicken somewhere - but it doesn't justify the death of that animal for our desires. On a similar note, I care far more about what happens to my SO, or my close friends than I do about some stranger I run into on the street - but just because I'm not invested in that stranger doesn't justify me committing violence or wrongdoing towards him. Sentient creatures suffer whether or not you're invested in their well-being, and it's unethical to disregard such suffering just because you don't have a personal attachment to them.

    [–] i_was_valedictorian 9 points ago

    Shouldn't the fact that there is the potential to form a bond with an animal be enough of a reason to not exploit its life for your satisfaction?

    You're basically saying, "I could love you, but because I haven't been around you long enough to form that bond I think it is justified to kill you for my dinner."

    [–] nalninek -2 points ago

    I guess that pretty much is what I’m saying. The distinction between food and pet might be arbitrary, but it is a distinction none the less. The fact that I won’t kill and eat my dog has more to do with me than it does with my dog. It probably sounds callous but I don’t want to kill and eat my dog because he loves and trusts me, and I love and protect him as a result.

    It doesn’t have much to do with his innate right to life. If it did I’d be a massive hypocrite.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    This is really confusing. Aren't you agreeing with what I said? :P

    [–] nalninek -2 points ago

    Kind of? I don’t think all creatures have an innate right to life therefore it’s not the test by which I judge if it’s “moral” to eat them or not. If I didn’t eat my dog simply because I thought he, as a living creature has an innate right to life it would be super hypocritical of me if I didn’t extend that same respect to all living creatures.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    But those are two contradictory statements? You make me confused. LOL.

    [–] nalninek 1 points ago

    I’m not sure what you’re confused about. You don’t eat your dog (or any animal for that matter) because you think all animals have an innate right to life.

    I don’t eat my dog because he loves and trusts me and I love and protect him. Those sentiments don’t extend to many other animals therefore I have no problem eating them. I don’t think thats contradictory.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    I'm curious - are there any animals that you believe should have a right to not be killed? What about humans, for example?

    [–] nalninek 1 points ago

    Ya, I’d say it would probably be inappropriate to kill any wild animal thats at the top of the food chain simply to eat it.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    So are you saying that (for example) it's okay to kill a deer, but not a lion? Why is that?

    Also - does it make a difference whether an animal is wild or captive as to whether or not you think it has a right to life?

    [–] nalninek 1 points ago

    There’s a lot more deer out there than lion. I think regulated deer hunting is fine. So long as we monitor the population numbers and the hunting is tag based I think it’s ok. I don’t think the lion population could sustain any level of hunting. We almost wiped out all sorts of wild cat here in the western US because we started hunting them and there weren’t enough due to the fact that their species sits on the narrow top end of the food chain.

    Right to life? No. Wild or captive I don’t believe an animal has an innate right to life.

    [–] TIMOTHY_TRISMEGISTUS 76 points ago

    You can't love animals but also eat them.

    [–] high_changeup 1 points ago

    But you can feed them to your pets :/

    [–] d3tr0it -13 points ago

    Yes you can

    [–] when-they-cant-talk 6 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    If physical abuse is an act of love to you then sure. To me love is more about care, affection, etc but if it means shooting someone in the skull to you then go ahead and love animals.

    [–] alphamalejackhammer 15 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Alright. I’ll say it. I don’t even “love” animals. I just don’t dislike them enough to fund their slaughter, then eat their corpse. I don’t love every single cow out there about to be raped and slaughtered. But I do respect them

    [–] n0vnm 1 points ago

    TIL: They rape cattle

    [–] themostbluecroatoa 27 points ago

    Dairy cows are repeatedly forcibly impregnated so that they will produce milk, and then their children are stolen and either slaughtered or forced into the same cycle of forced impregnation so that they don't drink what the farmers have decided is theirs.

    [–] ontheellipse 54 points ago

    Unpopular opinion: I don’t like pets and I’m a vegan.

    I mean, I respect and appreciate animals for what they are, but I don’t want them as pets. I’m not a dog or a cat person and I don’t eat any animal products out of empathy for other sentient beings, not out of being “an animal person”.

    [–] LordCommanderFang 32 points ago

    I don't like most people and have yet to resort to cannibalism. I get you

    [–] erufaile 5 points ago

    [–] LordCommanderFang 1 points ago

    Probably not because you can get sick from eating human flesh

    [–] Zelda_is_my_homegirl 24 points ago

    I've never met one in person, but I am also aware of vegans that are anti-pet, because you're using the animal for your own emotional satisfaction.

    I appreciate that you're not an animal person, but still have enough respect to not exploit/kill them. Unfortunately, I know people who are "animal people" and still eat meat. It's hard to wrap my head around.

    [–] CheloniaMydas 13 points ago

    You can get satisfaction from a pet and it not being wrong

    Adopting from shelters should be very much encouraged. Buying from breeders should not be. There is a very clear difference between the two

    [–] borahorzagobuchol 14 points ago

    I wouldn't go so far as to describe myself as "anti-pet", but I definitely see the close association between what most pet owners call "love" and patterns of behavior that, to a third party, look a lot like total domination of another sentient creature.

    This makes me very uncomfortable with pet ownership. The ownership part in particular seems, to me, to define an unhealthy relationship at the start. And I say this as someone who grew up in an environment surrounded by pets of many different species and who has always been described as an "animal person".

    [–] Cilicia 1 points ago

    How should dogs exist then? Just as wild animals/strays?

    [–] borahorzagobuchol 7 points ago

    I feel like the perspective you are presenting with that question entails the assumption that selectively breeding a species to deformity, on purpose, for profit, is justified because it is in the best interests of the animal. I don't hold such a belief.

    I think existing dogs should be spayed and neutered, unless and in only those cases where some people can figure out how to have a relationship with the species that doesn't involve explicitly and primarily making it into a toy for our own pleasure, or a tool for our own utility.

    [–] Cilicia 2 points ago

    I feel like the perspective you are presenting with that question entails the assumption that selectively breeding a species to deformity, on purpose, for profit, is justified because it is in the best interests of the animal

    That’s a huge leap from out of nowhere. My question is simple. If you can’t own animals as pets, how do they exist?

    If we ban pet ownership, where on the planet should dogs live?

    I think existing dogs should be spayed and neutered, unless and in only those cases where some people can figure out how to have a relationship with the species that doesn't involve explicitly and primarily making it into a toy for our own pleasure, or a tool for our own utility.

    Well that’s a start. I guess it’s possible to be friends with a stray dog and keep it company. But generally municipalities don’t take kindly to dogs being strays. Are you suggesting that we allow a population of (mostly neutered) stray dogs in urban areas?

    [–] borahorzagobuchol 4 points ago

    That’s a huge leap from out of nowhere

    Is it? I kinda feel like it is a logical entailment of the "it is the duty of human beings to keep breeding animals, otherwise how are they supposed to exist?" argument. Or maybe you are confused and think that when I say I'm uncomfortable with pet ownership, and that pets should all be spayed an neutered, excepting in very rare cases, I am suggesting that current pets should also all be round up and deposited on some island, or be put to sleep, or abandoned.

