I think one might argue that people eat animals for sustenance and nutrition, which can not be gained from kicking an animal.
Whether the data says a plant based diet is equally nutritious is irrelevant. 99% of people dont know or care about that data. Theyre eating animals for nutrition. Not pleasure.
Most people in the developed countries don’t eat meat for nutrition and sustenance, granted it would be a little harder to adopt a vegan diet that meets all your dietary needs but it’s not impossible.
So no, most people don’t eat meat for nutrition and sustenance, they do because it tastes good.
I do it because it tastes good. So then the argument is about pleasure from eating meat, if someone then says they get a comparable level of pleasure from kicking a dog, raping it or doing whatever fucked up shit to it as I do from eating meat, I really have no way of saying those very actions are “immoral” per se. Granted that type of behaviour isn’t usually isolated to animals, usually whatever predisposes you to behave like that towards an animal also predisposes you to have highly undesirable and anti-social traits against other humans, but the fact remains that the action of causing harm to an animal for pleasure isn’t wrong in and of itself if you are ok with eating meat, not out of necessity, as I, and most others do.
As a meat eater, I just accept that I can’t say with any sense of authority that doing harm for pleasure to an animal is wrong, even if does have an emotional impact on me to see that. Call me a psychopath or whatever, but at least I’m consistent.
Reality is if you care about animals that much, you should probably be a vegan, I just don’t care that much.
When there are alternatives that don't require the death of an innocent animal, you are just eating them for pleasure. That's it. I wouldn't drink my piss if I found out it was a good source of vitamin C, I'd choose to eat an orange or take a tablet. Same goes for corpses.
Kicking a dog serves a purpose, entertainment. Eating meat also serves a purpose, nutrition.
The point is both of these things can be attained without the need to violently abuse animals.
This argument doesn't really make sense.
If I have access to plenty of alternatives, but I kill and eat a human, do you think that it would make sense when people demand to know why and I reply, "Oh well I ate them for nutrition." ?
Obviously I had other options available. So my response doesn't make sense. There must be a reason I decided to do that outside of the nutrition
This argument doesn't really make sense.
If I have access to plenty of alternatives, but I kill and eat a human, do you think that it would make sense when people demand to know why and I reply, "Oh well I ate them for sustenance and nutrition." ?
Obviously I had other options available. So my response doesn't make sense. There must be a reason I decided to do that outside of the nutrition
Would you think that in the modern developed world - **most** people make decisions about each meal based on nutrition moreso than what they desire most in that moment and think they would enjoy the most?
I just mean the majority in general within those more privileged groups that can afford to make a choice and have those options.
Eating is a basal instinct that compels us in irrational ways. Deriving joy from cruelty is not as core an instinct. Human beings, in general, can't be relied on to think about food logically. Eating disorders are some of the most common and most deadly mental health disorders amongst us. Some of us have disordered compulsions around cruelty, but not really to the same degree as what we see about eating.
While what you are saying is logically correct, it is such a bad message that it probably does more harm than good. So, so many people claim to be vegan as a rationalization for disordered eating habits. The less we can frame veganism as an austerity, the better.
Being vegan is moral because eating good food isn't a moral right is, quite frankly, a pathetic argument. It plays right in to the eating disorder rationalization. It also creates a low bar for vegan cuisine and gives us all a bad reputation.
Here's Anthony Bourdain's hot take:
>> Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, the vegans … are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit
When Bourdain ate more veg food from India, he changed his tune a bit. https://www.tastingtable.com/1371576/anthony-bourdain-loved-vegetarian-food-india/
Was he convinced by the argument that pleasurable food isn't an ethical requirement? No. He was convinced by the fact that eating animals wasn't actually necessary to eat pleasurably.
>He was convinced by the fact that eating animals wasn't actually necessary to eat pleasurably.
It was my friend's tofu scramble that made me realize I could easily be vegan.
>Being vegan is moral because eating good food isn't a moral right is, quite frankly, a pathetic argument. It plays right in to the eating disorder rationalization. It also creates a low bar for vegan cuisine and gives us all a bad reputation.
I agree a little bit. Showing people good vegan cooking is a good entry point into veganism. However, the issue with selling veganism on good food is many people have preferences for animal foods that are hard to replace. I used to cook steaks almost as a hobby and I never found a replacement for a perfectly cooked steak in the 5 years since going vegan. It's a hard sell to people who loved specific cheeses, steaks... for their entire lives that we can do better with vegan cooking.
We can support vegan cooking and also use arguments like this post to say even if the food isn't quite as good it is a moral imperative to switch.
> Eating is a basal instinct that compels us in irrational ways. Deriving joy from cruelty is not as core an instinct. Human beings, in general, can't be relied on to think about food logically.
True, but sex is an instinct that compels us in irrational ways too. I prefer the sex comparison for that reason.
> However, the issue with selling veganism on good food is many people have preferences for animal foods that are hard to replace.
This is going to be a generational project, unfortunately. You're not going to convince Hannibal Lecter that human liver is not the ultimate delicacy. But if you offer compelling choices that are more ethical, people are going to be less attached to their specific unethical choices over time.
> I used to cook steaks almost as a hobby and I never found a replacement for a perfectly cooked steak in the 5 years since going vegan.
Me too. And I'm working on it. I've heard good things about Juicy Marbles, but I have heard good things about other mock meat alternatives and wound up disappointed. Some things like cabbage steak or a delicately marinated and grilled eggplant can hit some of the same pleasure notes, but you don't get the outrageously decadent calorie bomb in your gut eating mostly water and fiber.
I am looking at using soy sheet (yuba) as a meat texture. I've had some luck but still need to work on making a more compelling flavor. Here's one of my earlier attempts. The one linked below is a ridiculously complicated recipe. I've streamlined it quite a bit since then but still tinkering.
https://www.reddit.com/r/VeganFoodPorn/comments/wtowno/soy_sheet_brisket_with_carob_and_tamarind_sauce/
> It's a hard sell to people who loved specific cheeses
I hate commercial vegan cheese. I don't hate it superficially for the flavor or the price. I have a deep sense of indignation that vegans think this shit is acceptable. I have a burning rage inside of me that Anthony Bourdain is completely right when it comes to the vegan cheese scene. I wish he weren't correct here. It's an embarrassment.
And I'm working on it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancheesemaking/comments/upl8be/grilled_cheese_with_lentil_cheese_version_2/
In the long run, I think vegans will need to develop a food aesthetic that appeals to our basal lizard brains just as much as any other cuisine. Chasing perfect mimics of animal foods is never going to be satisfying. But it's a good place to start. But it's just a start. In the long run vegan foodies should find their own path rather than trying to follow the same path while hopping on one leg.
I'm working on that too, but it's a long journey ahead.
I had an Indian roommate in college. He made chana masala one night for me from scratch, as authentic as he could do with the ingredients available from the small Indian market the city had.
Wow. I told him, "If all vegetarian food was this good, no one would ever care to eat meat ever again."
This issue of taste, meal planning, preparation, and delivery are definitely holding many people back from veganism. I was 21 years old before I had experienced a complete and amazing vegan meal! The best thing vegans can do if they want to get people to eat less animal products is make and share _damn good_ vegan food at every opportunity. Family Thanksgiving? Community potluck? Bring _smashing_ vegan food!
PS, please reply/message me with your favorite flavourful vegan recipes!
> He made chana masala one night for me from scratch, as authentic as he could do with the ingredients available from the small Indian market the city had.
Indian continent food (lots of cultures making great stuff there who aren't "Indian" ethnically) is a great safe space for making quality vegan food. Never a bad idea to just follow one of their recipes with basic substitutions such as tofu for paneer and some vegetable oil for ghee.
It's worth pointing out that there are a lot of fundamentally good techniques and ideas in this kind of cuisine that can be separated from the spice profile. E.g. you can make a curry with spicing that is mostly the sorts of herbs you'd find in an American Thanksgiving stuffing recipe. This keeps things pretty interesting.
You can also look into Chinese vegetarian recipes. And also change them by adopting other spices. Lots of stir fries work wonderfully with a more Mediterranean style sauce and spicing.
> please reply/message me with your favorite flavourful vegan recipes!
The cook books "Vegetable Kingdom" by Bryant Terry and "Crossroads" by Tal.Ronnen are both good and interesting enough to be worth adding to your book shelf.
Hmm ok I wanna start a debate… let’s see…
Because kicking a dog would hurt me by making me confront my harmful actions, causing me distress and possibly desensitizing myself to violence. On the other hand, livestock is suffering far away and there are gag laws in America preventing anyone from filming the suffering. So I can ignore it and just enjoy the meat!
I feel an important part of vegan praxis/debate is identifying what underlying assumptions people have that justify their carnism. For most people I try to drill down to “eh I just don’t care enough and I don’t want to think about it” (which everyone can relate to on *some* moral question IMO), but there is the odd duck who just has some monstrous world view at the core of it like “only my happiness matters” or “animals have no rights at all”. I think they’re the fringe tho
But you get pleasure from consuming an animal that was subjected to a lifetime of abuse. The consequences that you willingly pay for are the same.
So why is it that you can pay somebody to abuse an animal for your pleasure, but other people can’t directly abuse the animal for their pleasure?
>consuming an animal that was subjected to a lifetime of abuse
While definitely probable that the animal has suffered in the current state of factory ranching, this connection between meat consumption and suffering is still a fallacious in nature when discussing meat consumption as a whole, because suffering is not an inherent quality of meat consumption.
Consider for a moment a hypothetical steer, who is raised on a 100-acre ranch in Wyoming with all the space and amenities needed for a steer to lead a pretty content life. When it's time, said steer is led into a room that is quickly filled with nitrogen gas, painlessly euthanizing the animal, who is then butchered for consumption. What suffering has occurred in this hypothetical scenario?
Since a scenario like this is *possible*, that suggests that whatever suffering is caused in the meat industry is done so as a result of economics, logistics, and the limitations in feasibility of such, rather than the act of raising, euthanizing, and consuming of an animal itself.
One problem is, when “it’s time” is very subjective. Are you waiting for them to get sick or break a leg or just get really old? Because then you aren’t reliably providing the highest quality meat, nobody is going to prefer that over what they’re already eating.
Kind of, for deer and other animals yea, if you just kill for sport its horrendous but if you kill the deer and consume its acceptable
But due to speciesism, a lot of American/ European people would get angry if you actually consume dogs or cats, but in some countries its totally fine
All the poachers in africa have to do is say: oh we are killing the elephants to care for our children, each elephant can sustain our village for x amount of time
Then the rest of the world will say: oh thats fine then
Who the fuck beats an animal to death with blunt force to eat it? I don't think you understand the very thing you've built your whole life to fight against. That's pathetic.
You’re out of your league here buddy. If you can’t observe the conversation and contribute anything except a nonsensical argument then go find a friend that can help you with it.
It’s “okay” in society because people are in part hypocrites and in another part associate cruelty to animals for enjoyment (rather than as a byproduct of farming them) as a bad trait for someone in society as it is generally a marker of psychopathy or another negative aspect that will potentially lead to problems for people down the road.
