It seems exhausting to jump through hoops to justify it. It’s so easy to just say that you love the taste so it’s fine to you
This is giving me some vibes of “without religion people be murdering each other”.
There’s no moral conflict in eating meat and not murdering humans, eating meat and refusing to hurt animals other ways, or even eating only some animals and not anothers.
I have well developed morals about the animal thing. And they are not based in giving animals rights. I don’t consider animals as having rights like humans. What I consider, on the other hand, is humans having the duty not to be cruel. So hurting animals (or even plants) for no reason is cruelty thus is wrong. This allows for the hurt of other living beings without cruel intentions, and sits pretty good with a lot of different situations and dilemmas on what’s right and what’s wrong.
So hurting animals (or even plants) for no reason is cruelty thus is wrong.
The entire point is that meat isn’t necessary for the vast majority of people. Which thus makes it cruel and wrong.
This is before we get to all of the points about land use, pollutants, climate change, and the general inefficiency of getting calories from animals, which are all good reasons regardless of the above.
I’m not really swayed by the cruelty argument personally. I am much more open to the environmental damage arguments, but it’s specifically the way vegans prefer to paint the issue in terms of a moral imperative which keeps me at arms length.
There are legitimately places in the world where the only realistic way to extract nutrients from the land is to graze goats and eat them. That reduces the morality argument to agricultural privilege imo.
97% of animals in the US are factory farmed. If you live in the US, it really is as simple as I stated. If you are one of the vanishingly few people that actually do live in places where the only option is pastoralism, then that’s fine. But the vast majority of people do not. Judging Americans by the standards of a Sub-Saharan shepard is just as ridiculous as the other way around.
meat isn’t necessary for the vast majority of people.
you don’t know what others need
K
The beauty of this logic is that the wrongness of something falls into what we define by “cruel” which fits better into our actual moral arguments and lets room for changes in opinion without changing all the logic.
For instance for a person to move from not being vegan into being began only would need to consider that eating meat without need is indeed cruel, and then wrong. But the whole structure of trying to avoid cruelty stands.
I find it more “elegant” that a moral solution that tries to give animal rights, because then you would need to move into big changes in logic to move from one position to another.
Enh. I don’t personally see the issue with the rights argument - although I think the environmental damage/inefficiency argument is probably the most effective. Plenty of places have animal cruelty laws, often protecting cats/dogs/pets above farm animals. These are legal rights that these animals have been given. We can then point to research on animal cognition - e.g. that pigs have been shown to be as smart as many dog breeds - to demonstrate the hypocrisy.
Personally, it boils down to this: being violent towards less powerful beings is almost universally considered to be evil. We have quite a lot of laws about this. Extending these rights to non-human beings is just as natural as extending it to your neighbors, and done for the same reason - a society that commits wanton acts of cruelty in one legal arena will be more willing to commit them in others. It is self-defense as much as goodwill towards others.
The animal rights logic is usually the following: Animals have the capacity to suffer and a will to live, therefore they deserve a right to not be harmed or killed needlessly.
No sane person would argue that they should have the right to vote or anything like that, just the basic ones. I feel like there’s a lot of confusion about this.
E.g. kicking a dog on a whim violates their right to not be harmed and should be illegal in an ideal world.
It seems like you share the ethical concern. Why wouldn’t you be in favor of granting them these two basic rights then?
Maybe your problem is with extending this logic to something like killing a pig for taste pleasure compared to kicking a dog? I’d argue that if you’re against the latter, there’s no ethical reason to defend or even support the former. Something being culturally ingrained or pleasurable doesn’t automatically justify it after all.
can you explain what you mean by will to live?
My issue with that approach is that all rights that we concede to animals are related to humans. We would not police interactions between animals (unless provoked by a human). So it feel strange to give an animal the right to live just if its live would be taken by a human, but that right becoming meaningless if the life-taker is another animal. At the end we are only caring about human-animal iterations so why not simplify making it an human duty instead of an animal right?
I’m also fond of duties. From two perspectives. We could talk about giving animal rights, but we could not talk about giving animal duties. So they would be recipient of rights without duties. And I also like to remind people that humans not only have rights, that we also have duties which are equally important.
The base of the underlying logic is also not against veganism. As soon as you consider killing an animal for it’s meat something cruel it becomes inmoral. The the debate gets simplified in talking about what constitutes cruelty and, if killing for eating is cruel or not. Which to me seems much more on point that talking about animal rights which could get complicated and have the deep meaning lost in words and concepts.