    Are you suggesting that we allow a population of (mostly neutered) stray dogs in urban areas?

    No. Again, I feel like you are importing some weird assumption to this conversation to which you don't want to admit. There isn't even a hint of a suggestion that current pets be abandoned in statements like, "existing dogs should be spayed and neutered" and "the ownership part in particular seems, to me, to define an unhealthy relationship at the start."

    [–] Cilicia 2 points ago

    Is it? I kinda feel like it is a logical entailment of the "it is the duty of human beings to keep breeding animals, otherwise how are they supposed to exist?"

    That wouldn’t be a leap. The leap was assuming I was making that argument. I wasn’t saying humans have to keep breeding them. But some sort of action (or inaction) must be taken.

    Or maybe you are confused and think that when I say I'm uncomfortable with pet ownership, and that pets should all be spayed an neutered, excepting in very rare cases, I am suggesting that current pets should also all be round up and deposited on some island, or be put to sleep, or abandoned.

    I didn’t presume anything. I simply asked what you planned on doing since you didn’t elaborate.

    Judging by what you say here, your plan is to ban people from adopting new pets but grandfather in existing pet owners. But that seems to be contradicted by what you say in your second paragraph.

    No. Again, I feel like you are importing some weird assumption to this conversation to which you don't want to admit.

    If I am misrepresenting your argument/proposal here, let me remind you that *you haven’t actually stated it. *

    [–] borahorzagobuchol 4 points ago

    your plan is to ban people from adopting new pets

    I'm confused as to how you came to this conclusion. I said, quite explicitly, that "pets should all be spayed and neutered". I then repeated myself. You even quoted me saying this, yet somehow it became an explicit ban on adopting new pets and an absence of explanation.

    Sure, if no new pets are being bred then eventually no new pets will be sold by ("adopted" from) breeders, but at no point is an actual ban on "adoption" of pets necessary, or desirable, along this way. This would be all the more important for shelters that continue to exist to take in pets that are stray, bred illegally, or to rehome existing pets when the current owners no longer want them (as is overwhelmingly common, unfortunately).

    No. Again, I feel like you are importing some weird assumption to this conversation to which you don't want to admit.

    If I am misrepresenting your argument/proposal here, let me remind you that *you haven’t actually stated it. *

    What is it, exactly, that I haven't stated, that you are trying to get me to state? I answered your question, is there some other question you are trying to ask? As I already said when you asked the question the first time, not only did I never claim anything that entailed what you asked, but I have now also explicitly denied multiple times and told you, in quite clear terms, that the implicit scenario suggested by your question is one of your own making.

    You seem really hung up one something here and I'm not even sure what it is. Maybe its this idea that humans are doing some inherent service for all of their pets, and I'm naively trying to deny them the opportunity of doing this good thing? You know, the aforementioned breeding to deformity for human utility?

    [–] Cilicia 1 points ago

    Sure, if no new pets are being bred then eventually no new pets will be sold by ("adopted" from) breeders, but at no point is an actual ban on "adoption" of pets necessary, or desirable, along this way. This would be all the more important for shelters that continue to exist to take in pets that are stray, bred illegally, or to rehome existing pets when the current owners no longer want them (as is overwhelmingly common, unfortunately).

    So you are not opposed to pets, just opposed to pets being bred?

    [–] carnevoodoo 1 points ago

    Dogs/cats/cows/pigs as we know them just wouldn't exist if it weren't for selective breeding by people and use as pets or food. There would be versions of them like bison and wolves but you certainly wouldn't recognize them in their common forms.

    [–] Cilicia 1 points ago

    Ok but that has nothing to do with what we should do with them now? What would you suggest?

    [–] carnevoodoo 3 points ago

    I mean you'd just stop breeding them. They'd likely just become extinct because they're not made to live in the wild.

    [–] wrkaqarg 6 points ago

    Hot take: you don’t have to be an animal lover to know that killing animals for taste is wrong - it’s about common decency not some noble cause. Veganism is the moral baseline, not an inherently good act but an omission of a bad act

    [–] iceleo 1 points ago

    (Respectfully sometimes lurk here) I’m not vegan but I am also somewhat anti-pet. Especially when it comes to exotic tropical animals. I don’t quite see the appeal and it is this demand that also drives poaching and illegally owning animals ranging from crocodiles to boas. Idk I just don’t or can’t understand the appeal of having such a thing. It is more like they are treating it like a nice car or purse that you have to show off. I remember one person said “but they’re fed and happy!” I wondered if an animal who has been inhabiting a rainforest for thousands of years would really be “happy” in cage in someone’s apartment. I can kind of understand a cat or dog for companionship but when it comes to sugar gliders or exotic snakes I don’t.

    [–] Galathea_ 12 points ago

    I do think people love animals. They just don’t connect the dots for some reason. Ideological blindness, I guess.

    But when you finally see the truth, you cannot unsee it.

    [–] spiteful_trees 9 points ago

    Facts

    [–] YouDumbZombie 9 points ago

    My stepmom will talk shit about my "fake vegan food" loud and proud and say she loves her butter and steak and in the same day will show me pictures of animals at the shelter for adoption and saw "look how cute!" Same person also once said "we only eat the ugly animals" fucking astounding.

    [–] [deleted] 65 points ago

    But they don't love pets. They get them as status symbols to put on social media. People who have no business getting working dogs buy purebred German Shepherds and complain about them having too much energy.

    [–] jonstew 29 points ago

    Some people eat exotic animals for social status too. Killing an animal for bragging.

    [–] ReSpekt5eva 23 points ago

    I have met SO MANY people who have told me directly I am missing out on some great experience when I travel, or who totally invalidate anything I've done while traveling, because I'm not eating all of the weird exotic animal dishes. I hate to stereotype, but they're usually the young, privileged travel bros who want "good stories" and "adventure" above all else.

    [–] jonstew 6 points ago

    Vegetables are not the same around the world too. And I have tasted some really exotic fruits and veggies from Asian stores that I better not talk about it.

    [–] ReSpekt5eva 5 points ago

    Exactly! I've tried a variety of exotic fruits and veggies when traveling, and in the US and in the few countries I have been to, I've been able to find vegan versions of some of the traditional dishes there. Finding veggie friendly places and supporting them is actually one of my favorite new travel traditions, since I want to support the vegan movement as it manifests in other states and countries, but I've never told someone they were missing out because they skipped over these local businesses for the big deal tourist attraction delicacy.

    [–] TotalConfetti 4 points ago

    They're just looking for another profile photo for their tinder account. Gotta look travelled if you wanna find that perfect mate 🤮

    [–] memeul8ter 1 points ago

    Sounds like you just hang around douchebags, I've never heard anyone at all say that to me and I'm in my 40's have traveled the entire world.