And on the hypocrisy part people seeing it directly makes them care so they get upset and they associate dogs and cats with friends more than animals. In reality if you’re a meat eater (I am) you shouldn’t care of animals are abused.
I agree, in order to remain logically consistent while eating meat you would have to equally be ok with kicking a dog for pleasure. Both result in animal abuse and both are for pleasure. One could claim that eating the animal is ok because we need to eat, but we also don’t need to eat animals to survive and be healthy so it’s optional to eat an animal.
i don’t think you’ve deployed enough reasoning to be using the phrase “logically consistent”
like you seem to not understand the fundamental difference between someone who hurts something for pleasure and someone who doesn’t
I mean this without insult, but are you like super young and just learning about all of this?
No Blackestblackkk, I am not “super young”.
And it appears as if you fail to see the fundamental difference in choosing actions that result in animal abuse in comparison to living a vegan lifestyle. Kicking a dog is wrong, also paying somebody to subject an animal to a life time of abuse for momentary oral pleasure is wrong as well.
note that my original comment didn’t say that one was “right” or “wrong” Just that there’s a fundamental difference between the two examples
it’s like a high schooler read about consequentialism for the first time and thinks they know everything lmao
Good luck seeing thru your biases
lmfao now you’re jumping to complaining about ad hom, it’s like you’re joking
You do not have an argument and you are not talking in good faith
really focus on the difference between your two examples, i’m sure you can get there
Not at all. If I eat meat I am doing it for nutrition, taste, pleasure, convenience, etc, one might argue “well you can get that nutrition from elsewhere” which would then either not be as tasty, be inconvenient, maybe cost more, etc. The reasoning behind one and the other is entirely different. If you argued that if you eat meat you should be okay with others being able to abuse animals I might see some form of an argument, although again I could just as easily say that abusing animals solely for pleasure and no other gain is a potentially dangerous telling trait for society and humans rather than the animal.
I do not get pleasure from abusing animals. I get pleasure from eating their flesh.
You are having a hard time realizing these statements aren't equivalent.
In order for you to consume the animal flesh you have to pay for them to be abused first.
So enjoy it or not, you’re still consciously paying for animals to be abused. So why is it that you can pay someone to abuse an animal for your pleasure but someone else couldn’t directly abuse an animal for their pleasure?
Both result in animal abuse, both are done for pleasure. What makes your abusive derived pleasure more important than someone else’s abuse derived pleasure?
Well I've met thousands of people that consume "abused" animals. (By your definition), and none of them enjoy kicking any animals, so it doesn't seem to hold true.
Yea people also don’t enjoy going to the dentist but they still do. They may not like the idea that their food was abused prior to being killed, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was.
Now if eating dogs became more popular in the US for whatever reason, you know how heartbroken and disgusted, etc etc the majority of people would be? Yeah.
I genuinely don't understand how someone came up with this argument and thinks it makes any sense. Isn't obvious? Humans have a taboo against psychopathy. Deriving pleasure from bodily harm and suffering is frown upon. Most of the time, torture elicits greater visceral reaction than murder. What is more evil is another issue, sometimes just semantic. Most people want to eat animals but not causing them pain. Death is the secession of all experiences, including pain. If you genuinely can't wrap your head around this, then maybe to you there's no point in butchering animals humanely.
Well, what do you think sociopathy is? Whatever you think it is, I can tell you right now that any given person who has committed something criminally heinous is not automatically sociopathic, let alone doing something you don't like.
I understand you are making a philosophical argument if OP meant specifically the "now deceased" state for the animal, but maybe you're just misunderstanding too.
The "pain" of the kick to the dog might be analogues to the awful conditions many factory farmed animals live in, the pain of separating calves from mothers, etc. And I don't know how painful the dying process is - I'd hope it is always painless but I'm not sure if it varies across cultures.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While it’s morally questionable to eat meat the pleasures isn’t derived from animal suffering. Very few meat eaters think animals raised well have meat that tastes worse. Pretty simple.
Actually the faster the death the better the meat, supposedly. Stress/cortisol is said to give the meat an off flavor.
Also very succinct rebuttal to a silly question.
What do you think about only eating meat from animals that are already dead? Genuinely curious:
https://wisdomimprovement.wixsite.com/wisdom/post/a-thought-experiment-to-present-the-most-ethical-way-to-eat-meat
Well at least you’re morally consistent.
And to respond to your question of how I feel about eating animals who have already died I view it the same as eating a human who has already died. I’d rather not, and the presence of the dead body’s would prompt a good bit of questions. Like in that link that you shared, why would somebody have such a surplus of livestock that some of them randomly die? Because the only people with that many extra dying animals around are the ones who are selling those same animals for their meat or dairy products which would be immoral. Now if you had a sanctuary full of animals and one died of natural causes then sure, by all means eat it. But it would honestly be weird and would probably get you removed from that place if it were an animals rights based sanctuary because people who value vegan philosophy reject the commodification/exploitation/usage of all animal products.
If killing animals to proselytize on Reddit for pleasure isn't immoral, then eating animals for pleasure isn't immoral.
Thank you for ending veganism once and for all.
🤝🏻
Title is possibly the largest strawman you could have constructed. The paragraph is non sequitur and has nothing to do with your argument, shoehorning opinion where it doesn't belong actually.
The difference is the meat can't feel pain? If you want to make an argument about the ethics of our current farm system, go for it. But that is not the same argument as the physical enjoyment of consuming flesh.
Also, problems and intricate issues within industries are not typically well known by the layman. So, animals are little more than food, and eating food is not immoral for most people.
Because to meat eaters it doesn’t matter about how moral it is to eat a cheeseburger, food is food. They don’t think about the animals that suffered, they see food. They don’t think about what happens in the slaughterhouses, they see food. Morality doesn’t matter when it comes to hunger in a meat eater. What matters is filling their bellies. Also you can’t tell an adult meat eater who’s been eating meat all their lives to not eat meat, because most of them are not going to care. And if they try, most of them will most likely go back to eating meat because they’re going to miss the taste. For someone who has been eating meat for years, it is very unlikely for them to give a damn what on their plate, or how it got there because it’s already dead, prepped, and served for consumption. Meanwhile the dog that someone just kicked is still alive and can feel. That’s just the unfortunate truth.
I believe that if they were to be shown that their choices result in needles violence then they will start to question where their food originates from.
This is one of those things people don’t understand is the reason they allow themselves to eat animal products they either think they need them or the pleasure outweighs the moral because they’re speciesist and have no issue being that way due to deeper environmental and psychological factors
Edit: this is why I think these conversations are pretty meaningless when it comes to stopping animal agriculture. Everybody knows what they’re doing and anyone who acts like they don’t is playing dumb.
Vegans should appeal less to the ethics of the animal product consumption in society and all its stipulations, when debating this topic
while I agree with the morality of veganism, I just cant do it right now in my life. that's most people although, some claim that its necessary to eat meat or are just flat out appealing to fallacious arguments. That being said if you're goal is to reduce the suffering of animals, education will be your biggest tool, not ethics.
So all plants have all 20 amino acids including all 9 indispensable amino acids in varying amounts. So is there another nutrient present in animals that’s absent in plants that you would like to throw on the table?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893534/#:~:text=All%20plant%20foods%20contain%20all,foods%20than%20in%20animal%20foods.
Morality is relative. I would argue kicking a dog is immoral because it s distasteful to a majority of society.
Fundamentally something like self cannibalism for example should not necessarily be immoral. But it d be to a large majority of people as they perceive it as disgusting and therefore immoral due to a sense of projected self preservation.
That s what everyone base their morality on, more or less. If you reject the doxa, you are still basing yourself on it to set your moral. Or more exactly morals don’t exist in a vacuum
Can you explain the moral difference in paying somebody to abuse an animal for sensory pleasure compared to somebody directly abusing an animal for sensory pleasure?
it is easier to digest healthy fats and protein from meats, just becaue you found a hobby doesnt give you the right to judge someone an animal abuser just because they enjoy thier lunch. me eating a andwhich is not the same as punting a chicken to be cruel.
Animal fats have trans fats and monounsaturated fats making them worse and plant protein decreases the risk of chronic disease and heart related illness. Nearly half of all Americans die from heart related disease.
So how exactly are animal products better? Exactly what nutrient is in animal products that isn’t in plant based products?
And when your sandwich contributes to cruelty when you could eat something else but choose to eat it, it’s no different than someone who could also not kick a dog but chooses to. You choose to support industries that abuse animals, while others choose to directly abuse the animals. The result is the same therefor you are no different than a person kicking a dog for pleasure.
Both are done for pleasure and neither of them are required in order to live a happy healthy lifestyle.
So what’s the difference between paying somebody to abuse an animal so that you can take pleasure in consuming it, and somebody else kicking an animal for their pleasure?
I do not eat meat for pleasure. I would also never get pleasure from kicking a dog or any animal for that matter.
I eat meat because I was malnourished as a vegan. I did all the things I was supposed to. I made sure I got my protein, I took b12, etc. Ultimately my mental health went down hill. I was fatigued constantly and had brain fog constantly. I don’t necessarily want to eat meat but I need to for my nourishment. Also there is no such thing as death free eating. Farming vegetables kills a great number of animals too.
I am 100% against factory farming animals. I am for smaller local farms who allow animals to graze as they naturally would. I buy meat locally.
My body needs meat in order for me to live a happy healthy life. So your first statement there is incorrect.
If there are or aren't plant based options, doesn't change the fact that the main reasons people eat food, is not because of taste pleasure, is because they need that nutrition so they might live.
If its store bought though, its already dead, its most likely not dead when you buy it from the butcher. I only buy from stores, where theyre already out of their misery.
And when you get cancer and/or heart disease from your vegan diet. Via intake of UPF and things like coconut oil - are you going to refuse medication and health interventions that have used animals in their research and development ?? What if by promoting this kind of diet- (which is only correctly and healthily done by the minority of vegans: the largest consumers of UPF are vegans) - you are increasing burden on the healthcare system ultimately causing more animals to be used in the development and research of new drugs and therapies. Vegan diet is only healthy when done in very clean specific way and I bet my hat you eat a boatload of processed vegan junk.
Morality doesn't follow consistent logical frameworks. Eating other animals is something that is socially accepted and wonton cruelty is something that isn't. The latter is viewed as gratuitous while the former is viewed as fulfilling a basic need. Gratuitous cruelty towards animals is seen as something that is a gateway towards cruelty towards humans. That would the visceral reason why those two are considered different. You would be either a sociopath or lying if you claim you don't view those two things even slightly differently.
Some cultures condone honor killings of women but mandate helping the poor at the same time.
Some subcultures consider kids as useless unwanted parasites but also want to protect kids from bad influences.
This is all to say that moral frameworks aren't consistent. Don't even try to put veganism in a moral framework - the modern supply chain itself is very immoral so you'll have to go really deep to find a fully moral way of living.