At the end the animal having or not having rights is meaningless as most people debating this care only about what the human is doing to the animal. For instance, in a word without humans, would the animals still have those human invented rights?
I eat meat everyday but I can logically see the vegans are correct.
Vegans are objectively right about the meat industry.
People who claim otherwise just don’t want to be told they can be wrong.
But I also love meat.
I was like that for awhile. It’s tough to admit to yourself that you’re part of the problem and even more difficult to change. My actions now align with my values, so I feel less moral tension day-to-day.
It’s about like everything else living in our society. There’s already too much to be concerned about without becoming exhausted by it, survival, economic, social, spiritual, moral, etc. Being truly vegan takes a particular special effort and our society is not set up to support it and make it easy and accessible without extra effort on your part. So then it becomes a question of priorities like everything else. Hard line vegans prioritize it higher than most, moral vegetarians a bit lower, and everyone else lower still, if at all. In a perfect world where the majority of our base level needs were met, I think veganism would be a much higher priority for people, but it’s just one of many things to be concerned about in this world, and so naturally it will not be on top of everyone’s list.
that’s an even stronger claim than is made in the comic, which is only that vegans might be right. which i can agree to, but i have yet to find compelling evidence.
Pineaple goes on pizza (Ominously in the background)
Please, humans would eat humans if it was socially acceptable, proof? All the humans eating humans when it is socially acceptable. Also murder is accepted in every society in the world as long as the state approves. And puppy murder? Have you ever been to a vet? The truth is that ethics are not relative they are simply a lie to pasify the masses so they have an arm tied behind their back when fighting the rich. In other words the only truth in this world is that pineapple on pizza is a sin against God and you will end in eternal hell fire gnashing your teeth begging for a drop of water on your tongue.
Ok but what if morality is subjective…? My morals say that killing puppies is bad, and people who do it are bad.
But with universalism, killing a Nazi is bad. Because it’s killing. With universalism, humanity is attempting to assign intent to the universe and say that the natural state of being for morality is that killing is bad. It’s simply not true. Perhaps in most cases, but not all. That’s not universalism, by definition.
Am I woefully misunderstanding something here …?
What if morality is subjective?
Morality is subjective.
Well with objective universalism, killing is good, as unlife is the most common state of existence, it can never be immoral to unalive something.
If the universe has intent, it clearly is moving all things towards low entropy unlife, and as such unaliving is to carry out a moral good, and always moral, no?
/s
I know you’re taking a piss, but why would forcing all things to be the same be necessarily moral?
When arguing for a universal intent, it’s typically argued as virtuous/moral to further that intent, or at least immoral to go against that intent.
The conclusions are bunk because the premise is bunk.
Ah. I suppose that makes some sense but yeah the whole premise of universal intent is just silly.
Vegans that think like this aren’t right, you can not eat meat if you want, but eating meat is a natural thing. We humans, especially in America, eat entirely too much meat, but we are omnivores. You don’t need meat to survive but it’s easier to do so when you eat meat. The real issue is the cruelty and unsanitary conditions that are rampant across the factory farm/meat industry. There is too little regulation, and too few companies controlling the market. An equally good form of protest is to just get your meat sourced locally. It can be an even better form of protest depending on what you would eat as a vegan, because there are several crops that are commonly eaten by vegans that have slave labor and water depletion involved i.e. almonds and quinoa.
Edit: wording
By all means, take off your clothes and run off into the woods if you wish to live ‘naturally’.
Anything nature can do by accident, we can do better on purpose. Which is exactly what we’ve done: selectively breed a huge variety of plants that can be raised artificially, to the point that any meat consumption is utterly unnecessary. Meat consumption could, in fact, be described as an active choice to cause suffering and further harm Spaceship Earth’s life-support system for no reason.
My goodness this is so full of wrong arguments I don’t even know where to start. If it wasn’t bad enough the almonds and quinoa make it perfect. What’s next? Vegans eat the rainforest because they eat tofu? Veganism is not a diet! Heavens sake. Talk to your ‘good’ lifestock farmers. Ask them if they give their animals names and if no, why. Ps. I am an agronomist with a PhD and became a convinced vegan 5 years back because it’s just the right thing to do in so many ways not only from my professional knowledge but from a point of basic decency.