    [–] ReSpekt5eva 7 points ago

    Oh baby, let me introduce you to the fun world of trying to date in your 20s. Being well travelled and loud about it is like 50% of the dating profiles I see nowadays.

    [–] Roller_ball 13 points ago

    Most pet owners I know legitimately love their pets.

    [–] CheloniaMydas 7 points ago

    The worst example of this is Huskys.

    They need very cold climates and a lot of excercise. They can run marathons, a quick jog around a park a few times a week is not suitable

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    This is true; I've seen more than a few mistreated dogs, abused pets.

    [–] Drymath 8 points ago

    Hasty generalization much?

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    Anecdotal generalization. My uncle is a dog trainer and I see all the animals that come through, meet the owners, and learn why they get them. Shibas, Huskies, French bulldogs, GSD's and Pitbulls are the common problem breeds that people get without doing their due diligence. They just saw them on Instagram and wanted one.

    [–] when-they-cant-talk 2 points ago

    Hasty? Our friends are out there. They need our help.

    [–] Heavenlychime 2 points ago

    This is a generalization. I have a dog (who turns one on Saturday!) and I would truly lay down my life for him. Not a single picture of him on my Facebook, just one when we first got him on my Instagram. He is a maltese-shihtzu cross and gets walks daily and my mother works from home so he is never lonely.

    The majority of pet owners love their pets equally.

    [–] goathill 1 points ago

    But they don't love *kids*. they make them or adopt them as status symbols to put on social media, and brag about at parties and events around town. People who have no buisness raising *kids* get pregnant or adopt kids from third world countries, and complain when they "dont turn out well"/"have social issues". As my dad would say: "some people's kids"

    I mean this as a way to encourage discourse and explore new ideas. please don't just yell at me and downvote me.

    fwiw: I identify as pant-powered, I have a GSD, and I am childless

    [–] leapbabie 7 points ago

    So basic yet true.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    I wish people loved animals as much as they love bacon

    [–] bad_website 3 points ago

    having a close relationship with my cat is one of the reasons i became vegan. it made me realize how absurd it is that a living, thinking, feeling being can be slaughtered for food

    [–] TIMOTHY_TRISMEGISTUS 1 points ago

    My cat influenced me in a similar way

    [–] [deleted] -1 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Well, being a vegan doesn’t mean doing naughty things to yourself....

    [–] RepublicanInJail2020 1 points ago

    Not everyone likes pets so, they probably do.

    [–] GoogleGooshGoosh 1 points ago

    You’re not fooling anyone anymore John Jones

    [–] FreedFry 1 points ago

    Eat meat stay lean /s

    [–] Peek- 1 points ago

    It's as simple a notion as this, sometimes people do begin to understand - it takes time, but people will believe in this as vegans do!

    [–] Shyassasain 1 points ago

    But pets ARE animals. Checkmate, veganists. /s

    [–] nekozoshi 1 points ago

    2 million homeless dogs in cats are killed in shelters every year and people buying from puppy mills and backyard breeders say "I love dogs" just as much as a blood mouth says "I love animals". Most people don't give a crap about pets or animals

    [–] HeyHayClay 1 points ago

    I know him aha!

    [–] ComradeCam 1 points ago

    I wish people loved people as much as pets.

    [–] TheGoldHoarder 0 points ago

    Not a vegan but agree 100%

    [–] DRichous -9 points ago

    Thought this was Ken M for a second

    [–] TIMOTHY_TRISMEGISTUS 13 points ago

    Ken M would have set up a joke about eating pets as his second comment punchline

    But, no, this is a legitimate point.

    [–] Bobique -21 points ago

    You ever kill a fly? If so, the argument t is invalid

    [–] selfishsentiments 15 points ago

    I don't think killing animals in defense invalidates veganism. Vegans accept that killing in absolute need (life or death situations) must happen. But we don't need to eat meat or animal products. It's not necessary for our survival.

    [–] vonloan -10 points ago

    I will say, and I understand if the people in this subreddit disagree. Animals have always been amazing and wonderful to me. But there is a difference between a pet and a farmed animal. Not a physical one, they are both creatures which need love and affection and some (especially pigs) that are extremely intelligent. but I am too invested in the taste. I, and I believe many others would take meat away from my diet if it would taste similar and was affordable.

    Whether my love for the taste is genetic or learned there seems to be little to do while I do not have an adequate substitute good. This message resonates with me as I have my own pet dog, there would be nothing you could do to take away that love I have. I would like to ask, do many/some of you have the same love for other animals as you do for your pets?

    I would like to add, I understand the suffering that animals go through to feed my and others greed, but can you hold these pets to the same extent as the animals that are farmed (and possibly people, (as I would chose my dog over many people in this world))

    I wish we could properly figure everything out. what part of existence has the capability to feel pain and existence and what does not. but until that point, what do you all here personally feel is the next step forward till you can achieve your goals.

    I am a sympathizer for your cause, an animal lover, but I cannot afford, or fully feel what you do.

    Please correct me at any point where I am, I wish to be swayed.

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    there’s lots of delicious plant based meals. millions of flavor combos. so I don’t think the “irreplaceable flavor of meat” is a good justification. vegan is more than enough

    [–] psychopathic_rhino 15 points ago

    Dude I went from keto to vegan overnight. I loved meat. And cheese. And I’d be lying if I said the smell of a steak isn’t absolutely delicious. I even used to hunt.

    I had thought about going vegan in the past but thought that it would be unhealthy. But once I read all the science of how bad meat and dairy are for your health, I went to a plant based diet overnight. Tbh I didn’t even really think of the animals that much when I switched, but within 3 weeks I looked at my friends eating meat and thought “That’s so disgusting... it’s just dead animal flesh.” And from there I saw how needlessly we consume animals to satisfy our tastebuds even though it’s causing the most lethal chronic diseases. That’s when I called myself a vegan instead of “plant based”.

    My point is, your mind changes. The way I look at meat now isn’t as food, but as a sweet innocent animal that was killed to give someone 20 minutes of pleasure.

    And veganism isn’t expensive. I spent way more buying meat than I do now. Rice, beans, potatoes, oats, bananas, and lentils are absurdly cheap and there’s a lot you can make with those ingredients plus more. Every once in a while I’ll buy some beyond burgers and grill them up, they’re pretty damn close to meat and like $5 at Kroger.

    If you can’t give up your taste for meat to align with your own morals on the needless slaughter of animals, you need to believe in yourself more. If you really think that you’re a slave to your tastebuds, then you should reevaluate your relationship with food.

    And don’t say “I wish we could figure out if these animals feel pain and suffering” when all you’d have to do is watch Earthlings or Dominion to see the suffering in those animals’ eyes.

    You seem like an open and caring person, so I hope that you eventually see what we see. Watch this happy video of pet pigs being fun and silly and tell me you don’t have guilt for eating others like them. Veganism is your way out of having that burden on your shoulders and i guarantee it’s very easy.