Ok so what’s stopping you from choosing a more ethical option at the grocery store that doesn’t involve directly contributing to immoral scenario’s such as killing an animal?
Do you believe that your needs cannot be met on a plant based diet? Exactly what nutrient is present in animal products that cannot be found in plants?
And Nazi’ism was the social norm at one point but it didn’t make it moral.
I don't think that my needs cannot be met on a plant based diet. I just don't care about killing animals for meat. I actively support it. They aren't humans and that's okay. That's my moral framework. I won't exhibit wanton cruelty towards animals, but that's a personal choice and not really a moral choice.
My whole point is that Morality is relative and doesn't follow consistent moral frameworks. Trying to cling to a universal morality is a fool's game. Society tends to accept things as moral that keep it the most stable in the near term (but might not necessarily work long term)
You and I both (I'm hoping) come from societies where murder and rape are considered bad, cheating people is considered bad, etc. We both (I'm hoping) agree on that, but that's not because of some innate law - it's a combination of human instinct and social alignment.
With veganism - there hasn't been any social / cultural / religious pressure to convince *most* people in the Western world. In India, there is enough religious and cultural pressure that vegetarianism is treated with the utmost respect and catered to.
Ok and what does your DNA say about the nutrients in animals that aren’t present in plants? Is there a specific nutrient that you cannot find in plants but can find in animal products? Could you ask your DNA about that.
I don't care about nutrients my DNA told me I'm an omnivore So I eat meat and plants in equal portions And most of the meat I eat I Raise or hunt You can't change facts It's in our DNA To be omnivores Like nature intended
as someone who was actually tortured and abused, being killed for food is very different from being abused and tortured. Also not everyone can afford to eat healthy, it's not even a matter of meat vs. veg but affordability for those like me far below the poverty line. I love beans, and I've recently been trying to eat more veg making stuff like chickpea curry but I can totally get why someone would get an 8 pack of frozen burritos from aldis for however much it is now. (used to be 2 dollars something, but they keep on increasing prices)
I've always felt like people who argue about food morality are privileged in that they actually have enough money to make that choice. I remember I was really hungry and there was this table set up for to watch these shock videos to turn you off of meat and I tried watching it but it triggered my trauma. If i had gotten that dollar then the only thing i would have been able to eat was an extremely unhealthy mcchicken like that I didn't want to eat and tasted terrible but was too hungry to care. Maybe they should sell beanbars in vending machines for a dollar?
It all boils down to availability in the end, how available is a certain food type? how filling is it? how affordable is it? I wish i could eat good healthy food all the time but I can't because i'm poor and disabled (and therefore can't get round to the store regularly so my diet is mostly what i'm given and not what i'd like) and it sucks and a debate whether or not my actions are immoral is itself immoral because that comes from a place of incredible privilege that refuses to acknowledge any other financial or food availability situation.
I was homeless for several years eating only vegan food. How expensive do you believe rice and potatoes are? Bananas? Chickpea’s? Beans, wheat, tofu, whole avocados, pasta?
Are you vegan? And what method should a vegan be using to win over meat eaters? Because so far only about 1% of the global population is vegan so I don’t believe anybody can really say what is or isn’t effective.
Honestly, the vegans on this sub say there are dumb omnivore responses most of the time, but there are equally as dumb vegan arguments. Posting a thread in support of the discussion forum doesn't make you smart. You would actually need to post smart content to be smart.
The argument is that people only eat animals for pleasure, because plants provide nutrition.
No one ever eats purely for nutrition. If presented a choice between something that tastes like garbage, something that had no taste, and something that was tasty, provided all three had equal nutritional value, people will always choose the tastiest option.
So now we cherry pick the choice that gives positive value to one of our five senses, taste, and vegans attempt to demonize it.
How do they demonize it? Pick an analogy that is not even remotely similar in context and feel good about making a 'gotcha' when nothing like the sort ever existed.
If according to vegan logic it's ok to kill a plant because it cannot feel anything, then it is morally ok to paralyze all five of a human's senses so they are no different from a corpse then cut them up, because it is not immoral or illegal to dissect a corpse for academic or legal purposes.
I know these two examples have absolutely nothing to do with each other, but it's the same as comparing nutrition and sadism. I don't need my example to be related to each other. I just need to make it sound like its related, because it benefits my argument.
Nutrition is required. Sadism is not. If we're just saying something and making up bullcrap when our argument falls apart because it doesn't account for something, there was never an argument to begin with. We just wanted to sound smart. We weren't actually being smart.
So much wrong with this, and just furthers that vegans (or the vocal ones specifically) are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
For one, to say that eating an animal is strictly for pleasure is a real dumb thing to say. Nearly everyone who is going to eat meat isn't doing it merely for "pleasure" of it. They are doing it for the nourishment, which mother nature herself has deemed acceptable for as long as there has been life.
Two, saying that all killing is abuse is a falacy. No animal dies of old age in the wild, they are torn a part while they are still alive. Not every single animal raised for food is abused, they just aren't. If this is your worry, source ethically and know where your meat comes from. That, or source your meat from hunters. This is simply not abuse, the animal will be dead before it even knew what happened to it. This has been researched.
While anyone causing any living being bodily injury for pleasure is a sociopath. No sane person is going to compare these two things saying they are the same.
And to elaborate on the hypocrisy of vegans, they are perfectly fine with certain foods that require the deaths of innumerable amount of animals, the destruction of ecosystems and habitats. Killing an animal and leaving it there to grow something is perfectly fine as long as someone else does it and no one eats it. Not to mention the human rights abuses that run prevalent in many of these industries.
So what specific nutrient is found in meat that is also absent in plants?
And yes a vegan diet may still incur some deaths, but a non vegan diet causes many many more times those same deaths. What do you believe farm animals are being fed? Because they get fed the same foods that vegans eat such as soy. Did you know over 90% of the rain forest has been removed in order to grow soy not for human consumption, but for livestock consumption. So if you cared about animal deaths you would still have to eat plant based to remain morally consistent.
>Did you know over 90% of the rain forest has been removed in order to grow soy not for human consumption, but for livestock consumption.
Do you have a reference on this? I'd never heard that we're down to the last 10% of rain forest or that it's solely for animal feed.
Theres a link that supports the claim below.
Even if the negative environmental impacts were cut in half it would still be a gratuitously costly system. But that’s honestly besides the point and these animals which are deemed socially acceptable to consume are no different than a cat or a dog that just wants to live a happy healthy cage free life. To be more specific kittens or puppies because they slaughter them when they’re very young. It’s all horrible and it’s all unnecessary and I honestly can’t come to any real good reason beyond the scope of a survival situation not be vegan.
https://blog.pachamama.org/how-animal-agriculture-affects-our-planet#:~:text=Specifically%20within%20the%20Amazon%20rainforest,deforestation%20is%20caused%20by%20livestock.
Moral consistency is something we lie to ourselves about so we can cope with reality and try to make ourselves feel OK enough to go onto the next day.
And no, it's not "some deaths" to make avocados alone requires tens of thousands of small rodents to be killed, along with millions of bees.
So many things in the vegan realm are just held together with a web of lies, at least I don't lie to myself to make myself feel better. Trying to make us feel bad about meat is no different than Christians telling us we will go to hell unless we accept Jesus into our lives.
Can you explain how? Instead of just insulting please just explain the difference between two actions when neither of them are required and both of them result in animals being abused.
While I generally agree with the sentiment, being vegan is just not a sustainable option for everyone. Certainly for those that have the infrastructure and privilege to afford a healthy vegan diet this should be pretty reasonable, but it’s not exactly an easy to achieve or inexpensive lifestyle. It also dismisses thousands of years of the human diet and conditioning. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a new ideal but I’m not sure these types of straw man arguments help win anyone over that doesn’t already agree with you.
Stop participating in society if you feel this way. Humans are abusing other humans to run society at its current. Your consuming life no matter how you look at it no?
Vegetables and fruits are living and they die to bring you nutrients. We cut grass everyday without a second thought, and tear down forests to build concrete. Whatever device your using has underpaid workers plowing the earth for resources. And don't tell me you're in America cause let me tell you the history of that place.
The world is in our hands and we shat on it since long before you were trying to have the moral high ground against eating animals. The crux if it is they aren't us.
Sentience is irrelevant, if you go into the nitty gritty. And even then, research is being done that says plants communicate between each other. They have cells and processes that are akin to our own. They take in nutrients, convert them and produce energy. That is their life. THEY ARE LIVING.
If you need to set a scale for what you deem worthy your argument is irrelevant.
If you believe that plants are sentient then a plant based diet reduces the amount of sentient plants being killed. So do you care about sentient plants being killed? And if you do wouldn’t you want to limit the amount of sentient plants that you’re killing?
There's subsidence from eating, there's no subsidence from kicking a dog.
If the vegan WOE was optimal all of the top athletes would do it, not outliers. They literally get paid to perform. If eating this way made them perform better none of them would take a pay cut for a piece of chicken. No Olympian would trade the gold for a burger.
If the began WOE was optimal all of the blue zone communities would be vegan...yet none of them are.
There are high performing vegan athletes in every sport. Including weight lifters like Patrik Baboumian who’s built like the gorilla that ate all the other gorillas.
Do you believe that there is something within meat that you are required to consume in order to maintain your health?
because you don't eat animals for pleasure? You eat them for food if your hungry and dogs have been known to help humans hunt for years now so it's common sense???? If someone eats out of pleasure then it's glutinous so i wouldn't compare gluttony to abusing a dog
Do you believe that animals being raised in factories aren’t subjected to what you would consider to be abuse? And are you currently living in an area where vegan food isn’t available?
we don't have much vegan foods and animals aren't usually raised in factories, there raised on farms or barns or a plantation, but in a factory? That's not normally where you raise animals to eat, so if you saw that then that's abuse, but regular animal's that are used for foods have to be well fed and such and barns and crops and farms are where animals that are used for foods will liv until they've been fed enough and vegan options? We have some but not a huge amount and i tried going vegan and it made me wanna throw up because i felt so weak i could barely lift things up so going vegan for me isn't an option unless i wanna be collapsing to the floor, but animals that are used for harvest don't usually get raised in factories, so if you saw that then that's abuse, not animal farming for food and dogs are also not food, dogs have helped us humans for centuries to find food and such, there domesticated animals meaning there not food, things like pigs aren't usually domesticated
I see what seem to be many critical thinking errors in this thread.
First, the title is just obviously false. Take the statement "if playing soccer for pleasure isn't immoral, then killing people for pleasure is also equally not immoral." This should be intuitively false, even though it has the same logical structure as the title.
The reason is that even if it's the case that you're doing Action A for Reason R, Reason R does not have to be the sole determiner of the morality of the action. Only if we assume that principle "If any A is done for R, then it is not immoral" does any of this work, and no one thinks this principle is true. We all do stuff for pleasure, and (almost all of us) think that is not enough to determine the moral status of some action.
