You're viewing a single thread.
I have lots of friends that are vegan/have been vegan, or are sympathetic to the cause. IRL I have had some wonderful conversations about veganism and the ethics of our diet. But on the Internet it's the vegans ironically that need to get out and touch grass. It's like there's no nuance to any conversation, like sorry I can be Peter Singer, it's actually kinda difficult to be that moral.
This. My experience has been that internet vegans are more concerned with judging others than caring about animals.
Is this meant to prove or disprove it?
There are some commercial vegan diets available which have synthetically made nutrients to replace those found only in animal based ingredients.
There may also be some that do not meet the safety and nutritional standards of other types of food. Manufacturers should provide information to show it is nutritionally complete and balanced. This information can be difficult to find and understand, so it's important to speak with your vet for advice too.
Peter Singer isn't actually vegan (he is human garbage though), so idk why vegans still idolize him so much
(am vegan)
I hold no allegiance to Singer, I was merely using him as an example since he is a well known moral philosopher. But now I'm curious, what's the tea, why is he so bad? What makes him deserving of the title human garbage?
From a 2004 interview:
Concerning bestiality - should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants? -- he responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' (but) it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."
Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."
From a 2001 review:
But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disturbed by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but not everyone objects to being used by his or her dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop.
Article on a 2015 case of a woman sexually assaulting her student, a mute man with cerebral palsy:
If we assume that he is profoundly cognitively impaired, we should concede that he cannot understand the normal significance of sexual relations between persons or the meaning and significance of sexual violation. These are, after all, difficult to articulate even for persons of normal cognitive capacity. In that case, he is incapable of giving or withholding informed consent to sexual relations; indeed, he may lack the concept of consent altogether.
This does not exclude the possibility that he was wronged by Stubblefield [the assaulter], but it makes it less clear what the nature of the wrong might be. It seems reasonable to assume that the experience was pleasurable to him; for even if he is cognitively impaired, he was capable of struggling to resist, and [...] it is implausible to suppose that Stubblefield forcibly subdued him. On the assumption that he is profoundly cognitively impaired, therefore, it seems that if Stubblefield wronged or harmed him, it must have been in a way that he is incapable of understanding and that affected his experience only pleasurably.
There's also this statement by the National Council on Disability in response to Singer's appearance on a radio show.
Singer's statements supporting eugenics, which is what he's most notorious for, are also not difficult to find.
But on the Internet it’s the vegans ironically that need to get out and touch grass.
I keep hearing about these crazy vegans from other folks complaining on the internet. I never actually get to meet them in the wild.
But if I flip over to YouTube Recommended Feed I can find Liver King tier content all the fuck over the front page. Definitely try to steer clear of anything "Recommended" these days, but if I had my ear-holes getting saturated with JBP / Joe Rogan Carnivore Diet insanity 24/7, that might wear down my ability to have a polite conversation.
Maybe that's what other people are seeing out on the YT comments sections?
Here on Lemmy I've been accused of torturing and raping animals as I'm unashamedly an omnivore. I'm a hunter as well.
I worry about animal suffering enough that we've bought a small farm and hope to raise all our own meat. I've actually worked on factory farms and know firsthand the suffering of animals under that system.
However, there are fanatical vegans on Lemmy that do a fantastic job of driving away those of us sympathetic to vegan ethics and morality.
Here on Lemmy I’ve been accused of torturing and raping animals
I’ve actually worked on factory farms
Depending on what all you did to the animals at those factory farms, you might have been torturing and raping animals. I did horseback riding for like 7 years of my life. I don't deny I was an animal abuser. The only thing I can do about it now is never get on a horses back again. Denying I was ever doing abuse won't help me.
RAPE! RAPE! MURDER!!!!1!
This bullshit doesn't help your cause at all. I'm the rare omnivore that is actually sympathetic to moral issues of factory farmig and animal suffering.
You need to like unfuck your head and try to turn down whatever preaching you're listening to. That's some bad religion that's got ahold of you.