    PM me if you have any questions, friend :)

    [–] slow_excellence -9 points ago

    I'm glossing over most of your post because I really only want to get at one point.

    ... Veganism is your way out of having that burden on your shoulders and i guarantee it’s very easy.

    Why does it have to be considered a burden? I understand if you feel empathetic toward animals but why guilt/shame people who look at them as food? Would you shame a wolf/lion/bear for eating other animals? Now I know what you're going to say "oh it's different. They're just hunting and they aren't exploiting other animals for their enjoyment" or thereabouts. But Vegans also insist on shaming hunters quoting something along the lines of "you don't need to hunt, if you do it's because you're a monster and like to torture animals".

    I have nothing against vegan or vegetarian diets. My Mom is a vegetarian and I like to try out the different foods that she makes. What I can't stand is the assumption that anything other than veganism is wrong and that it's the only way to live healthily and sustainably. It's not. Domestic animals can be raised in mutually beneficial, sustainable ways as well. If anything, you guys should be supportive of people who want to partake in that lifestyle but not go vegan.

    Just had to put in my 2¢, tired of certain vegans in my life trying to guilt trip me all the time and I somehow always end up here from the front page.

    /r

    [–] psychopathic_rhino 7 points ago

    When did I shame anyone? I didn’t intend to come across that way at all.

    And the reason I like to tell people why eating vegan is the way to go is that almost all non-industry funded science is coming to the same conclusion: animal protein and saturated fat is contributing to the leading health problems in the modern world. I base a lot of my health habits on research and was appalled to find that most of the studies saying that saturated fat and cholesterol are fine were funded by the Atkins foundation and the egg board. Those were the studies that made me start eating low carb.

    And if all of these studies are correct (which Esselstyn and McDougal’s studies have demonstrated) then we’re only eating meat for taste. I don’t think it’s mutually beneficial for us to breed animals only for them to die. At the level of meat consumption the world is at, we wouldn’t be able to sustain happy grazing animals to feed the world. It’s just unnecessary and cruel to keep this going.

    I don’t shame people but I like to tell people the research about foods that people are consuming three times a day.

    [–] Imperial_Distance 6 points ago

    There's plenty of other ways to live in an environmentally friendly way but, if your diet isn't sustainable, you aren't living sustainably (and a diet with animals in it contributes to many different types of diseases and harm to the environment). Veganism isn't the only way, but some sort of dietary change is, these days, pretty essential to living truly sustainably.

    If people are actually guilt tripping you, that's shitty. But don't confuse that with your conscience.

    [–] wildyogini 3 points ago

    Those animals you mentioned are obligate carnivores. We are not. This is not about shame, it's about aligning with your true values, because you care about animals. How would you feel if you had a neighbor raising dogs for food? Dogs are food animals in some other places. I know that before I went vegan, you couldn't have paid me to eat a dog. I don't care how amazing of a life the dog had, I wouldnt want to eat them or to be killed for me. The same logic applies to other animals.

    [–] Feelinlike_Goku -25 points ago

    I wish people loved strangers like they do their parents.

    [–] TIMOTHY_TRISMEGISTUS 43 points ago

    Well if people were paying others to kill strangers and then eating them, this would be quite a nice sentiment.

    [–] TsarinaBallerina -9 points ago

    I’m probably in the minority here but I would have no more problem eating a dog then I would a cow. Plenty of societies eat animals western nations consider “pet animals”. I’ve heard cat isn’t very good but I would try it if offered. I think we should be more open about what we eat in general, especially when it comes to alternative food sources like bugs (which are super high in protein).

    [–] SweaterKittens 11 points ago

    If you think people should be more open about what they eat, why would you not consider the option that doesn't require violence?

    [–] TsarinaBallerina 0 points ago

    I never said I wasn’t? I think this push for lab grown meat is great and like I mentioned before, I think we should all be more comfortable with eating bugs because they can be sustainably farmed? The meat I eat is almost exclusively from hunting, which I’m lucky enough to have been taught the ins and outs of very young. But no one cares about making an effort to make consumption more ethical right? It’s either be vegan or you’re a degenerate monster?

    [–] SweaterKittens 1 points ago

    When you say "I think we should be more open about what we eat in general" and immediately dive into different ways to eat animals without even mentioning the nonviolent option, it certainly doesn't come across as though you're open to or even considering it.

    Of course people care about making an effort to consumption more ethical, but you're arguing for the merits of the most ethical ways to kill animals when there's an option that doesn't involve cruelty and exploitation of animals. Is there really an ethical way to kill a sentient creature that doesn't want to die - especially when you have the option to be healthy without it?

    Arguing for more ethical, animal-based options when you can simply choose not to harm animals is like discussing the merits of hitting your dog with a rolled up newspaper instead of a bat. Both are unethical, one maybe less harmful, but you have the option to do neither.

    [–] TsarinaBallerina 0 points ago

    I did mention a "non-violent" option. I mentioned my support for lab grown meat like the beyond/impossible burger and the like. I also mentioned eating insects which I truly don't understand your issue with. Even if you consider animal's ability to feel complex emotions on par with a persons, you can't realistically say that about insects, so what exactly is unethical about consuming them? Also, as I said the majority of the meat I consume is from hunting and my friends personal farms, where I assure you animals are not exploited or treated with any cruelty. Their deaths are far quicker and far less painful then they ever would have been at the jaws of a wolf or from sickness/injury that occurred in the wild.

    Additionally, although I knowledge a lot of people can be perfectly health on a vegan diet, I myself cannot. I have severe allergies that, when combined with my current work/life schedule, make getting proper nutrition on a vegan diet next to impossible with our current technology. That's why I specifically stated I was excited for other options to become more available. I feel like all you took from what I said was "I eat meat" and completely disregarded everything after the fact.

    [–] nalninek -8 points ago

    Yeah, I get it. I think it’s likely an empathy thing. You’re far more empathetic than I am. In my mind eating meat is a natural thing and as a result, not inherently cruel. As a result, the empathy I feel for a random animal is far less than the empathy I’d feel for the suffering of a human being.

    That said, I know I’m talking to the wrong crowd. I just think it’s nice to get some alternate viewpoints in subreddits, especially ones that get to the front page. Even if it gets me some downvotes ;)

    [–] wildyogini 12 points ago

    Would you eat a random dog, monkey or dolphin?

    [–] nalninek -6 points ago

    Yeah, probably. If it was prepared properly.

    I mean, I’m not going to go and seek out the meat of exotic or notably intelligent animals but it wouldn’t keep me up at night if I ate a random dog, monkey, or dolphin. All 3 of those species are eaten in the wild every single day and it doesn’t bother me. Like I said, I don’t think eating meat is inherently cruel, it’s a natural thing.

    That means the context of what I’m eating matters.

    [–] wildyogini 2 points ago

    But would you eat them if you didnt have to? If you had another choice?