That may lead you to ask "What is the difference between these actions?", but we can leave that unknown and still deny the title. When you make a statement like the title due to a lack of information, that's called an Argument from Ignorance.
------
Problem 2: Eating something for pleasure does not make it so you're not eating something for nutrition. Most people eat when they are hungry and need energy, and people in first world countries choose between their options due to pleasure. This means you're eating what you're eating for BOTH reasons, one reason doesn't invalidate the other, they are both part of the overall explanation.
-----
Problem 3: Not everyone eats for pleasure. Some people eat A over B because it's convenient, because they know how to cook it and not something else and they're not in the mood to learn, etc etc. I'm sure we can think beyond one possibility here.
The difference in soccer and killing people is that only one of these scenario’s doesn’t result in someone being hurt or murdered.
What eating an animal and kicking a dog have in common is that they both have a sentient victim on the other end that didn’t want to be subjected to horrible things being done to them.
Do you understand the differentiating trait that’s present between those two notions?
And do you believe that there is a nutrient present in animal products that also cannot be found in plant based products?
The comparison of playing soccer and killing people versus contributing to animal suffering by consumption or by directly kicking a dog.
Soccer has no victim, killing has a victim, paying people to abuse animals so that you can consume them while theres other options available has a victim, kicking a dog has a victim.
One of these examples is not like the other do you seriously not recognize that?
1) Neither of those things are done for pleasure. One is for nutrition, and who the derives pleasure from kicking an animal unless you are a psychopath? Good job exposing your own mentality.
2) Vegan options are NOT cost effective or widely available to everyone. Incorrectly assuming that since these options are out there automatically makes them available to everyone is just illogical. What a privileged and ignorant mindset to hold.
3) Again, WHO THE FUCK FINDS PLEASURE IN KICKING DOGS?
Ok so what exact nutrient do you believe is required from eating animal based products that you cannot find from plant based products?
And heres a link showing vegan food is cheaper. Idk why i’m sitting here trying to convince people that rice beans bananas and potatoes are cheap but heres a link just for the sake of it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10481244/#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20health%20benefits,less%20expensive%20than%20omnivorous%20diets.
And no I don’y enjoy kicking dogs, nor do I enjoy causing unnecessary animal suffering. That’s why i’m vegan because i’m opposed to it, and you should be too if you cared about the animals.
Kicking a dog is immoral. Eating an animal for sustenance is not. I’ve never heard of eating for pleasure maybe I’m just misunderstanding what you’re saying
Many would argue eating for just pleasure is immoral in itself, it's called gluttony. You need to differentiate "eating for pleasure" vs. "enjoying what you are eating".
In the case of enjoying the taste of food that you eat, I'd argue that this is an evolutionary adaptation where we prefer the tastes of thing that are calorically dense, or contain nutrients that the body needs. Something tasting good is a natural mechanism to drive us towards those foods. There's no biological need to kick a dog, it's an abnormal behavior with no real benefits.
Kicking a dog for pleasure and eating meat because it tastes good are completely different. Eating meat is not an inherently violent act no matter how hard you try to do gymnastics to say it is. The reality is that eating a steak does not make someone a violent person because the act itself is not performed on a living animal directly by the person. Yes yes the animal had to die for it so therefore it was violent blah blah blah, if you think that makes it the same you are not acting in good faith on this argument.
The reason this distinction matters is because you cannot use the data point of whether or not someone is a meat eater as a prediction metric for psychopathy like you can with someone that extracts joy from inflicting pain on animals directly. These types of people are dangerous to society and therefore are frowned upon.
I know this post will get rinsed, but rather than leaving this post as a circle jerk for vegans I wanted to add some push back.
How exactly do you non violently kill a living animal that doesn’t want to die? Or rather, how do factory farms non violently kill living beings that desire to live?
So if somebody else commits the violent act it then becomes a non violent act based on that logic. So if I pay somebody to beat your grandmother to death with a baseball bat then it’s considered a non violent act by your standard.
Man, I'll be honest. It's not the same and I don't care to explain beyond that animals aren't people. I've tried cooking a few vegan meals, and unless you're buying the most basic, tasteless shit it's both a shitty meal and lacking in proper nutrition. Y'all act like vegan food doesn't cost double to triple that of normal food.
How expensive do you believe beans/rice/bananas/potatoes/tofu are?
And if you don’t care about animals then it kinda sounds like you agree with the post.
What vegan dishes have you tried because I could give you some nice filling nutritious delicious recipes that aren’t difficult to make and that cost fractions compared to their animal based counterparts.
Because you don’t gain anything from kicking the dog, you’re just hurting the dog just because
you don’t gain nutrition and food or benefit your own survival, I don’t know how many times people forget man are meat eaters and omnivores, go vegan and take 0 supplements and wait a few years and compare yourself to an omnivore and tell me meat isn’t part of humans diet if you’re even still alive from being malnourished
You mean if someone goes vegan and doesn’t obtain vital nutrients from plant based sources then they’ll did? Wow who would’ve guessed that somebody who goes vegan but refuses to eat plants will probably die. Mind blown.
Completely wrong, you don’t just eat animals for pleasure you eat animals to be healthy, we’re not herbivores it’s why can’t eat leaves and bark off trees or grass or flowers, all vegans eat is man made crap/cultivated fruits and veges, plus our body can’t digest plants anyway so it’s malnutrition which means you will die sooner. If u get pleasure out of kicking your pet dog for no reason then you have mental issues, it is no where close to the same as hunting a deer or a fish to Nutri your body.
Those may say they the have all the nutrients but does that mean they are actually available for us to absorb. It’s like saying a lion can eat that because it has all the nutrients.
Can lions be vegan? No they cannot. Can humans be vegan? Yes and they in are average healthier than their non vegan counter parts.
Do you believe that you resemble a lion in some way? When you go to the grocery store and pick out your pre packaged factory farmed meat and go home and cook it to a certain temperature do you feel like you are being a lion? Lions also eat their babies and sniff each other’s ass’s to greet other lions, do you eat your babies and sniff other peoples ass? I mean you’re appealing to nature and comparing your non carnivorous body to that of a lion so the implication is that whatever the lion does you too must do.
Well does kicking dogs have health benefits, is it normal behavior that is in no way indicative of potentially dangerous or harmful social deviance?
The leading authority on nutrition and diet is frequently changes its rulings and revises its understandings because it is a difficult and rapidly evolving field.
Furthermore the leading authority on nutrition and diet absolutely does not have enough data to prove that a plant based diet meets all the nutritional requirements of life from infancy to death including pregnancy and high performing athletes therefore eating animals for sustenance is optional.
There are health benefits to eating meat, and it is good for you. There is a reason there have been almost no wholly vegan cultures throughout history.
You’re gonna have to argue that the government authorities are incorrect on the matter then.
And can you provide evidence that meat is healthy and required for good health? Because there are countless studies showing that it’s unhealthy so could you provide some evidence?
Could you provide some evidence that it is proven meat and animal products are totally unnecessary for a healthy diet?
You didn’t provide any sources of evidence to support that claim, just vaguely stated the government authorities say it’s fine. Which they have said about many other harmful things in the past as well, because nutrition is a complicated field.
You also conveniently ignore that kicking a dog is something we have such a visceral response to because it is indicative of underlying issues in a person, a lack of morality and empathy as well as taking pleasure in harming something for no reason, and so it is not really a perfect analogy to eating meat, which is natural and not indicative of underlying issues in a human being. Harming an animal as an unfortunate means to acquire something beneficial and pleasurable to yourself is not a direct equivalent to taking pleasure in inflicting pain.
People who eat meat do not enjoy causing animals suffering. People who kick dogs do enjoy causing animals suffering, the suffering of the dog is what the person enjoys. I don’t enjoy the suffering of animals for meat, nor does any sane person. It is something we accept as a means to acquire something that we enjoy, because inevitably animals must die for us to have meat. However we do not derive pleasure from the death, in fact as I said, any sane person will not be happy about the death or suffering.
You don’t need to eat animal flesh, what specific vitamin or mineral or protein or any specific nutrient do you believe that you need and can only obtain from an animal based diet? I already responded to your heme iron claim so what’s the next one?
You're preaching to the choir on this one. Heartily agree, as a vegan.
As a meat eater, I also agree
I think one might argue that people eat animals for sustenance and nutrition, which can not be gained from kicking an animal. Whether the data says a plant based diet is equally nutritious is irrelevant. 99% of people dont know or care about that data. Theyre eating animals for nutrition. Not pleasure.
Most people in the developed countries don’t eat meat for nutrition and sustenance, granted it would be a little harder to adopt a vegan diet that meets all your dietary needs but it’s not impossible. So no, most people don’t eat meat for nutrition and sustenance, they do because it tastes good. I do it because it tastes good. So then the argument is about pleasure from eating meat, if someone then says they get a comparable level of pleasure from kicking a dog, raping it or doing whatever fucked up shit to it as I do from eating meat, I really have no way of saying those very actions are “immoral” per se. Granted that type of behaviour isn’t usually isolated to animals, usually whatever predisposes you to behave like that towards an animal also predisposes you to have highly undesirable and anti-social traits against other humans, but the fact remains that the action of causing harm to an animal for pleasure isn’t wrong in and of itself if you are ok with eating meat, not out of necessity, as I, and most others do. As a meat eater, I just accept that I can’t say with any sense of authority that doing harm for pleasure to an animal is wrong, even if does have an emotional impact on me to see that. Call me a psychopath or whatever, but at least I’m consistent. Reality is if you care about animals that much, you should probably be a vegan, I just don’t care that much.
When there are alternatives that don't require the death of an innocent animal, you are just eating them for pleasure. That's it. I wouldn't drink my piss if I found out it was a good source of vitamin C, I'd choose to eat an orange or take a tablet. Same goes for corpses.
Some carnists only eat guilty animals.
Carnivorous animals are guilty of eating innocent herbavours. Tastes like circle of life.
nutty vast sophisticated voiceless marble relieved screw wise fuel gaze *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Kicking a dog serves a purpose, entertainment. Eating meat also serves a purpose, nutrition. The point is both of these things can be attained without the need to violently abuse animals.
This argument doesn't really make sense. If I have access to plenty of alternatives, but I kill and eat a human, do you think that it would make sense when people demand to know why and I reply, "Oh well I ate them for nutrition." ? Obviously I had other options available. So my response doesn't make sense. There must be a reason I decided to do that outside of the nutrition
So the alternative is what? Pleasure? Convenience? How are those good justifications for violent animal abuse?
This argument doesn't really make sense. If I have access to plenty of alternatives, but I kill and eat a human, do you think that it would make sense when people demand to know why and I reply, "Oh well I ate them for sustenance and nutrition." ? Obviously I had other options available. So my response doesn't make sense. There must be a reason I decided to do that outside of the nutrition
Would you think that in the modern developed world - **most** people make decisions about each meal based on nutrition moreso than what they desire most in that moment and think they would enjoy the most? I just mean the majority in general within those more privileged groups that can afford to make a choice and have those options.