You're no different than those 'pro-life' whack jobs.
Here on Lemmy I’ve been accused of torturing and raping animals as I’m unashamedly an omnivore
I'm sorry to hear that. Online discourse does get extremely personal, particularly when people don't know each other.
I’ve actually worked on factory farms and know firsthand the suffering of animals under that system
Well then... not to be rude but that means you've literally been complicit in torturing and raping animals.
There it is.
So, as an ignorant teenager, cleaning chicken houses of rotten corpses and chicken shit for $5/hr: I was actually fucking those chickens? I was kid chicken raper? The steers I raised in elementary school, I suppose I fucked them as well.
See, that's the thing. I saw how bad it was and have worked and saved for many years so I will no longer have to participate in a system that involves industrial suffering.
But nope, I'm totally such a raper. Fuck you and your sanctimonious bullshit. You don't know me or my circumstances. I know plenty of Southern Baptists and Church of Christ that spew this same shit. Y'all would get along real well, if you only listened to your tones and didn't pay attention to the words.
Fucking fanatics can suck my fucking balls, all y'all the same.
So, as an ignorant teenager, cleaning chicken houses of rotten corpses and chicken shit for $5/hr: I was actually fucking those chickens? I was kid chicken raper?
I would like to think "I saw the horrors and really learned something" would be the appropriate response, not "I saw the horrors, so now I'm immune to criticism for eating meat."
But I do begin to see why vegans upset you so much.
If you're trying to make a point for there not being as many "crazy vegans" on the internet, well, you're fucking it up.
I don't eat factory farmed meat so I am not interested in your stupid shit
The zigging and zagging in your story reads like a Just So Ben Shapiro piece.
Next, I'm expecting to hear how you've got a condition that makes it ableist to mention veganism in front of you.
Hey don't get me wrong, there's a lot of people that need to touch grass, there's some areas that I have ignorant opinions about. But the best way to fix that is to have constructive mature conversations with real people.
Ps. Carnivore diet is silly and leaves you with less energy than 4 well rounded meals a day, even if it is consistent. Smaller complete meals throughout the day can give you more consistently high energy than ketosis ever will.
You don't see them in the wild because they're terminally online babies who can only exist in an internet bubble, and likely don't represent anything but a tiny fraction of vocal, obtuse jerkoffs compared to the population of vegans.
You don’t see them in the wild because they’re terminally online babies
I still don't know who you're actually referring to. Where are the JBP vegan equivalents?
This guy for example: https://lemmy.world/comment/12082933
It started because a Lemmy.World ADMIN (allegedly carnist) decided to start removing comments about feeding a vegan diet to a cat.
The comments in question were perfectly fine, they literally explained how pets and specifically cats need a few very important nutrients, which are specifically added to vegan pet food. The comments explained in depth about what nutrients they need and where those nutrients come from originally. The comments also warned that you need to be very careful about what you feed them and that you have to do your research, and have to examine the behavior and health of your pet if you decide to do this.
Mister admin decided it was misinformation, even though it broke none of the Lemmy.World rules or /c/vegan rules. Nor was it even misinformation.
The /c/vegan mods in turn banned the Admin from the community because it was obvious there was no objective basis to these removals. The admin in turn got themselves unbanned and banned the mods.
So nuance you say?
Vegans get an amazing amount of hate. And this hate is public and ACCEPTED.
Allegedly carnist
So, someone sane.
If you think a cat can be vegan, please never own a cat.
Agreed.
Humans can be vegan because we're omnivores. Meat isn't the only source we need to get our nutrition. Our bodies are fantastic at pulling nutrients from different food sources.
Cats and dogs are not. They are carnivores. Their bodies cannot adequately process the nutrition from non-meat sources.
Humans can also take supplements for whatever nutrients we're missing. It's much harder to get an animal to take them, especially when you're looking at how many would be required on a vegan diet.