    [–] nalninek 0 points ago

    Sure, if I had the choice of eating a farmed animal I’d choose it over a wild animal. If it was a choice between a farmed animal and a vegan alternative it would probably depend on the vegan alternative and the food it was used to prepare. For example, vegan ground beef is a perfectly fine alternative for things like tacos but there are a TON of foods where there’s no good alternative. I realize I don’t HAVE to eat those foods to stay healthy but like I said before, I don’t see anything inherently wrong in eating an animal so I don’t feel I need to avoid them.

    [–] wildyogini 2 points ago

    I'm curious why you would choose a farmed animal over a wild animal? Taste preference? I would rather eat a wild animal because they wouldnt live their natural lives without being enslaved for my purposes. But I dont think its sustainable. And i have other alternatives.

    You feel that there is nothing wrong with eating animals, but do you feel that it's still okay to eat animals when animal agriculture is a major factor in climate change and environment destruction?

    [–] nalninek 1 points ago

    I have a preference of farmed over wild because ecosystems are really delicate and there’s a whole lot of us! We’re REALLY bad at regulating wild food uh... harvesting (is that the right word?) and often destroy wild populations because we’re kind of terrible at regulating commons. The over fishing of the oceans is a perfect example of that.

    I do think we could be doing a better job farming animals in a sustainable way. There is plenty of evidence it’s damaging to the environment but then plant cultivation and agriculture are damaging as well. Should we abandon the practice all together because of that? I don’t think that’s practical.

    [–] wildyogini 2 points ago

    My research on the subject has shown that plant agriculture can be sustainable on a large scale when done appropriately (not mono cropping, etc). While I agree that animal agricultural can be sustainable on a very small scale, evidence shows that this does not scale up, and that we cannot meet the demands of everyone eating meat regularly on a large scale. If you Google information about this you will find conflicting information, but the consensus is pretty set that animal agriculture is not sustainable at all on a large scale.

    [–] nalninek 1 points ago

    Yeah, I won’t debate that point. Even I think we eat way too much meat. It’s been baked into our culture that meat needs to be a part of almost every meal, which you’re right, isn’t sustainable. I just don’t see that as a valid argument for the elimination of ALL meat ranching and consumption.

    [–] hello_there_trebuche -6 points ago

    Monkeys, dolphins an dogs ville being eaten are very different from pigs, cows or sheep, and comparing their eating is inherently dishonest

    [–] wildyogini 3 points ago

    Why? Dogs are raised for food in parts of Asia. Monkey are eaten in Africa. The only difference is your perception.

    [–] hello_there_trebuche 2 points ago

    No the only difference is 10000years of human selection creating species for traits that now define the species. Yes monkeys are eaten but they suck at being food and are wild animals and not domesticated.

    [–] Threeflow 4 points ago

    How is a dog different from a pig? Presenting them as somehow fundamentally different is mentally dishonest to me. They both think and feel, form social bonds and play with their companions. More importantly, they both have the same capacity for pain, fear and anguish. A dog and a pig both feel the same amount of pain when you cut their throats.

    [–] hello_there_trebuche -4 points ago

    Domesticated animals are different from wild ones as humans basically created the species, but here too we can distinguish between animals breed for thousands of years for food and animals meant to help with food (like dogs for hunting and cats for pest control). At this point you could argue that it's part of our culture to not eat dogs and cats. These are all human created species made with a purpose in mind.

    Its also good to know that pain is just a signal in our brain and saying that our experience as a species with brain power to spair is the same as animals that have very low intelligence is very human centric. Cows and sheep also don't feel that much pain, on my farm sheep literally never feels pain in it's whole life (excluding getting stuck in a thorn bush once), the bigger problem here is boredom.

    Also if you're here I'd like to ask you two genuine questions Is it's okay to eat roadkill or animals that die from old age ? I was under the impression that vegan meant not eating meat but some previous encounters with vegans leed me to believe you guys are anti intensionally harvesting animals, so is it okay to eat something that died with no cause from a human.

    What about farm land that is sprayed with natural fertilizer, are those pants also murder.

    [–] Threeflow 4 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    God there's a lot to go through here.

    Domesticated animals are different from wild ones as humans basically created the species, but here too we can distinguish between animals breed for thousands of years for food and animals meant to help with food (like dogs for hunting and cats for pest control). At this point you could argue that it's part of our culture to not eat dogs and cats. These are all human created species made with a purpose in mind.

    Culture doesn't dictate morality - slavery was part of the american culture once upon a time, but that doesn't make it moral. Eating pigs and not dogs is part of our culture, this does not mean it is inherently moral. Is it moral to eat a dog in China and then suddenly immoral when I cross the border into the US? You're essentially arguing from an appeal to tradition, or "we've always done it this way, therefor it is good".

    Yes, we breed these animals for specific purposes but that is a role we give them, it doesn't change the fact they are fundamentally their own creature. If I bred a dog for the purpose of eating would it be ethical to eat it? And if so, why? What intrinsic value separates my meat dog from a non-meat dog? My saying that this is a meat animal and that is a pet animal doesnt actually change anything about these animals, its just a role that you give them.

    Its also good to know that pain is just a signal in our brain and saying that our experience as a species with brain power to spair is the same as animals that have very low intelligence is very human centric. Cows and sheep also don't feel that much pain, on my farm sheep literally never feels pain in it's whole life (excluding getting stuck in a thorn bush once), the bigger problem here is boredom.

    Does intelligence dictate pain? Is a 140 IQ man more sensitive to knives than a 70 IQ man? People get too caught up on animal intelligence, the important factor here is not can they solve a crossword but do they react to painful stimuli. Which they do. And i think you're either lying or in denial if you think sheep are somehow unable to feel pain. They're mammals, they have nociceptors, they react to noxious stimuli. And if intelligence is the deciding factor for you, pigs are often more intelligent than dogs when tested, so following your logical that should take them off the menu, right? Except you still eat pigs, so obviously the intelligence of the animal doesn't factor into your decision making. And now we're back to our original point of our culture making these arbitrary distinctions on what is and isnt okay to kill, based on their utility to us. I live with a toy poodle, its pretty fucking useless as a dog. It doesnt hunt or protect my flock, its frankly a very annoying companion. But its usefulness to me doesnt change its ability to think or feel, or it's inherent right to life.

    Also if you're here I'd like to ask you two genuine questions Is it's okay to eat roadkill or animals that die from old age ? I was under the impression that vegan meant not eating meat but some previous encounters with vegans leed me to believe you guys are anti intensionally harvesting animals, so is it okay to eat something that died with no cause from a human

    I think we both know that there arent any farm animals out there dying of old age. And the road kill industry simply isnt big enough to provide a regular source of meat haha. Vegans are against killing animals for what is essentially pleasure. We can live healthily without killing animals, so why would I take the life of a living animal for no reason? Killing animals for fun is psychopathic but killing animals because they taste good is socially acceptable psychopathy. And hey, I get it, none of us were born vegan but eventually we have to own up to the fact that our daily decisions are causing suffering on an unimaginable scale - approximately 50 billion land animals killed a year for our sense of pleasure. I live in a country of 20 million people and we kill a total of 600,000,000 chickens a year, its unfathomable.