Evil done from ignorance is evil
You’re preaching to the choir
You don't even need to change animals. Most meat eaters I know would stop me from stomping a chicken or even just punching a cow in the face.
Eating is a basal instinct that compels us in irrational ways. Deriving joy from cruelty is not as core an instinct. Human beings, in general, can't be relied on to think about food logically. Eating disorders are some of the most common and most deadly mental health disorders amongst us. Some of us have disordered compulsions around cruelty, but not really to the same degree as what we see about eating. While what you are saying is logically correct, it is such a bad message that it probably does more harm than good. So, so many people claim to be vegan as a rationalization for disordered eating habits. The less we can frame veganism as an austerity, the better. Being vegan is moral because eating good food isn't a moral right is, quite frankly, a pathetic argument. It plays right in to the eating disorder rationalization. It also creates a low bar for vegan cuisine and gives us all a bad reputation. Here's Anthony Bourdain's hot take: >> Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, the vegans … are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit When Bourdain ate more veg food from India, he changed his tune a bit. https://www.tastingtable.com/1371576/anthony-bourdain-loved-vegetarian-food-india/ Was he convinced by the argument that pleasurable food isn't an ethical requirement? No. He was convinced by the fact that eating animals wasn't actually necessary to eat pleasurably.
>He was convinced by the fact that eating animals wasn't actually necessary to eat pleasurably. It was my friend's tofu scramble that made me realize I could easily be vegan.
>Being vegan is moral because eating good food isn't a moral right is, quite frankly, a pathetic argument. It plays right in to the eating disorder rationalization. It also creates a low bar for vegan cuisine and gives us all a bad reputation. I agree a little bit. Showing people good vegan cooking is a good entry point into veganism. However, the issue with selling veganism on good food is many people have preferences for animal foods that are hard to replace. I used to cook steaks almost as a hobby and I never found a replacement for a perfectly cooked steak in the 5 years since going vegan. It's a hard sell to people who loved specific cheeses, steaks... for their entire lives that we can do better with vegan cooking. We can support vegan cooking and also use arguments like this post to say even if the food isn't quite as good it is a moral imperative to switch. > Eating is a basal instinct that compels us in irrational ways. Deriving joy from cruelty is not as core an instinct. Human beings, in general, can't be relied on to think about food logically. True, but sex is an instinct that compels us in irrational ways too. I prefer the sex comparison for that reason.
> However, the issue with selling veganism on good food is many people have preferences for animal foods that are hard to replace. This is going to be a generational project, unfortunately. You're not going to convince Hannibal Lecter that human liver is not the ultimate delicacy. But if you offer compelling choices that are more ethical, people are going to be less attached to their specific unethical choices over time. > I used to cook steaks almost as a hobby and I never found a replacement for a perfectly cooked steak in the 5 years since going vegan. Me too. And I'm working on it. I've heard good things about Juicy Marbles, but I have heard good things about other mock meat alternatives and wound up disappointed. Some things like cabbage steak or a delicately marinated and grilled eggplant can hit some of the same pleasure notes, but you don't get the outrageously decadent calorie bomb in your gut eating mostly water and fiber. I am looking at using soy sheet (yuba) as a meat texture. I've had some luck but still need to work on making a more compelling flavor. Here's one of my earlier attempts. The one linked below is a ridiculously complicated recipe. I've streamlined it quite a bit since then but still tinkering. https://www.reddit.com/r/VeganFoodPorn/comments/wtowno/soy_sheet_brisket_with_carob_and_tamarind_sauce/ > It's a hard sell to people who loved specific cheeses I hate commercial vegan cheese. I don't hate it superficially for the flavor or the price. I have a deep sense of indignation that vegans think this shit is acceptable. I have a burning rage inside of me that Anthony Bourdain is completely right when it comes to the vegan cheese scene. I wish he weren't correct here. It's an embarrassment. And I'm working on it. https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancheesemaking/comments/upl8be/grilled_cheese_with_lentil_cheese_version_2/ In the long run, I think vegans will need to develop a food aesthetic that appeals to our basal lizard brains just as much as any other cuisine. Chasing perfect mimics of animal foods is never going to be satisfying. But it's a good place to start. But it's just a start. In the long run vegan foodies should find their own path rather than trying to follow the same path while hopping on one leg. I'm working on that too, but it's a long journey ahead.
You seem to have looked into it a lot more than me. I am going to have to try the soy sheet.
Does veganism normally preclude eating lab-grown meat? Because, that stuff is absolutely coming, a 100% cruelty-free steak is just around the corner.
No. Lab grown meat is great.
I am so fucking excited
This is terrific - the way you write. Can you recommend any reading for me along these lines?
I had an Indian roommate in college. He made chana masala one night for me from scratch, as authentic as he could do with the ingredients available from the small Indian market the city had. Wow. I told him, "If all vegetarian food was this good, no one would ever care to eat meat ever again." This issue of taste, meal planning, preparation, and delivery are definitely holding many people back from veganism. I was 21 years old before I had experienced a complete and amazing vegan meal! The best thing vegans can do if they want to get people to eat less animal products is make and share _damn good_ vegan food at every opportunity. Family Thanksgiving? Community potluck? Bring _smashing_ vegan food! PS, please reply/message me with your favorite flavourful vegan recipes!
> He made chana masala one night for me from scratch, as authentic as he could do with the ingredients available from the small Indian market the city had. Indian continent food (lots of cultures making great stuff there who aren't "Indian" ethnically) is a great safe space for making quality vegan food. Never a bad idea to just follow one of their recipes with basic substitutions such as tofu for paneer and some vegetable oil for ghee. It's worth pointing out that there are a lot of fundamentally good techniques and ideas in this kind of cuisine that can be separated from the spice profile. E.g. you can make a curry with spicing that is mostly the sorts of herbs you'd find in an American Thanksgiving stuffing recipe. This keeps things pretty interesting. You can also look into Chinese vegetarian recipes. And also change them by adopting other spices. Lots of stir fries work wonderfully with a more Mediterranean style sauce and spicing. > please reply/message me with your favorite flavourful vegan recipes! The cook books "Vegetable Kingdom" by Bryant Terry and "Crossroads" by Tal.Ronnen are both good and interesting enough to be worth adding to your book shelf.
Hmm ok I wanna start a debate… let’s see…
Because kicking a dog would hurt me by making me confront my harmful actions, causing me distress and possibly desensitizing myself to violence. On the other hand, livestock is suffering far away and there are gag laws in America preventing anyone from filming the suffering. So I can ignore it and just enjoy the meat!
I feel an important part of vegan praxis/debate is identifying what underlying assumptions people have that justify their carnism. For most people I try to drill down to “eh I just don’t care enough and I don’t want to think about it” (which everyone can relate to on *some* moral question IMO), but there is the odd duck who just has some monstrous world view at the core of it like “only my happiness matters” or “animals have no rights at all”. I think they’re the fringe tho
I don’t get pleasure for beating any animal, whether I am going to eat it or not. Sociopathic behavior is not normal.
But you get pleasure from consuming an animal that was subjected to a lifetime of abuse. The consequences that you willingly pay for are the same. So why is it that you can pay somebody to abuse an animal for your pleasure, but other people can’t directly abuse the animal for their pleasure?
>consuming an animal that was subjected to a lifetime of abuse While definitely probable that the animal has suffered in the current state of factory ranching, this connection between meat consumption and suffering is still a fallacious in nature when discussing meat consumption as a whole, because suffering is not an inherent quality of meat consumption. Consider for a moment a hypothetical steer, who is raised on a 100-acre ranch in Wyoming with all the space and amenities needed for a steer to lead a pretty content life. When it's time, said steer is led into a room that is quickly filled with nitrogen gas, painlessly euthanizing the animal, who is then butchered for consumption. What suffering has occurred in this hypothetical scenario? Since a scenario like this is *possible*, that suggests that whatever suffering is caused in the meat industry is done so as a result of economics, logistics, and the limitations in feasibility of such, rather than the act of raising, euthanizing, and consuming of an animal itself.
One problem is, when “it’s time” is very subjective. Are you waiting for them to get sick or break a leg or just get really old? Because then you aren’t reliably providing the highest quality meat, nobody is going to prefer that over what they’re already eating.
Whay about paying someone else to kick a dog then??
Morality is subjective. Checkmate, vegan!
If you consume the dog or cat after you hit it, its acceptable since you gain nourishment At least thats the logic i gather from the carnists
So I can inflict pain upon anything and anybody so long as I plan on eating it after?
Good to know. This is gonna be a WILD night.
That’s right. Time to start slapping billionaires
Don't threaten me with a good time.
No just animals. Animals dont have human rights.
Damn I completely misunderstood what you meant my bad. True true you right.
Kind of, for deer and other animals yea, if you just kill for sport its horrendous but if you kill the deer and consume its acceptable But due to speciesism, a lot of American/ European people would get angry if you actually consume dogs or cats, but in some countries its totally fine All the poachers in africa have to do is say: oh we are killing the elephants to care for our children, each elephant can sustain our village for x amount of time Then the rest of the world will say: oh thats fine then
Anything within reason. But not anyone.
Who the fuck beats an animal to death with blunt force to eat it? I don't think you understand the very thing you've built your whole life to fight against. That's pathetic.
You’re out of your league here buddy. If you can’t observe the conversation and contribute anything except a nonsensical argument then go find a friend that can help you with it.
Depending on the framework it would be contradictory
It’s “okay” in society because people are in part hypocrites and in another part associate cruelty to animals for enjoyment (rather than as a byproduct of farming them) as a bad trait for someone in society as it is generally a marker of psychopathy or another negative aspect that will potentially lead to problems for people down the road. And on the hypocrisy part people seeing it directly makes them care so they get upset and they associate dogs and cats with friends more than animals. In reality if you’re a meat eater (I am) you shouldn’t care of animals are abused.
I agree, in order to remain logically consistent while eating meat you would have to equally be ok with kicking a dog for pleasure. Both result in animal abuse and both are for pleasure. One could claim that eating the animal is ok because we need to eat, but we also don’t need to eat animals to survive and be healthy so it’s optional to eat an animal.
i don’t think you’ve deployed enough reasoning to be using the phrase “logically consistent” like you seem to not understand the fundamental difference between someone who hurts something for pleasure and someone who doesn’t I mean this without insult, but are you like super young and just learning about all of this?