Finally, ask any vet what foods to avoid and they will tell you that you don't want to ever give your animal those small-batch/boutique foods. They are almost never nutritionally complete since they're designed to appear appealing to the humans, not the animals. They also often aren't produced in a clean food-safe environment.
Humans are good at pulling nutrients from all sorts of sources but those sources have to actually contain the nutrients in the first place, we don't have some magic ability to just eat one thing with no supplementation and get all our nutrients.
Dogs are omnivores.
Supplements are already in the livestock (that we feed the cats) feed and animal based cat food. Yes it's harder to get most cats to take a pill than a human adult, but that really isn't necessary it can just be put in the food itself, and it is.
They can have a perfectly fine vegan diet.
I think all of you need to: GET OVER IT.
It's just that simple.
I mean you're the one coming into a thread in a different community getting snarky with multiple different people who are all being pretty level headed so
Let's just say you're right, it's perfectly possible and healthy for the cat.
Does that make it ethical to force a carnivorous hunter animal on a vegan diet? Are you going to force it to stay inside to limit the possibility for it to catch mice & birds just to be sure?
Just beyond the physical possibility, how ethical is it to force our choices onto our pets?
Most people I've talked to, which is mostly nonvegans, think it is unethical to let cats outside because they will kill wild animals. This is a more hypocritical stance than the reverse (a vegan who lets their cat outside) if you understand veganism.
You're also throwing around the word forced. People force choices on their pets, children, and even fellow adults all the time, but there are different levels of force. Putting down food for a cat that gladly eats it is a far cry away from shoving something down their throat or leaving it out until they have no choice but to eat it. I'd argue that it's often very appropriate to make food choices for a cat you live with, if a cat begs for some lasagna or a donut you probably shouldn't give it to them.
Edit: Also when people talk about forcing cats onto a vegan diet you have to realize the alternative is forcing livestock to suffer serious trauma for their entire life and then die. It's not hard to see that one of these is a more serious abuse of our power over other animals.
I think it is a lot more ethical than forcing death because people enjoy eating their meat.
Also, "forced" is the wrong word. Only very few vegans would be stupid enough to not monitor their pet in these cases. And you can talk shit about them as much as you want because they are wrong. But somebody that's just trying to see if it's possible while monitoring and following up on the health of their animals? Sure.
What do you mean by forcing being the wrong word? Do you give the cat a bowl of meat and a bowl of vegan alternative for a month, and then see what the cat chooses? That would not be forcing imo. But i doubt that's happening anywhere.
No you give them reinforced vegan pet food and see if they like it and remain healthy. If they don't then you just switch back.
Vegan pet food is specifically designed to have all the nutrients they need.
Aww buddy. You lil' hypocrite. Who's a little boy that pays people to have animals killed? You are, yes you are! Awww!
What was that about me caring for a cat again?
You people are unhinged.
Ok vegan
Yep I care for all living animals. That's why I said "hypocrite", because I don't think meat eaters should even join the discussion considering they pay for murder. While vegans discuss having a healthy cat with less murder.
But hey, you do you. I'm hypocrite sometimes too. It took me 25 years before I realized I was selfish.
Ok vegan
no one pays for murder
Sometimes people pay for murder.
most people don't.
Awww. I would love to live in blissful ignorance like you.
everything ive said is true
Who’s a little boy that pays people to have animals killed?
no one does that
Ok, i get it, it's fun to hate on the vegan, but he's right and you're not.
If you buy meat somewhere part of the price is you paying for the person that killed it. That's obvious right?
Of course in relation to the cat, even if there's a healthy vegan diet possible, he's wrong imo. Why force our choices onto pets?
We already force our cats to eat the canned food and dry kibble we provide them. The standard cat diet is just not healthy to start with, which is what opens the conversation to "what food would make my cat healthy" and then if you are already there, its not much of a stretch to consider ALL types of foods so that we are sure to find the best result.
If vegan food for cats is possible without reducing the cats quality of life, then its worth trying. Most cats just plain dont like the vegan food though, and no vegan would force their CST to be unhappy just to make them vegan.