- Natural does not imply good
- The only way meat is cheaper than a slavery free vegan (or vegetarian) diet is if that meat comes from a torture factory
- Local meat is still worse for the environment than non-meat that was shipped across the globe
it’s cheaper because they receive a bunch of subsidies
regardless of the reason, that is the present condition
The only way meat is cheaper than a slavery free vegan (or vegetarian) diet is if that meat comes from a torture factory
a single counterexample would disprove this. also, torture factories don’t exist.
Local meat is still worse for the environment than non-meat that was shipped across the globe
I don’t know how you can prove this
A single counterexample would disprove this
Go ahead.
Torture factories don’t exist
What do you mean? It sounds like torture to me: “Chickens raised for meat have been genetically selected for rapid growth. They typically reach market weight 6–7 weeks after hatching and grow so fast that their organs and bones often cannot keep up. As a result, many die from heart failure or other ailments, and countless more suffer from broken bones, lameness, and ruptured organs.”
Many more kinds of torture are documented by this and many other sources that are easy to find.
I don’t know how you can prove this
Here’s the data.
this data is based on bad science. in particular, it relies on poore-nemecek 2018, which misuses LCA data by combining disparately methodized studies.
Do you have a different study that you prefer?
as I said, I don’t know that you can prove your claim
It sounds like torture to me
in torture, the point is to cause pain. in farming, pain is incidental. if it could be done at the same cost and entirely painlessly, i’m sure that method would prevail.
Sure. I’d be down with calling them “extreme pain and suffering for cheaper food” farms if you prefer.
I just want you to stop trying to use sophistry to convert people to your ideology. surely the plain-spoken facts are sufficient.
Go ahead.
hunting can yield hundreds of pounds of meat for just a few dollars.
Sure, assuming you have the rifle, the training and the hunting rights, and assuming your time doesn’t count as value.
I’m definitely more pro hunting than pro factory farming!
But I don’t really know of any poor people in industrialized countries who get their meat from hunting, especially not ones that eat meat every day. Maybe some special cases in very rural places? And it’s hardly scalable.
You don’t need that to hunt.
A crude selfmade bow and arrow is enough. Even a rock will do.
That is how they did it for thousands of years.
Is this really an argument for a non-meat diet being too expensive?
Imagine the effort, time and risk involved in hunting and killing a rabbit or deer with a rock, and subsequent slaughtering and storing of meat. Doesn’t that represent much more value than the money you would pay for an equivalent amount of nutrition from non-meat sources? At least in an industrialised nation?
you are moving the goal posts. I provided the only counter example needed to disprove your claim
Veganism is a luxury of modern times and certain social economic circles. Bless people for being able to keep to it. Personally I can’t, not because I love murdering innocent animals but feeding myself and a family is a complex task with the items I have in my area and the time I have.
I was able to do meatless days more often when I had a market down the road and didn’t have many mouths to feed, but now I’ve moved and the local produce is complete garbage and I have to put my effort into other items into the day that are unfortunately not meal prep.
This is not me saying “Veganism bad” this is saying you can’t assume everyone has the same situations you do. Change things from the top, not beat up people just trying to make it day to day.
Vegan almost always = privileged and preachy
It’s wild that these people are so aggressive to anyone who can’t afford their crazy expensive and nutritionally deficient diet.
They have infinitely more empathy for animals than they do fellow humans. If they had any empathy for people they’d see how classist their belief system is.
Where are you living that vegetables are more expensive than meat??
You act like processed foods aren’t the main staple in most American diets.
The vast majority of processed foods are meat based.
Saying “just eat less processed foods” shows classist bias because it demonstrates an absolute ignorance as to why people eat this shit in the first place.
Ah, America. What a shithole
Why don’t you try saying something relevant? Can’t think of any good points?
Or do you just want to prove my point about lacking empathy?
I know america is in a really bad spot, and has been for a long time really. In my personal experience as a vegetarian in the uk, as long as you stick with vegetable alternatives rather than fake meats, you can keep meals pretty fairly priced. I can’t comment on how it is over there however, other than recognising that you lot are going through hell right now.
Probably could’ve been more civil with you beginning there, I’m just so used to seeing other veggie/vegan people get a lot of shit for a loud minority, ive also had my share of shit from people around me, and I get defensive when I see it now.
In my experience, veggie food can be tasty as all hell and cheap if youre careful. Nutritional deficiencies havent been a noticeable problem for me other than being told to make sure I have enough protein to build muscle but that was for medical issue unrelated. Could be that I’m just unaware of it though.