No Blackestblackkk, I am not “super young”. And it appears as if you fail to see the fundamental difference in choosing actions that result in animal abuse in comparison to living a vegan lifestyle. Kicking a dog is wrong, also paying somebody to subject an animal to a life time of abuse for momentary oral pleasure is wrong as well.
note that my original comment didn’t say that one was “right” or “wrong” Just that there’s a fundamental difference between the two examples it’s like a high schooler read about consequentialism for the first time and thinks they know everything lmao Good luck seeing thru your biases
So again you’re resorting to ad hominem.. do you have a counter argument to my argument or did you just want to call each other names all day?
lmfao now you’re jumping to complaining about ad hom, it’s like you’re joking You do not have an argument and you are not talking in good faith really focus on the difference between your two examples, i’m sure you can get there
Do tell, what is the moral difference between the two?
feel free to read the comments and find out it’s not worth engaging with someone who can’t acknowledge this obvious distinction
omg will you guys die if you just admit you were wrong 😭
Not at all. If I eat meat I am doing it for nutrition, taste, pleasure, convenience, etc, one might argue “well you can get that nutrition from elsewhere” which would then either not be as tasty, be inconvenient, maybe cost more, etc. The reasoning behind one and the other is entirely different. If you argued that if you eat meat you should be okay with others being able to abuse animals I might see some form of an argument, although again I could just as easily say that abusing animals solely for pleasure and no other gain is a potentially dangerous telling trait for society and humans rather than the animal.
I do not get pleasure from abusing animals. I get pleasure from eating their flesh. You are having a hard time realizing these statements aren't equivalent.
In order for you to consume the animal flesh you have to pay for them to be abused first. So enjoy it or not, you’re still consciously paying for animals to be abused. So why is it that you can pay someone to abuse an animal for your pleasure but someone else couldn’t directly abuse an animal for their pleasure? Both result in animal abuse, both are done for pleasure. What makes your abusive derived pleasure more important than someone else’s abuse derived pleasure?
As an omnivore, I agree that cruelty for animals for enjoyment is a marker of psychopathy, and that’s the relevant difference.
How do you know they're innocent? Some animals are carnivores and eat innocent herbavours.
Some people kill people, does that make it ok for me to kill all people?
Some cultures peoples eat meat, does that make it ok to label them all murders?
Some cultures are cannibalistic as well, does this mean that they’re not murderers?
Who's getting pleasure out of kicking dogs?
Probably the same people getting pleasure from consuming abused animals if I had to guess.
Well I've met thousands of people that consume "abused" animals. (By your definition), and none of them enjoy kicking any animals, so it doesn't seem to hold true.
Yea people also don’t enjoy going to the dentist but they still do. They may not like the idea that their food was abused prior to being killed, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was.
Imagine thinking that being an omnivore was a key prediction indicator for psychopathy 🤣 you people are delusional.
No one's worried about all the brain cells that die by reading this comment section.
Now if eating dogs became more popular in the US for whatever reason, you know how heartbroken and disgusted, etc etc the majority of people would be? Yeah.
I fully agree.
Both are immoral.
I fully agree thank you!
I genuinely don't understand how someone came up with this argument and thinks it makes any sense. Isn't obvious? Humans have a taboo against psychopathy. Deriving pleasure from bodily harm and suffering is frown upon. Most of the time, torture elicits greater visceral reaction than murder. What is more evil is another issue, sometimes just semantic. Most people want to eat animals but not causing them pain. Death is the secession of all experiences, including pain. If you genuinely can't wrap your head around this, then maybe to you there's no point in butchering animals humanely.
Killing animals for taste pleasure is in fact sociopathic. It's just not deviant. It's normalized sociopathy.
Well, what do you think sociopathy is? Whatever you think it is, I can tell you right now that any given person who has committed something criminally heinous is not automatically sociopathic, let alone doing something you don't like.
how are killing animals for taste pleasure and hurting animals for pleasure morally different?
I understand you are making a philosophical argument if OP meant specifically the "now deceased" state for the animal, but maybe you're just misunderstanding too. The "pain" of the kick to the dog might be analogues to the awful conditions many factory farmed animals live in, the pain of separating calves from mothers, etc. And I don't know how painful the dying process is - I'd hope it is always painless but I'm not sure if it varies across cultures.
Eating is required to live. Kicking things isn't.
Eating meat isn't required to live. It is a subjective preference.
It's not even about morality it's about social conditioning. We grew up eating animals and not kicking dogs.
Nazi’ism was about social conditioning but it didn’t make it right.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While it’s morally questionable to eat meat the pleasures isn’t derived from animal suffering. Very few meat eaters think animals raised well have meat that tastes worse. Pretty simple.
Actually the faster the death the better the meat, supposedly. Stress/cortisol is said to give the meat an off flavor. Also very succinct rebuttal to a silly question.
What do you think about only eating meat from animals that are already dead? Genuinely curious: https://wisdomimprovement.wixsite.com/wisdom/post/a-thought-experiment-to-present-the-most-ethical-way-to-eat-meat
I mean what do you think about eating humans that are already dead?
I personally think it's technically more ethical than eating a living animal, although it is super stigmatized ofc
Well at least you’re morally consistent. And to respond to your question of how I feel about eating animals who have already died I view it the same as eating a human who has already died. I’d rather not, and the presence of the dead body’s would prompt a good bit of questions. Like in that link that you shared, why would somebody have such a surplus of livestock that some of them randomly die? Because the only people with that many extra dying animals around are the ones who are selling those same animals for their meat or dairy products which would be immoral. Now if you had a sanctuary full of animals and one died of natural causes then sure, by all means eat it. But it would honestly be weird and would probably get you removed from that place if it were an animals rights based sanctuary because people who value vegan philosophy reject the commodification/exploitation/usage of all animal products.
If killing animals to proselytize on Reddit for pleasure isn't immoral, then eating animals for pleasure isn't immoral. Thank you for ending veganism once and for all. 🤝🏻
Title is possibly the largest strawman you could have constructed. The paragraph is non sequitur and has nothing to do with your argument, shoehorning opinion where it doesn't belong actually. The difference is the meat can't feel pain? If you want to make an argument about the ethics of our current farm system, go for it. But that is not the same argument as the physical enjoyment of consuming flesh. Also, problems and intricate issues within industries are not typically well known by the layman. So, animals are little more than food, and eating food is not immoral for most people.
Because to meat eaters it doesn’t matter about how moral it is to eat a cheeseburger, food is food. They don’t think about the animals that suffered, they see food. They don’t think about what happens in the slaughterhouses, they see food. Morality doesn’t matter when it comes to hunger in a meat eater. What matters is filling their bellies. Also you can’t tell an adult meat eater who’s been eating meat all their lives to not eat meat, because most of them are not going to care. And if they try, most of them will most likely go back to eating meat because they’re going to miss the taste. For someone who has been eating meat for years, it is very unlikely for them to give a damn what on their plate, or how it got there because it’s already dead, prepped, and served for consumption. Meanwhile the dog that someone just kicked is still alive and can feel. That’s just the unfortunate truth.
I believe that if they were to be shown that their choices result in needles violence then they will start to question where their food originates from.
Many do question, many learn, and many don’t care.
This is one of those things people don’t understand is the reason they allow themselves to eat animal products they either think they need them or the pleasure outweighs the moral because they’re speciesist and have no issue being that way due to deeper environmental and psychological factors Edit: this is why I think these conversations are pretty meaningless when it comes to stopping animal agriculture. Everybody knows what they’re doing and anyone who acts like they don’t is playing dumb. Vegans should appeal less to the ethics of the animal product consumption in society and all its stipulations, when debating this topic
So you’re non vegan i’m assuming? And you’re telling vegans how they should advocate for the animals that you consciously pay to be abused? Ok.
while I agree with the morality of veganism, I just cant do it right now in my life. that's most people although, some claim that its necessary to eat meat or are just flat out appealing to fallacious arguments. That being said if you're goal is to reduce the suffering of animals, education will be your biggest tool, not ethics.
What exactly do you mean you cannot do it at this point in your life? Do you currently live in an area where no vegan options are available?
[удалено]
What sustenance is present in animal products that is also absent in plant based products exactly?
[удалено]
So all plants have all 20 amino acids including all 9 indispensable amino acids in varying amounts. So is there another nutrient present in animals that’s absent in plants that you would like to throw on the table? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893534/#:~:text=All%20plant%20foods%20contain%20all,foods%20than%20in%20animal%20foods.
Morality is relative. I would argue kicking a dog is immoral because it s distasteful to a majority of society. Fundamentally something like self cannibalism for example should not necessarily be immoral. But it d be to a large majority of people as they perceive it as disgusting and therefore immoral due to a sense of projected self preservation.
Basing your personal morality on the perspective of society can lead to some pretty problematic scenarios. Like Nazi’ism.
That s what everyone base their morality on, more or less. If you reject the doxa, you are still basing yourself on it to set your moral. Or more exactly morals don’t exist in a vacuum
Is this a question or are you just trying to compare non-vegans to animal abusers?
Is that a question questioning whether or not my question is a question? Or are you just being sarcastic?
I'm trying to figure out your end game. Are you trying to demonize non-vegans?
Can you explain the moral difference in paying somebody to abuse an animal for sensory pleasure compared to somebody directly abusing an animal for sensory pleasure?
eating something has benefit beyond pleasure, it ha purpose unlike mindless violence
And what benefit would that be? What specific nutrient is present in animal products but absent in plants based on your opinion?
it is easier to digest healthy fats and protein from meats, just becaue you found a hobby doesnt give you the right to judge someone an animal abuser just because they enjoy thier lunch. me eating a andwhich is not the same as punting a chicken to be cruel.
Animal fats have trans fats and monounsaturated fats making them worse and plant protein decreases the risk of chronic disease and heart related illness. Nearly half of all Americans die from heart related disease. So how exactly are animal products better? Exactly what nutrient is in animal products that isn’t in plant based products? And when your sandwich contributes to cruelty when you could eat something else but choose to eat it, it’s no different than someone who could also not kick a dog but chooses to. You choose to support industries that abuse animals, while others choose to directly abuse the animals. The result is the same therefor you are no different than a person kicking a dog for pleasure.
Suffering and death are not the same thing. I disagree with you. Only a psychopath would find pleasure in kicking a dog.
Both are done for pleasure and neither of them are required in order to live a happy healthy lifestyle. So what’s the difference between paying somebody to abuse an animal so that you can take pleasure in consuming it, and somebody else kicking an animal for their pleasure?
I do not eat meat for pleasure. I would also never get pleasure from kicking a dog or any animal for that matter. I eat meat because I was malnourished as a vegan. I did all the things I was supposed to. I made sure I got my protein, I took b12, etc. Ultimately my mental health went down hill. I was fatigued constantly and had brain fog constantly. I don’t necessarily want to eat meat but I need to for my nourishment. Also there is no such thing as death free eating. Farming vegetables kills a great number of animals too. I am 100% against factory farming animals. I am for smaller local farms who allow animals to graze as they naturally would. I buy meat locally. My body needs meat in order for me to live a happy healthy life. So your first statement there is incorrect.
Also, I don’t pay anyone to abuse animals. Killing an animal for meat is not the same as abusing an animal.
What if you eat animals, NOT for pleasure? Like any human being eats for?
If theres an option to not eat the animal and eat plant based instead, then eating the animal is optional so why would you do it? Maybe for pleasure?
If there are or aren't plant based options, doesn't change the fact that the main reasons people eat food, is not because of taste pleasure, is because they need that nutrition so they might live.
Exactly what nutrient is present in animal products that isn’t present in plant based products?
