We shouldn’t be eating meat or any other animal products.
Animals are living and feeling beings who experience the world much like humans do, we shouldn’t be exploiting, abusing or killing them for profit/taste when we can easily avoid it.
Genuinely curious: How do you feel about the lab-grown meat technology? Would you consider being an omnivore if no animals suffered or died to provide the meat?
I do enjoy how you went straight to insults to deflect your lack of knowledge. Then followed by implying I’m missing the same knowledge.
Just because we have yet to understand how plants experience life, does not mean that they do not. We know that plants respond to pain. We know plants respond to music.
Wife and I have been following the vegan eating habits for about 2 years now. We just don’t feel the need to proselytize about it. Yes, proselytize is the correct word. You’re trying to “save the animals because they feel pain”, we’re just trying to get in better shape in our 40s. We are not the same.
When you make bad faith arguments you can’t expect well worded replies lol.
Even if this argument made any kind of sense(which let’s be clear, it does not) then going vegan would still be the answer.
A plant based diet uses way less plants than a meat filled one because you get to skip the inefficient middleman of animals.
Ah yes, asking people to not needlessly abuse animals is the same as trying to force people to join your religion, totally!
You’re right, we’re not the same, I’m standing up for beings who are getting abused and killed by the trillions because of profit and taste, you’re just not eating animals so you don’t die quicker.
Not sure why you brought that up.
First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don’t. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)
Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?
Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren’t causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?
Fourth: “Exploiting” is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?
Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?
First:
Yes, animals kill in the wild - to survive. We humans are, as opposed to predators, omnivores. We know how to grow crops, vegetables, etc. and cultivate fields. We have a choice, a conscience and have morals.
Are you identifying with the intelligence and life situation of that of a lion? Do you also commonly ask yourself “What would a lion do in my place right now”? Are lions that kill newborns of other lions, for example, really good role models?
I can add to this regarding your question about more intelligent animals. So because some animals choose to kill, does that justify you doing so when you know it causes suffering? That does not make sense.
Second:
There are no nutrients that stem exclusively from animals. Originally derived from bacteria and microorganisms, they are accumulated in the food chain via plants and animals. You can leave out the middleman, which is the animal. Accordingly, a balanced vegan diet can meet needs at any stage of life. For certain chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, some cancers and heart disease), positive effects are even to be expected. Admittedly, it requires an initial conversion effort, since you have to get your nutrients via other foods and sometimes supplements. But don’t worry - it’s not rocket science and it’s for a good cause.
Third:
I actually didn’t find this one on the bingo board, so kudos. And this is sort of a grey area argument that isn’t really the core of the vegan proposition. But anyway my personal opinion is that it is ethical to kill for self defense (depending on the situation), even for an animal of “higher intelligence”. The same way as killing a person in self defense can be ethical in certain situations. But at the same time I don’t think we have an obligation to “step in” and save animals that are subject to predation etc in the wild, see the argument under “first”. This argument is quite close to the common one about killing for conservation, which is quite hillarious when you think about it. We have killed off all the natural predators, so the prey animals become overpopulated so we have to step in to kill them off for their own good.
Fourth:
Not directly on the board, but anyway. We don’t need a honey bee industry for crop production. There are alternatives. And it makes more sense to use native pollinators anyways (see also here https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0626 ).
And bee farming is exploitative. We cut off the wings of the queen to force her to stay. Forcibly impregnate her, and steal the honey. See more here https://youtu.be/clMNw_VO1xo
And as for your last point, ofc we cause environmental harm, that is unavoidable. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Should we just give up and torture and kill sentient beings because we can’t avoid causing some harm to the environment? How does that make any sense?
I’m not a vegan, not even a vegetarian - but your message is so full of logical fallacies and whataboutisms, it’s enough to drive someone to veganism. Is that really the best you can do?
The first sentence is like when a child has done something wrong, and their mother tells them off, so the child says “Well, <friend> did it too”, to which the mother responds, “Well, if <friend> jumped off a cliff, would you also jump off a cliff?”
We shouldn’t be eating meat or any other animal products.
Animals are living and feeling beings who experience the world much like humans do, we shouldn’t be exploiting, abusing or killing them for profit/taste when we can easily avoid it.
And it’s terrible for the planet.
Environmental Impacts of Food Production
Genuinely curious: How do you feel about the lab-grown meat technology? Would you consider being an omnivore if no animals suffered or died to provide the meat?
If no animals were harmed in the process I wouldn’t mind but it’s not something I really want all that much, I’m good with plant based stuff.
Wait just a hot second there. Plants are living, breathing, creatures as well. The largest organism on the planet is the aspen tree.
Why do people always pretend to suddenly be stupid when talking about veganism?
You know damn well that plants don’t experience anything, pretending to be dumb isn’t a gotcha.