I think saying vegans lack empathy is very reductive; I’m sure there is probably vegans who are like that, ive met some lovely vegetarians/vegans Ive also met some vegans that I thought were behaving disgustingly. Just because someone is vegan, doesnt mean they are a dickhead, but the same goes for people who eat meat, I have nothing against people eating meat, my initial reasons for going vegetarian actually had nothing to do with the meat industry.
Culture wars like this just serve to distract from the class war, and that should be what we’re fighting, if someone is being shitty, call them out for being shitty, and accept that they are shitty, dont then ascribe that shittyness to random people. Just the act of being vegan/vegetarian shouldn’t be a problem.
Veganism is a luxury of modern times
Plenty of vegans in India for centuries, not luxurious or modern. You can say that being vegan is hard in modern meat-oriented society, but then turn your critique towards the system and not towards the people telling you to go vegan. And I say this as a non-vegan.
You’re thinking of vegetarians, and it’s more commonly practiced by those who can afford to. Upper-class vegetarians fought to prevent eggs being given to impoverished school children in India.
veganism is a philosophy, and has been around less than one hundred years
There earliest proponent of veganism listed on Wikipedia is Abu al-Ala al-Ma’arri, roughly one thousand years ago. According to their source:
“[Al-Maʿarri’s] diet was extremely frugal, consisting chiefly of lentils, with figs for sweet; and, very unusually for a Muslim, he was not only a vegetarian, but a vegan who abstained from meat, fish, dairy products, eggs, and honey, because he did not want to kill or hurt animals, or deprive them of their food.”
Also:
Al-Ma’arri held an antinatalist outlook, in line with his general pessimism, suggesting that children should not be born to spare them of the pains and suffering of life.
I should read this guy’s work.
veganism as a term didn’t exist until the 1940s, and the philosophy is not the same as what al-ma’arri advocated.
Vegetarianism is a luxury? Meat is a luxury, and we need to start acting like it.
Speaking locally to me, chicken is half the price per gram of protein compared to vegan proteins. It might be different if I could digest wheat. Beans are closest in price, but I can’t physically consume enough beans for that to work alone. Vegan options need to be subsidized to encourage wider adoption.
Regarding vegetarianism specifically, anyone who thinks they aren’t hurting animals by consuming commercial eggs and dairy are kidding themselves. Chicken is also (again, local to me) cheaper than dairy-based proteins. (Not sure about the cost of eggs since I can’t digest those either.)
I think it’s accurate to say that meat is a luxury in the sense that we collectively are paying environmental and ethical costs for the farming industry.
e: Another consideration is the support of healthcare providers. Only an omnivorous diet is supported by the Swedish healthcare system. I was just in the hospital and had no option for protein other than pork and yogurt. When attempting to meet my dietary needs on a vegan diet, I have received no professional help.
I think it’s accurate to say that meat is a luxury in the sense that we collectively are paying environmental and ethical costs for the farming industry.
I’d like to see us factor in the bio-availability of nutrients from both plant and animal sources when considering the costs, as well.
Vegetarianism is a luxury?
Yes it is, sometimes, based on the criteria in the post you are replying to.
They even give examples of why this is and point out not everyone has the same circumstances you , but you still somehow read it as your own personal position being the only correct one.
To be clear, that’s vegetarianism, not vegetables.
Access and “cost effectiveness to nutrition ratios” are skewed towards meat in some places, especially when looked at from a socio-economic point of view.
Per calorie, meat or “meat” can be cheaper, especially when you factor in time/effort taken for purchase, storage, prep and cooking.
That’s almost certainly because of the focus on meat production in some countries and you could argue that it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s a different conversation.
That’s almost certainly because of the focus on meat production in some countries and you could argue that it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s a different conversation.
That is, in fact, this conversation. That’s what I mean by “we need to start acting like it”.
If you want to change conversations then indicate that that is what’s happening , because the post you are replying to clearly stated the context in which that statement was made.
If you want to reply to that statement in an entirely different context and then don’t mention that that is happening you’re going to get confusion.
There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual. She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables. We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.
There is no world in which a person’s daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.
You have to be doing it on purpose at this point, nobody accidentally misses the context with that amount of pinpoint accuracy.
You’re even including partial sentences and specifically leaving out the part that gives the context.
OK so I’ll do this one line by line and then you’re on your own.
There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual.
The whole line was
Veganism is a luxury of modern times and certain social economic circles.
As for “patently counterfactual” that’s a strong phrase for zero supporting arguments.
She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables.
Yes, as a supporting argument that the current conditions mean that it’s not universally economically viable to subsist on vegetables.
We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.