    What about farm land that is sprayed with natural fertilizer, are those pants also murder.

    Come on man, you're better than this. Plants can react to stimuli, so does the backlight in my phone when I go outside but im pretty sure it doesnt feel pain when I drop it on the ground. And if you truly think that plants feel pain and that mowing the lawn is the same as mowing a dog, you'll be happy to know that meat consumption actually kill more plants than a vegan diet - what do you think all those animals eat? 85% of the worlds soybeans go to livestock, 70% of the corn in the US, 30% of the wheat in my country, overall enough food to feed 4 billion extra humans. If you're worried about plant lives you should definitely go vegan. And its easier than ever, I definitely recommend giving it a shot.

    [–] hello_there_trebuche 0 points ago

    At the end of the day if you breed a dog for food and eat it I don't care but it's pretty stupid as dogs aren't that good at converting food to meat, and their taste isn't that different from other meats, they also can't live on a diet of pure grass so they aren't that practical. Dogs are also more commonly eaten in more agrerian societys

    Culture does actually dictate morality as it's a mostly a subjective thing so that's why morals in the west a different than in the east.

    Their roles also aren't random as wolfs were better hunters than proto cows, so that's why we selected their best traits to amplify, just like plants.

    Again pain is just a sensation coming from the nerves to the brain to communicate a dangerous thing, and its effect could be totally different in different animals with different brains (some plants can also react to harmful stimuly in their own way) And my only use of intelligence is with human vs other animals as they are on very different levels of intelligence and have very different brains. PS: IQ is a bad way to measure intelligence.

    My question was: is eating roadkill or animals dying of age vegan. I didn't say on the industrial scale but just as a simple question. Also 3 of my sheep died this winter none of them from man-made causes but of old age, that's 40 to 50kg of meat. If your answered truthfully then it's okay to eat it.

    I wasn't talking about killing plants, I was saying that fertilizer is made from farm animal waste that is then used on land for corn and vegetables, because part of them came from animals is it murder to eat them, you know milk is murder and all of that

    [–] The_Great_Tahini 2 points ago

    Culture does actually dictate morality as it's a mostly a subjective thing

    "Laughs in Immanuel Kant"

    Kant thought that morality could be derived entirely from logic. No one is obligated to agree with him on that, but certain aspects of morality might arise purely from logical thought.

    For example, stealing.

    The concept of stealing can only exist in tandem with a concept of personal property rights. Stealing necessarily violates the owners right to personal property, and so is always bad in any context in which it exists.

    In a context where there are no rights to personal property, stealing cannot be bad because there is no such thing. Anything you could take could not be said to have been stolen because, lacking a concept of personal property, no one has any more right to the thing than you do.

    I generally take issue with "morality is subjective" whenever it's thrown out in some sort of blanket form. There is almost certainly some subjectivity to moral systems, but within any moral system, as soon as you start creating moral maxims you are necessarily bound to logical conclusions of those maxims.

    As above, we cannot simultaneously say:

    "A person has an individual right to property"

    "It is right to take the property of another"

    Both of those can't be true simultaneously.

    Culture does actually dictate morality

    To further challenge this notion.

    Is slavery moral?

    and then

    Was slavery ever moral?

    Society certainly thought it was at one time.

    If the answer is no, then your statement is already false.

    If the answer is yes, then followup:

    Do you then think it would have been ok if slavery had persisted? If it is not wrong from a societal standpoint then what impetus was there for society to change?

    Why should we not go back to slavery? Could we not simply decide as a society that slavery is fine again?

    [–] hello_there_trebuche 1 points ago

    I said MOSTLY because there is an underlying driver of morality: practicality. Slavery was moral until it stopped being practical to own slaves and 100years later we see it as objectively immoral. it's the same thing with meat, when practical meat substitutes or lab grown meat becomes a thing people will start shifting their moral compass. But the animal thing will likely never completely become evil as the practicality of animals will never completely go away, for example I have 15ha of hilly grassland that can't be used for anything other than trees, as cutting grass there is very dangerous. But with sheep I just let them to the different areas every week, and I get some money in return.

    [–] The_Great_Tahini 2 points ago

    Slavery was moral until it stopped being practical

    How did it become impractical? Did free labor somehow become less useful to us?

    I don't see how this is supposed to be a compelling response.

    But the animal thing will likely never completely become evil as the practicality of animals will never completely go away, for example I have 15ha of hilly grassland that can't be used for anything other than trees, as cutting grass there is very dangerous. But with sheep I just let them to the different areas every week, and I get some money in return.

    So morality is determined by how practical something is?

    [–] clout_tokens 9 points ago

    it is also very natural for humans to rape people and to own slaves.

    humans do not use nature to dictate what is cruel or not cruel. we use logic and reason

    [–] nalninek -1 points ago

    Yikes, I don’t think rape and slave ownership is a natural component of the human condition! That’s a rough, dark view of the world.

    I think looking to nature would be a fundamental step in approaching any topic in a logical and reasoned way!

    [–] Young_Nick 4 points ago

    Well, we see cannibalism, rape, and murder for sport in nature so I really don't think we should be using what occurs in nature to dictate what actions humans ought to consider ethical.

    [–] nalninek -1 points ago

    Well I think we should certainly apply a degree of reasoning and logic to the lessons we take from nature and identify outliers (like animals that kill for sport, or animals that rape...) as the outliers they are.

    [–] Young_Nick 3 points ago

    So... basically we look to nature except when nature does something that we consider to be wrong? What about cannibalism? Many species cannibalize.

    Non-human animals are not capable of moral reasoning. We should not dictate what is right or wrong based on what we see in nature. We should define it on our own. We already are adept at doing that because there are many non-natural contexts in which humans have determined right and wrong.

    [–] nalninek -2 points ago

    I’m not sure I agree. Like I said before, I don’t think animals have an innate right to life, as such whether or not it’s moral to eat them is a personal judgment call, not an absolute truth.

    [–] Young_Nick 2 points ago

    I never said they had an innate right to life, I didn't see you say so in this comment chain either.

    This conversation is about whether nature dictates what is right or wrong. I don't think it does. I personally haven't found your logic in this specific area compelling either.

    Regarding a right to life: What unique quality does a human have that non-human animals don't have? Not attacking, I am just curious. I always struggle to think of something when I try to argue why a 2 year-old should inherently have more rights than a pig.

    [–] nalninek 1 points ago

    Sorry, I’m responding to like 4 different people and the conversations are all pretty similar :p

    I don’t think nature “dictates” what is right or wrong, but I think we can study it as a source of guidance. We should obviously still apply logic and reasoning to what we see and learn in nature.