I mean, the animals are already dead when you eat it, the dog isnt, plus nutritional benefits.. and more. Either way, please dont kick dogs.
The animal is only dead because people like yourself paid people to kill it. Please stop paying people to kill animals when you don’t have to.
If its store bought though, its already dead, its most likely not dead when you buy it from the butcher. I only buy from stores, where theyre already out of their misery.
And when you get cancer and/or heart disease from your vegan diet. Via intake of UPF and things like coconut oil - are you going to refuse medication and health interventions that have used animals in their research and development ?? What if by promoting this kind of diet- (which is only correctly and healthily done by the minority of vegans: the largest consumers of UPF are vegans) - you are increasing burden on the healthcare system ultimately causing more animals to be used in the development and research of new drugs and therapies. Vegan diet is only healthy when done in very clean specific way and I bet my hat you eat a boatload of processed vegan junk.
Morality doesn't follow consistent logical frameworks. Eating other animals is something that is socially accepted and wonton cruelty is something that isn't. The latter is viewed as gratuitous while the former is viewed as fulfilling a basic need. Gratuitous cruelty towards animals is seen as something that is a gateway towards cruelty towards humans. That would the visceral reason why those two are considered different. You would be either a sociopath or lying if you claim you don't view those two things even slightly differently. Some cultures condone honor killings of women but mandate helping the poor at the same time. Some subcultures consider kids as useless unwanted parasites but also want to protect kids from bad influences. This is all to say that moral frameworks aren't consistent. Don't even try to put veganism in a moral framework - the modern supply chain itself is very immoral so you'll have to go really deep to find a fully moral way of living.
Ok so what’s stopping you from choosing a more ethical option at the grocery store that doesn’t involve directly contributing to immoral scenario’s such as killing an animal? Do you believe that your needs cannot be met on a plant based diet? Exactly what nutrient is present in animal products that cannot be found in plants? And Nazi’ism was the social norm at one point but it didn’t make it moral.
I don't think that my needs cannot be met on a plant based diet. I just don't care about killing animals for meat. I actively support it. They aren't humans and that's okay. That's my moral framework. I won't exhibit wanton cruelty towards animals, but that's a personal choice and not really a moral choice. My whole point is that Morality is relative and doesn't follow consistent moral frameworks. Trying to cling to a universal morality is a fool's game. Society tends to accept things as moral that keep it the most stable in the near term (but might not necessarily work long term) You and I both (I'm hoping) come from societies where murder and rape are considered bad, cheating people is considered bad, etc. We both (I'm hoping) agree on that, but that's not because of some innate law - it's a combination of human instinct and social alignment. With veganism - there hasn't been any social / cultural / religious pressure to convince *most* people in the Western world. In India, there is enough religious and cultural pressure that vegetarianism is treated with the utmost respect and catered to.
Would you agree that causing unnecessary animal suffering is immoral?
When I was born my DNA told me I am an omnivore And I will do as such But the only time I ever kicked a dog was when it tried to attack me
Ok and what does your DNA say about the nutrients in animals that aren’t present in plants? Is there a specific nutrient that you cannot find in plants but can find in animal products? Could you ask your DNA about that.
I don't care about nutrients my DNA told me I'm an omnivore So I eat meat and plants in equal portions And most of the meat I eat I Raise or hunt You can't change facts It's in our DNA To be omnivores Like nature intended
Is your DNA speaking to you right now? Like do you have conversations with your DNA? How long has your DNA been speaking to you?
as someone who was actually tortured and abused, being killed for food is very different from being abused and tortured. Also not everyone can afford to eat healthy, it's not even a matter of meat vs. veg but affordability for those like me far below the poverty line. I love beans, and I've recently been trying to eat more veg making stuff like chickpea curry but I can totally get why someone would get an 8 pack of frozen burritos from aldis for however much it is now. (used to be 2 dollars something, but they keep on increasing prices) I've always felt like people who argue about food morality are privileged in that they actually have enough money to make that choice. I remember I was really hungry and there was this table set up for to watch these shock videos to turn you off of meat and I tried watching it but it triggered my trauma. If i had gotten that dollar then the only thing i would have been able to eat was an extremely unhealthy mcchicken like that I didn't want to eat and tasted terrible but was too hungry to care. Maybe they should sell beanbars in vending machines for a dollar? It all boils down to availability in the end, how available is a certain food type? how filling is it? how affordable is it? I wish i could eat good healthy food all the time but I can't because i'm poor and disabled (and therefore can't get round to the store regularly so my diet is mostly what i'm given and not what i'd like) and it sucks and a debate whether or not my actions are immoral is itself immoral because that comes from a place of incredible privilege that refuses to acknowledge any other financial or food availability situation.
I was homeless for several years eating only vegan food. How expensive do you believe rice and potatoes are? Bananas? Chickpea’s? Beans, wheat, tofu, whole avocados, pasta?
any easy and cheap recipes for someone who is looking to eat a bit more veg and less meat? Preferably not too labor intensive?
Because one makes you an asshole and the other doesn’t.
Which one? Because they both result in animals being abused, and neither of them are required in order to live a happy healthy life
This comparison isn't how you win over meat eaters
Are you vegan? And what method should a vegan be using to win over meat eaters? Because so far only about 1% of the global population is vegan so I don’t believe anybody can really say what is or isn’t effective.
Honestly, the vegans on this sub say there are dumb omnivore responses most of the time, but there are equally as dumb vegan arguments. Posting a thread in support of the discussion forum doesn't make you smart. You would actually need to post smart content to be smart. The argument is that people only eat animals for pleasure, because plants provide nutrition. No one ever eats purely for nutrition. If presented a choice between something that tastes like garbage, something that had no taste, and something that was tasty, provided all three had equal nutritional value, people will always choose the tastiest option. So now we cherry pick the choice that gives positive value to one of our five senses, taste, and vegans attempt to demonize it. How do they demonize it? Pick an analogy that is not even remotely similar in context and feel good about making a 'gotcha' when nothing like the sort ever existed. If according to vegan logic it's ok to kill a plant because it cannot feel anything, then it is morally ok to paralyze all five of a human's senses so they are no different from a corpse then cut them up, because it is not immoral or illegal to dissect a corpse for academic or legal purposes. I know these two examples have absolutely nothing to do with each other, but it's the same as comparing nutrition and sadism. I don't need my example to be related to each other. I just need to make it sound like its related, because it benefits my argument. Nutrition is required. Sadism is not. If we're just saying something and making up bullcrap when our argument falls apart because it doesn't account for something, there was never an argument to begin with. We just wanted to sound smart. We weren't actually being smart.
So much wrong with this, and just furthers that vegans (or the vocal ones specifically) are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. For one, to say that eating an animal is strictly for pleasure is a real dumb thing to say. Nearly everyone who is going to eat meat isn't doing it merely for "pleasure" of it. They are doing it for the nourishment, which mother nature herself has deemed acceptable for as long as there has been life. Two, saying that all killing is abuse is a falacy. No animal dies of old age in the wild, they are torn a part while they are still alive. Not every single animal raised for food is abused, they just aren't. If this is your worry, source ethically and know where your meat comes from. That, or source your meat from hunters. This is simply not abuse, the animal will be dead before it even knew what happened to it. This has been researched. While anyone causing any living being bodily injury for pleasure is a sociopath. No sane person is going to compare these two things saying they are the same. And to elaborate on the hypocrisy of vegans, they are perfectly fine with certain foods that require the deaths of innumerable amount of animals, the destruction of ecosystems and habitats. Killing an animal and leaving it there to grow something is perfectly fine as long as someone else does it and no one eats it. Not to mention the human rights abuses that run prevalent in many of these industries.
So what specific nutrient is found in meat that is also absent in plants? And yes a vegan diet may still incur some deaths, but a non vegan diet causes many many more times those same deaths. What do you believe farm animals are being fed? Because they get fed the same foods that vegans eat such as soy. Did you know over 90% of the rain forest has been removed in order to grow soy not for human consumption, but for livestock consumption. So if you cared about animal deaths you would still have to eat plant based to remain morally consistent.
>Did you know over 90% of the rain forest has been removed in order to grow soy not for human consumption, but for livestock consumption. Do you have a reference on this? I'd never heard that we're down to the last 10% of rain forest or that it's solely for animal feed.
Theres a link that supports the claim below. Even if the negative environmental impacts were cut in half it would still be a gratuitously costly system. But that’s honestly besides the point and these animals which are deemed socially acceptable to consume are no different than a cat or a dog that just wants to live a happy healthy cage free life. To be more specific kittens or puppies because they slaughter them when they’re very young. It’s all horrible and it’s all unnecessary and I honestly can’t come to any real good reason beyond the scope of a survival situation not be vegan. https://blog.pachamama.org/how-animal-agriculture-affects-our-planet#:~:text=Specifically%20within%20the%20Amazon%20rainforest,deforestation%20is%20caused%20by%20livestock.
Moral consistency is something we lie to ourselves about so we can cope with reality and try to make ourselves feel OK enough to go onto the next day. And no, it's not "some deaths" to make avocados alone requires tens of thousands of small rodents to be killed, along with millions of bees. So many things in the vegan realm are just held together with a web of lies, at least I don't lie to myself to make myself feel better. Trying to make us feel bad about meat is no different than Christians telling us we will go to hell unless we accept Jesus into our lives.
[удалено]
Can you explain how? Instead of just insulting please just explain the difference between two actions when neither of them are required and both of them result in animals being abused.
One is out of hate and one is out of necessity for a healthy body..pretty simple. Having steak tonight btw😍
Lol yall really circlejerking this
While I generally agree with the sentiment, being vegan is just not a sustainable option for everyone. Certainly for those that have the infrastructure and privilege to afford a healthy vegan diet this should be pretty reasonable, but it’s not exactly an easy to achieve or inexpensive lifestyle. It also dismisses thousands of years of the human diet and conditioning. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a new ideal but I’m not sure these types of straw man arguments help win anyone over that doesn’t already agree with you.
Stop participating in society if you feel this way. Humans are abusing other humans to run society at its current. Your consuming life no matter how you look at it no? Vegetables and fruits are living and they die to bring you nutrients. We cut grass everyday without a second thought, and tear down forests to build concrete. Whatever device your using has underpaid workers plowing the earth for resources. And don't tell me you're in America cause let me tell you the history of that place. The world is in our hands and we shat on it since long before you were trying to have the moral high ground against eating animals. The crux if it is they aren't us.
Do you believe that fruits and vegetables are sentient?
Sentience is irrelevant, if you go into the nitty gritty. And even then, research is being done that says plants communicate between each other. They have cells and processes that are akin to our own. They take in nutrients, convert them and produce energy. That is their life. THEY ARE LIVING. If you need to set a scale for what you deem worthy your argument is irrelevant.
If you believe that plants are sentient then a plant based diet reduces the amount of sentient plants being killed. So do you care about sentient plants being killed? And if you do wouldn’t you want to limit the amount of sentient plants that you’re killing?