I do enjoy how you went straight to insults to deflect your lack of knowledge. Then followed by implying I’m missing the same knowledge.
Just because we have yet to understand how plants experience life, does not mean that they do not. We know that plants respond to pain. We know plants respond to music.
Wife and I have been following the vegan eating habits for about 2 years now. We just don’t feel the need to proselytize about it. Yes, proselytize is the correct word. You’re trying to “save the animals because they feel pain”, we’re just trying to get in better shape in our 40s. We are not the same.
When you make bad faith arguments you can’t expect well worded replies lol.
Even if this argument made any kind of sense(which let’s be clear, it does not) then going vegan would still be the answer.
A plant based diet uses way less plants than a meat filled one because you get to skip the inefficient middleman of animals.
Ah yes, asking people to not needlessly abuse animals is the same as trying to force people to join your religion, totally!
You’re right, we’re not the same, I’m standing up for beings who are getting abused and killed by the trillions because of profit and taste, you’re just not eating animals so you don’t die quicker.
Not sure why you brought that up.
See how you skiffed right off of the “plants feel pain” and dug your heels into “I’m protecting the innocent animals”?
Edit: You realize that anyone can see that you’re self-upvoting right?
Plant do not feel pain… they respond to stimuli.
It’s like saying antivirus software feels pain when it reacts to a virus on your computer.
And again, a plant based diet uses less plants, so even if plants did feel pain(they do not) veganism is the answer.
Yes, why wouldn’t I upvote my own posts? Obviously I like what I myself post.
Youd hate herbivores then, they have the most expendable energy for defence and obviously don’t need to kill - they’re herbivores
Just look at how deadly fucking hippos are
huh?
First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don’t. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)
Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?
Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren’t causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?
Fourth: “Exploiting” is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?
Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?
I copy paste the first two from the bingo board.
First:
Yes, animals kill in the wild - to survive. We humans are, as opposed to predators, omnivores. We know how to grow crops, vegetables, etc. and cultivate fields. We have a choice, a conscience and have morals.
Are you identifying with the intelligence and life situation of that of a lion? Do you also commonly ask yourself “What would a lion do in my place right now”? Are lions that kill newborns of other lions, for example, really good role models?
I can add to this regarding your question about more intelligent animals. So because some animals choose to kill, does that justify you doing so when you know it causes suffering? That does not make sense.
Second:
There are no nutrients that stem exclusively from animals. Originally derived from bacteria and microorganisms, they are accumulated in the food chain via plants and animals. You can leave out the middleman, which is the animal. Accordingly, a balanced vegan diet can meet needs at any stage of life. For certain chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, some cancers and heart disease), positive effects are even to be expected. Admittedly, it requires an initial conversion effort, since you have to get your nutrients via other foods and sometimes supplements. But don’t worry - it’s not rocket science and it’s for a good cause.
See also: https://www.pcrm.org/news/health-nutrition/academy-nutrition-and-dietetics-publishes-stance-vegan-and-vegetarian-diets
Third:
I actually didn’t find this one on the bingo board, so kudos. And this is sort of a grey area argument that isn’t really the core of the vegan proposition. But anyway my personal opinion is that it is ethical to kill for self defense (depending on the situation), even for an animal of “higher intelligence”. The same way as killing a person in self defense can be ethical in certain situations. But at the same time I don’t think we have an obligation to “step in” and save animals that are subject to predation etc in the wild, see the argument under “first”. This argument is quite close to the common one about killing for conservation, which is quite hillarious when you think about it. We have killed off all the natural predators, so the prey animals become overpopulated so we have to step in to kill them off for their own good.
Fourth:
Not directly on the board, but anyway. We don’t need a honey bee industry for crop production. There are alternatives. And it makes more sense to use native pollinators anyways (see also here https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0626 ).
And bee farming is exploitative. We cut off the wings of the queen to force her to stay. Forcibly impregnate her, and steal the honey. See more here https://youtu.be/clMNw_VO1xo
And as for your last point, ofc we cause environmental harm, that is unavoidable. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Should we just give up and torture and kill sentient beings because we can’t avoid causing some harm to the environment? How does that make any sense?
Thank you, I couldn’t be fucked to reply to these ridiculously cliche anti-vegan comments lol
I’m not a vegan, not even a vegetarian - but your message is so full of logical fallacies and whataboutisms, it’s enough to drive someone to veganism. Is that really the best you can do?
The first sentence is like when a child has done something wrong, and their mother tells them off, so the child says “Well, <friend> did it too”, to which the mother responds, “Well, if <friend> jumped off a cliff, would you also jump off a cliff?”
Isn’t it crazy the kind of things people will say and upvote as soon as it’s about owning vegans?
Such obviously flawed arguments would never fly for any other topic lol.