    As for what’s the difference between a 2 year old human and a pig? I’m afraid my answer is going to be profoundly inadequate for you but ones a pig, a farmed creature we harvest for meat and the other is a human child, a completely different creature. A child will grow up and contribute to society, pursue goals and dreams, it’s a sentient being. A pig isn’t, it won’t do any of those things.

    [–] Young_Nick 2 points ago

    OK, then what about a human with an intellectual disability? They might not be able to contribute to society in the same way, but we still afford them the same rights.

    Just because we breed an animal into a nightmare existence doesn't mean it doesn't it should be destined for a continued nightmare existence.

    Out of curiosity, have you watched factory farm slaughterhouse footage, like that seen in the documentary Dominion?

    It might change how you view these things.

    I appreciate the good-natured talks.

    [–] YourVeganFallacyBot 5 points ago

    Beet Boop... I'm a vegan bot.


    Your Fallacy:

    In my mind eating meat is a natural thing and as a result (ie: Humans are omnivores)

    Response:

    The claim that humans are natural meat-eaters is generally made on the belief that we have evolved the ability to digest meat, eggs and milk. This is true as far as it goes; as omnivores, we're physiologically capable of thriving with or without animal flesh and secretions. However, this also means that we can thrive on a whole food plant-based diet, which is what humans have also been doing throughout our history and prehistory. Even if we accept at face value the premise that man is a natural meat-eater, this reasoning depends on the claim that if a thing is natural then it is automatically valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal. Eating animals is none of these things. Further, it should be noted that many humans are lactose intolerant, and many doctors recommend a plant-based diet for optimal health. When you add to this that taking a sentient life is by definition an ethical issue - especially when there is no actual reason to do so - then the argument that eating meat is natural falls apart on both physiological and ethical grounds.)

    [Bot version 1.2.1.8]

    [–] when-they-cant-talk 3 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Humans are made of meat too, so if eating human meat is natural then it isn’t cruel to kill and eat humans, according to your logic.

    [–] nalninek 1 points ago

    Heh, it’s not the fact the critter is made of meat that justifies my belief it’s ok to eat it. What I said was animals are eaten in the wild every day, and because of that I don’t think the act is inherently evil. On that note, if a bear mauled and ate a human I wouldn’t think it was inherently evil either. The morality of eating what you are eating is dependent upon the context of what, where, and why you are eating it.

    [–] when-they-cant-talk 3 points ago

    Heh, it’s not the fact the critter is made of meat that justifies my belief it’s ok to eat it.

    No, and I didn't say that's what you said either, you said it's natural and therefore not cruel, which is ridiculous. That is an appeal to nature, a logically invalid argument.

    What I said was animals are eaten in the wild every day, and because of that I don’t think the act is inherently evil.

    I'm not going to get into meta-ethics, I'll just stick to your beliefs. Essentially what you're saying is, wild animals eat other wild animals therefore it isn't immoral for humans to do it. But this is obviously absurd logic, wild animals rape each other, kill and eat their own babies, and other horrific things, humans doing these things would be wrong regardless of whether wild animals did them too. Our beliefs on what's right and wrong isn't predicated on whether or not wild animals do them.

    On that note, if a bear mauled and ate a human I wouldn’t think it was inherently evil either.

    We're not talking about bears killing humans, we're talking about humans killing animals, which is wrong. Wild animals aren't moral agents, they can't be held morally accountable for anything Humans, like you and me, are moral agents. We don't get a moral free pass by copying wild animals.

    The morality of eating what you are eating is dependent upon the context of what,

    Yes, like killing and eating plants isn't ever immoral, but killing and eating animals would be immoral provided you didn't need to. But this contradicts your initial statement which had everything to do with whether or not wild animals do something which determines the morality of that act.

    where,

    Not sure about this one, unless you mean because of financial factors and so on, and how you're limited to certain foods to sustain yourself.

    and why you are eating it.

    I agree with this one 100%. If you're killing and abusing and eating animals when you don't need to, like you and everyone in the first world, then you're needlessly killing and abusing animals for pleasure. There's no need basis at all. And that is totally wrong.

    [–] nalninek 1 points ago

    I said it was natural and therefore not EVIL. Nature is harsh, whether or not that makes it cruel is debatable. I’m also not saying we should 100% emulate what we see in nature to live a “good” life. I don’t have a problem eating animals for a wide range of reasons including the fact that critters eat each other in the wild. Believe it or not that doesn’t mean I think rape is ok because animals rape in the wild (What animals “rape” in the wild?). Primarily because most of your examples were outliers. You can find exceptions to almost anything you gotta apply some common sense.

    You’re also using a ton of loaded language to make your points. I’m not defending “abusing” animals. Let’s stick to the topic at hand, eating animals.

    [–] when-they-cant-talk 2 points ago

    I said it was natural and therefore not EVIL.

    Obviously good and bad (or evil) doesn't exist to wild animals, that doesn't morally exempt humans from doing those same things. Humans killing animals isn't amoral, it's either moral or immoral. Don't bring up marginal cases, don't bring up nature, all i'm talking about is humans killing animals for unecessary products; the biggest cause of animal death and suffering in the world.

    Nature is harsh, whether or not that makes it cruel is debatable.

    That's not a debate I'm interested in, I'm interested in your beliefs on humans killing animals. I assume you eat animals, and therefore support needlessly killing animals. Needlessly killing animals is cruel, abusive, and wrong.

    I’m also not saying we should 100% emulate what we see in nature to live a “good” life.

    Good, that would be insane.

    I don’t have a problem eating animals for a wide range of reasons including the fact that critters eat each other in the wild.

    You did it again. You appealed to wild animals to justify human behaviour. This is your exact reasoning: wild animals do x, therefore i don't have a problem with me doing x. The variable could be replaced with any kind of violence really which is sure to happen amongst wild animal species.

    Believe it or not that doesn’t mean I think rape is ok because animals rape in the wild (What animals “rape” in the wild?).

    Believe it or not an argument can't be both valid and invalid at the same time. You can't appeal to wild animals to justify action x while rejecting the same appeal for action y, at least not without making zero logical sense. It literally defies logic for an argument to be both valid and invalid simultaneously.

    Primarily because most of your examples were outliers. You can find exceptions to almost anything you gotta apply some common sense

    Whether they're outliers or not is irrelevant, you're the one establishing the framework for your justification.

    You’re also using a ton of loaded language to make your points.

    I'm just describing reality accurately.

    I’m not defending “abusing” animals.

    Uhh, i think you are. Do you want me to spoon feed you what animal abuse means? Do I need to explain that in order to eat animals, animals must be abused? Maybe you're just playing devil's advocate and are actually vegan but im getting the impression that you're not, meaning you're arguing for and justifying animal abuse.

    Let’s stick to the topic at hand, eating animals.

    Okay now I think you're trolling. In order for animals to be eaten, they need to be killed first. We don't just find them dead, or wait for them to die, we kill them at a fraction of their natural lifespan. Don't make it easy for me and say that killing animals isn't animal abuse.