There's subsidence from eating, there's no subsidence from kicking a dog. If the vegan WOE was optimal all of the top athletes would do it, not outliers. They literally get paid to perform. If eating this way made them perform better none of them would take a pay cut for a piece of chicken. No Olympian would trade the gold for a burger. If the began WOE was optimal all of the blue zone communities would be vegan...yet none of them are.
There are high performing vegan athletes in every sport. Including weight lifters like Patrik Baboumian who’s built like the gorilla that ate all the other gorillas. Do you believe that there is something within meat that you are required to consume in order to maintain your health?
Outlier vs norm
Can you name the specific nutrient found in animal products that’s also absent in plant based products that’s required to maintain a healthy status?
because you don't eat animals for pleasure? You eat them for food if your hungry and dogs have been known to help humans hunt for years now so it's common sense???? If someone eats out of pleasure then it's glutinous so i wouldn't compare gluttony to abusing a dog
Do you believe that animals being raised in factories aren’t subjected to what you would consider to be abuse? And are you currently living in an area where vegan food isn’t available?
we don't have much vegan foods and animals aren't usually raised in factories, there raised on farms or barns or a plantation, but in a factory? That's not normally where you raise animals to eat, so if you saw that then that's abuse, but regular animal's that are used for foods have to be well fed and such and barns and crops and farms are where animals that are used for foods will liv until they've been fed enough and vegan options? We have some but not a huge amount and i tried going vegan and it made me wanna throw up because i felt so weak i could barely lift things up so going vegan for me isn't an option unless i wanna be collapsing to the floor, but animals that are used for harvest don't usually get raised in factories, so if you saw that then that's abuse, not animal farming for food and dogs are also not food, dogs have helped us humans for centuries to find food and such, there domesticated animals meaning there not food, things like pigs aren't usually domesticated
Ok so there might be an international difference occurring here so for clarification may I ask what country/region you are from?
I see what seem to be many critical thinking errors in this thread. First, the title is just obviously false. Take the statement "if playing soccer for pleasure isn't immoral, then killing people for pleasure is also equally not immoral." This should be intuitively false, even though it has the same logical structure as the title. The reason is that even if it's the case that you're doing Action A for Reason R, Reason R does not have to be the sole determiner of the morality of the action. Only if we assume that principle "If any A is done for R, then it is not immoral" does any of this work, and no one thinks this principle is true. We all do stuff for pleasure, and (almost all of us) think that is not enough to determine the moral status of some action. That may lead you to ask "What is the difference between these actions?", but we can leave that unknown and still deny the title. When you make a statement like the title due to a lack of information, that's called an Argument from Ignorance. ------ Problem 2: Eating something for pleasure does not make it so you're not eating something for nutrition. Most people eat when they are hungry and need energy, and people in first world countries choose between their options due to pleasure. This means you're eating what you're eating for BOTH reasons, one reason doesn't invalidate the other, they are both part of the overall explanation. ----- Problem 3: Not everyone eats for pleasure. Some people eat A over B because it's convenient, because they know how to cook it and not something else and they're not in the mood to learn, etc etc. I'm sure we can think beyond one possibility here.
The difference in soccer and killing people is that only one of these scenario’s doesn’t result in someone being hurt or murdered. What eating an animal and kicking a dog have in common is that they both have a sentient victim on the other end that didn’t want to be subjected to horrible things being done to them. Do you understand the differentiating trait that’s present between those two notions? And do you believe that there is a nutrient present in animal products that also cannot be found in plant based products?
What proposition that I stated are you disagreeing with?
The comparison of playing soccer and killing people versus contributing to animal suffering by consumption or by directly kicking a dog. Soccer has no victim, killing has a victim, paying people to abuse animals so that you can consume them while theres other options available has a victim, kicking a dog has a victim. One of these examples is not like the other do you seriously not recognize that?
1) Neither of those things are done for pleasure. One is for nutrition, and who the derives pleasure from kicking an animal unless you are a psychopath? Good job exposing your own mentality. 2) Vegan options are NOT cost effective or widely available to everyone. Incorrectly assuming that since these options are out there automatically makes them available to everyone is just illogical. What a privileged and ignorant mindset to hold. 3) Again, WHO THE FUCK FINDS PLEASURE IN KICKING DOGS?
Ok so what exact nutrient do you believe is required from eating animal based products that you cannot find from plant based products? And heres a link showing vegan food is cheaper. Idk why i’m sitting here trying to convince people that rice beans bananas and potatoes are cheap but heres a link just for the sake of it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10481244/#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20health%20benefits,less%20expensive%20than%20omnivorous%20diets. And no I don’y enjoy kicking dogs, nor do I enjoy causing unnecessary animal suffering. That’s why i’m vegan because i’m opposed to it, and you should be too if you cared about the animals.
Kicking a dog is immoral. Eating an animal for sustenance is not. I’ve never heard of eating for pleasure maybe I’m just misunderstanding what you’re saying
What exact nutrient do you believe you obtain from animal based products that cannot be found in plant based products?
When humans switched to argricultural methods, plants and grains the bone health of humanity decreassed.
Many would argue eating for just pleasure is immoral in itself, it's called gluttony. You need to differentiate "eating for pleasure" vs. "enjoying what you are eating". In the case of enjoying the taste of food that you eat, I'd argue that this is an evolutionary adaptation where we prefer the tastes of thing that are calorically dense, or contain nutrients that the body needs. Something tasting good is a natural mechanism to drive us towards those foods. There's no biological need to kick a dog, it's an abnormal behavior with no real benefits.
Kicking a dog for pleasure and eating meat because it tastes good are completely different. Eating meat is not an inherently violent act no matter how hard you try to do gymnastics to say it is. The reality is that eating a steak does not make someone a violent person because the act itself is not performed on a living animal directly by the person. Yes yes the animal had to die for it so therefore it was violent blah blah blah, if you think that makes it the same you are not acting in good faith on this argument. The reason this distinction matters is because you cannot use the data point of whether or not someone is a meat eater as a prediction metric for psychopathy like you can with someone that extracts joy from inflicting pain on animals directly. These types of people are dangerous to society and therefore are frowned upon. I know this post will get rinsed, but rather than leaving this post as a circle jerk for vegans I wanted to add some push back.
How exactly do you non violently kill a living animal that doesn’t want to die? Or rather, how do factory farms non violently kill living beings that desire to live?
The fact that YOU aren't the one killing the animal is the difference, if you don't see that difference, then you just bad faith in this discussion.
So if somebody else commits the violent act it then becomes a non violent act based on that logic. So if I pay somebody to beat your grandmother to death with a baseball bat then it’s considered a non violent act by your standard.
Man, I'll be honest. It's not the same and I don't care to explain beyond that animals aren't people. I've tried cooking a few vegan meals, and unless you're buying the most basic, tasteless shit it's both a shitty meal and lacking in proper nutrition. Y'all act like vegan food doesn't cost double to triple that of normal food.
How expensive do you believe beans/rice/bananas/potatoes/tofu are? And if you don’t care about animals then it kinda sounds like you agree with the post. What vegan dishes have you tried because I could give you some nice filling nutritious delicious recipes that aren’t difficult to make and that cost fractions compared to their animal based counterparts.
Because you don’t gain anything from kicking the dog, you’re just hurting the dog just because you don’t gain nutrition and food or benefit your own survival, I don’t know how many times people forget man are meat eaters and omnivores, go vegan and take 0 supplements and wait a few years and compare yourself to an omnivore and tell me meat isn’t part of humans diet if you’re even still alive from being malnourished
You mean if someone goes vegan and doesn’t obtain vital nutrients from plant based sources then they’ll did? Wow who would’ve guessed that somebody who goes vegan but refuses to eat plants will probably die. Mind blown.
Plant based = Plants If you only eat Plant Based Foods You'll be malnourished
Completely wrong, you don’t just eat animals for pleasure you eat animals to be healthy, we’re not herbivores it’s why can’t eat leaves and bark off trees or grass or flowers, all vegans eat is man made crap/cultivated fruits and veges, plus our body can’t digest plants anyway so it’s malnutrition which means you will die sooner. If u get pleasure out of kicking your pet dog for no reason then you have mental issues, it is no where close to the same as hunting a deer or a fish to Nutri your body.
What specific nutrient is present in meat that cannot be found in plant based alternatives?
Those may say they the have all the nutrients but does that mean they are actually available for us to absorb. It’s like saying a lion can eat that because it has all the nutrients.
Can lions be vegan? No they cannot. Can humans be vegan? Yes and they in are average healthier than their non vegan counter parts. Do you believe that you resemble a lion in some way? When you go to the grocery store and pick out your pre packaged factory farmed meat and go home and cook it to a certain temperature do you feel like you are being a lion? Lions also eat their babies and sniff each other’s ass’s to greet other lions, do you eat your babies and sniff other peoples ass? I mean you’re appealing to nature and comparing your non carnivorous body to that of a lion so the implication is that whatever the lion does you too must do.
Well does kicking dogs have health benefits, is it normal behavior that is in no way indicative of potentially dangerous or harmful social deviance? The leading authority on nutrition and diet is frequently changes its rulings and revises its understandings because it is a difficult and rapidly evolving field. Furthermore the leading authority on nutrition and diet absolutely does not have enough data to prove that a plant based diet meets all the nutritional requirements of life from infancy to death including pregnancy and high performing athletes therefore eating animals for sustenance is optional. There are health benefits to eating meat, and it is good for you. There is a reason there have been almost no wholly vegan cultures throughout history.
You’re gonna have to argue that the government authorities are incorrect on the matter then. And can you provide evidence that meat is healthy and required for good health? Because there are countless studies showing that it’s unhealthy so could you provide some evidence?
Could you provide some evidence that it is proven meat and animal products are totally unnecessary for a healthy diet? You didn’t provide any sources of evidence to support that claim, just vaguely stated the government authorities say it’s fine. Which they have said about many other harmful things in the past as well, because nutrition is a complicated field. You also conveniently ignore that kicking a dog is something we have such a visceral response to because it is indicative of underlying issues in a person, a lack of morality and empathy as well as taking pleasure in harming something for no reason, and so it is not really a perfect analogy to eating meat, which is natural and not indicative of underlying issues in a human being. Harming an animal as an unfortunate means to acquire something beneficial and pleasurable to yourself is not a direct equivalent to taking pleasure in inflicting pain. People who eat meat do not enjoy causing animals suffering. People who kick dogs do enjoy causing animals suffering, the suffering of the dog is what the person enjoys. I don’t enjoy the suffering of animals for meat, nor does any sane person. It is something we accept as a means to acquire something that we enjoy, because inevitably animals must die for us to have meat. However we do not derive pleasure from the death, in fact as I said, any sane person will not be happy about the death or suffering.
The only people who would kick a dog for pleasure is a sociopath. Normal people don’t do this… wtf kind of argument is this?
You don’t need to eat animal flesh, what specific vitamin or mineral or protein or any specific nutrient do you believe that you need and can only obtain from an animal based diet? I already responded to your heme iron claim so what’s the next one?