It was mentioned yes, but in the context of current conditions.
I’ll simplify for you.
As things currently are it is not always economically viable to subsist on vegetables alone.
There was no argument that it isn’t possible for the world to get to a point where this is possible, just that it’s not the current world.
Do you know what the word is for an item that is possible to obtain with an expenditure of wealth, while a less costly viable alternative exists?
There is no world in which a person’s daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.
No, they describe many reasons aside from just the purchase price, if you haven’t seen them i suggest you back and re-read the post, it’s like 3 small paragraphs.
In case you are still struggling. I’ll bullet point them for you.
- Purchase price
- Availability
- Quality
- Accessibility
- Opportunity/Prep Time Cost
Overall your replies imply a lack of ability to empathize with another persons circumstances and not a small amount of (let them eat cake) entitlement.
it’s great that you are in a financial situation, physical location and with enough free time to make vegetarianism viable.
Declaring that it’s not possible to be in a situation worse than the one you are in, especially when realistic potential reasons for the differences are offered, is tone-deaf and frankly disgusting.
I’m done with this, if you can’t figure it out from the above that’s a you problem, and i suppose anyone who has to deal with you on a regular basis.
I totally understand why the word luxury can sound off here. I just meant that being vegan or vegetarian often takes extra time, knowledge, and access. Things that aren’t always easy for everyone.
I think it’s great when people can make it work, but not everyone has the same options or support. It’s less about right or wrong choices and more about recognizing that everyone’s circumstances are different.
I’m trying to be empathetic, because it really feels like lashing out at the wrong targets here. Hopefully we can agree society is the problem, not the people in the society who can’t access these choices.
Agreed
Straw man. Vegans don’t claim veganism is natural. That would be a logical fallacy, anyway. Vegans claim that what you do to animals is cruel, violent, and needless.
Biologically, you are an herbivore; the more meat you eat, the younger you die, and the more major diseases you experience. Biological meat eaters don’t get heart disease and diabetes from eating meat, for example. But let’s say that you are a (non-obligate) omnivore. That means you can choose not to be cruel and violent. If you don’t have to harm vulnerable individuals to be happy and healthy, then why do it?
Biological meat eaters don’t get heart disease and diabetes from eating meat, for example.
Humans do not get diabetes (type 2 the most common) from eating meat, it’s a direct result of pernicious carbohydrate consumption
The same for heart disease
We are omnivores.
The only reason why we experience those diseases is because we eat too much meat as an omnivore.
That’s scientifically incorrect on so many levels
Omnivorous adaptations seen in humans include our teeth structure, dexterous hands, and historical ability to adapt to nearly any environment.
Herbivores usually have adaptations like cellulase, ruminating, and coprophagia to cope with digesting plant matter. They also consume meat in many cases.
Gorillas, pandas… basically every great ape we evolved from, or in parallel with: all herbivores. Many of them have sharper and larger canines than us and more dextrous hands.
Our closest living relatives: chimpanzees and bonobos; both frugivores.
We share far more similarities with frugivores than any other species classified as an omnivore. There is a very good argument to be made that only reason humans are ‘omnivores’ is our modern diet, ergo: humans currently eat significant amounts of meat and so are classified as such by biologists - but it is a behavioural definition, not physiological.
The bigger issue is really ‘what is good for us’, and there are study after study coming out every month saying we should be eating more fibre, plants, antioxidants, etc - and far less meat and saturated fats.
Biological meat eaters don’t get heart disease and diabetes from eating meat, for example.
You should go and tell vets so they’re aware too.
If you don’t have to harm vulnerable individuals to be happy and healthy, then why do it
almost no one does that
That would be a logical fallacy, anyway
it depends on how it’s used
What qualifies a behaviour as natural?
It doesn’t require magic, or intervention from otherworldly spirits, etc.
The word explains itself. If it occurs in nature it is natural.
the opposite of natural is supernatural.
Right, things that don’t occur in nature
I’d say acting on instinct primarily.
That’s why I rape often, it’s natural. Same with murder when I’m inconvenienced. Also losing my job and foraging naked for berries while I die of food poisoning. Natural as fuck.
Me personally, Any behavior before books is natural. Post that is unnatural. I dont consider unnatural bad either. It just Human ascension.
I feel like if people actually made a pros and cons table regarding veganism like you would in primary school and actually listed them out they would learn a lot.
Stating ideologically that you must not kill animals will lead to absurdity as well. (The post is about the absurdity that does come from ideologically negating the questions of veganism.)