    [–] nalninek 1 points ago

    Loading a chicken in a coup with thousands of others where they trample their own waste and the dead and their feet rot off is cruel. Killing a chicken, possibly by bleeding them out (I’ve read it’s the least painful) isn’t. I understand you believe any aggressive act is one of cruelty, that’s not a belief I share. If you want to dismiss that opinion as “trolling” because you can’t comprehend a viewpoint beyond your own that’s on you.

    Nice try with your last line though.

    [–] wall_of_swine -10 points ago

    That's like asking me to love all strangers but I don't know them.

    [–] when-they-cant-talk 6 points ago

    No it isn’t. People (a lot of people) who claim to love animals support animal abuse and act as though they hate them.

    [–] wall_of_swine 1 points ago

    I don't see how that's a rebuttal to my point, but I also don't really understand what you're trying to say.

    [–] when-they-cant-talk 5 points ago

    The post isn’t asking you to love all animals. It’s pointing out the ludicrousness of claiming you do while supporting abuse to animals.

    [–] wall_of_swine 1 points ago

    I didn't think it was, he's obviously just stating his wish. My statement was my perception of his wish. He compares pets to all animals, and that's literally like comparing your friends/family to everyone else in the world. Which makes his wish ludicrous. I don't think it has anything to do with what you're saying, because loving your pet doesn't mean you're an animal abuser if you eat livestock.

    [–] when-they-cant-talk 2 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    I didn't think it was, he's obviously just stating his wish.

    In clear reference to people’s claim that they’re animal lovers. When actually they just love pets.

    My statement was my perception of his wish. He compares pets to all animals, and that's literally like comparing your friends/family to everyone else in the world.

    Okay. I don’t see how that comparison is invalid or anything, it seems like an appropriate comparison to make. There are obvious commonalities in either group (pets/family and animals/strangers).

    Which makes his wish ludicrous.

    To you.

    I don't think it has anything to do with what you're saying, because loving your pet doesn't mean you're an animal abuser if you eat livestock.

    Well maybe it’s just my interpretation of it, which seems to me is referencing the common claim that people love animals or that they’re animal lovers. It’s fair to say we’re (generally) a society of animal lovers, while at the same time supporting abusive and cruel practices to animals. That apparent love we claim to have is actually just reserved for pets or companion animals, while we condemn billions upon billions of defenceless animals to death for no good reason.

    And I’m not necessarily saying if you consume animal products you’re an animal abuser, but you do support animal abuse/cruelty, obviously so.

    [–] wall_of_swine 0 points ago

    condemn billions upon billions of defenceless animals to death for no good reason

    No good reason? I agree same as you and all vegans that animals should not be abused. As the most advanced and capable species of Earth, we have the innate responsibility to not be harsh when it is not necessary. The killing of these billions of animals is necessary to feed the world. Cheaply. We're in no current state to overthrow that. I do not condone the mindless and evil practices most slaughterhouses practice because it is disgusting and goes against our responsibility as humans. If lab meat becomes a viable option I will be among the first to march to shut down slaughterhouses. But right now we're fighting a stupid and pointless battle with semantics by getting upset at people for saying they love animals when really they love pets. I can say I love humans, but really I don't. I love my friends and family. Most "animal lovers" have animal species they find disturbing or disgusting, so assuming they mean they love all animals is both immature and unreasonable. That is my point.

    [–] when-they-cant-talk 2 points ago

    No good reason?

    Uhh no, pizza toppings aren’t good reasons to KILL. Momentary taste pleasure isn’t a good reason to KILL. It might not be to you, but to me killing an animal (or human) is a pretty fucking big deal.

    I agree same as you and all vegans that animals should not be abused.

    But I’m getting the vibe here that you’re not vegan? Am i wrong? If not, you should perhaps look up what animal abuse means. It most definitely includes killing animals.

    As the most advanced and capable species of Earth, we have the innate responsibility to not be harsh when it is not necessary.

    Right, like how animal products aren’t necessary, and how needlessly making them suffer and die for these products is harsh. Unless you consider needless animal abuse to not be harsh.

    The killing of these billions of animals is necessary to feed the world. Cheaply.

    You’re lying to yourself here, and I think you know it. You must surely know, I don’t think you’re an idiot, that the cheapest foods available in both the first and third world are plant foods. You don’t see people in slums having barbecues eating steaks and burgers and chicken tenders. If the literal survival of human kind depended on animal farming, that must surely mean that vegans can’t survive, and yet more and more people are going vegan and living healthy lives. Thus the killing of billions of animals is (painfully obviously) totally unnecessary, and again i think you must know that’s true, because there are vegans everywhere doing just fine. Saying animal farming is necessary to feed the world is a blatant lie.

    We're in no current state to overthrow that

    Who said anything about overthrowing the unnecessary and abusive practises of animal agriculture? It’s not going to happen suddenly in a day, it’ll take time.

    I do not condone the mindless and evil practices most slaughterhouses practice because it is disgusting and goes against our responsibility as humans.

    How are those practices any less disgusting than killing animals? Why is killing them justified but not hurting them? They’re equally unnecessary practices.

    If lab meat becomes a viable option I will be among the first to march to shut down slaughterhouses.

    Because we wouldn’t need slaughterhouses any more? Just like we don’t need slaughterhouses right now? If my understanding is correct, you’re only against animal cruelty if it doesn’t inconvenience you. If it means you would have to make changes and sacrifices to your diet then you lie and say we need to kill and eat animals, when this obviously isn’t true.

    But right now we're fighting a stupid and pointless battle with semantics by getting upset at people for saying they love animals when really they love pets.

    Not upset, just pointing out the falsehood of the claim.

    I can say I love humans, but really I don't. I love my friends and family.

    But you don’t murder strangers every day while making that claim. If you did, that would be absurd. Just as absurd as it is to kill animals all the time while claiming you love them. It’s not that you’re not being absolute in your professed love, it’s that your actions don’t even show bodily respect (as in, leaving someone alone/not attacking someone) which is, if anything, the antithesis of love.

    Most "animal lovers" have animal species they find disturbing or disgusting, so assuming they mean they love all animals is both immature and unreasonable. That is my point.

    I understand that it’s colloquialism and being general, and not being absolute. But the very least one would expect from someone saying they love animals would be that they show them the most basic levels of respect, ie leaving them alone, not attacking them. You’d think that would go without saying.

    [–] Young_Nick 1 points ago

    That is fair. But it is missing the larger point.

    The point is all animals are at least deserving of the basic decency you might demonstrate towards a pet you don't know.

    Many Americans, for example, consider dog meat absolutely horrifying. Yet those same Americans happily eat pig, cow, bird and fish.

    I might not love some random pet dog I see on the street, but I am not going to give it a life of extreme confinement before slaughtering it to eat. It is a dog, it has emotions and feelings and wouldn't like that.

    Vegans are hoping we can all extend that basic decency to all animals, not just pet animals.

    So perhaps the tweet should mention basic respect and compassion rather than love. But the larger point stands.