The whole point is to improve the cats life, not to force our morals on them. If it was possible for your cat to live 25% longer on a vegan diet, would it be abusive not to even consider it? (Not saying that's a settled fact, its a thought exercise).
If you buy meat somewhere part of the price is you paying for the person that killed it.
no. that person is already paid and paid by somebody who is not me
The premise is what matters, which is that you like to eat meat. Because of this, let's say a chicken company has decided they will kill a chicken so that you can buy it. Your actions cause an incentive to kill animals, and so someone does and sells it to you.
You could kill it yourself, but like you said, you are no murderer, so you pay a company to do it for you and then you get to feel like you aren't a murderer. What a deal!
People dont eat meat because companies produce it, companies produce it because people eat it. Therefore the blame lies with those that eat it, which also means the best way to reduce animal deaths is to stop eating meat so that companies will produce less of it.
Eventually, they might stop producing it at any meaningful scale altogether, once enough people reduce or stop their consumption of meat.
Your actions cause an incentive to kill animals, and so someone does and sells it to you.
people's actions are not caused by incentives. they are caused by our will. i don't decide for others whether to kill chickens. tehy decide for themselves.
Peoples actions are caused by rewards. When you do something and are rewarded either externally (other people, nature, etc.) or internally (self-reward) which then causes you to want to repeat the actions. Its cyclical, and you can't have the action without the reward or the system breaks and the action stops being rewarded. If you do this cycle long enough, you will learn a habit that no longer requires the type of reward to sustain.
You buy meat, reward company with money, company is happy and decides to do it again, rinse and repeat. You can't have one without the other so the company is just as responsible for selling as you are for buying. Either of you could break the cycle but neither wants to.
Thats why vegans try to show a good example and share their reasoning and discuss things, because this is what breaks harmful cycles and habits.
You buy meat, reward company with money,
the company is paid long before i walk into the grocery store.
Peoples actions are caused by rewards.
no. tehy are caused by the will of the person. they can choose to do otherwise. i do not make their choice for them.
People dont eat meat because companies produce it, companies produce it because people eat it
i don't know how you would go about trying to disprove this claim.
you pay a company to do it for you
i have never done that.
I'm sort of confused what you think buying a product from a company means? The price they charge is to cover all of the costs they spent to produce it plus a profit. You are paying a company to make whatever good you buy from them by purchasing the item, they've just premade it for convenience. They do take a risk that they assumed wrong and the people they thought would buy it don't. When that happens they reduce supply or make something else that those people do want.
Its a relationship essentially and I dont think its possible to assign responsibility to a single side of the relationship. Ultimately its both the companies fault for offering to supply it, and the customers fault for offering to buy it.
Its very similar to why its so hard to decide who to blame when looking at a drug dealer selling to a drug addict. The answer is they are two sides of the same coin, and neither would exist without the other.
I understand you want proof but I think all I can offer is philosophy or whatever we want to call it. This whole concept is important to how I make decisions and I will stand by it until someone can reason me out of it.
Unfortunately I'm having a lot of trouble following the logic of your position. For me it falls apart as soon as I try to think a few steps past the immediate action of buying pre packaged meet in a store, and what those actions lead to.
the best way to reduce animal deaths is to stop eating meat
have you tried that?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
Yes I also understand not every country is in a position to be plant based, its a transition that takes time. The numbers I'm most interested in seeing is percentage of the population that is vegan and whether that percentage goes up or not.
Yeah, try that one in court. No your honor, i didn't pay for the murder, i paid for someone who paid for someone to commit the murder. I'm obviously innocent!
It's a plain stupid argument to try and make, and it makes no sense. And i'm not even vegan, i just recognize that yes, a part of the money i pay for meat goes to who kills it, so i pay for someone to kill animals for me so i can eat them. That's how the world works, and denying that is just ridiculous.
No your honor, i didn’t pay for the murder, i paid for someone who paid for someone to commit the murder. I’m obviously innocent!
i would be innocent. i had nothing to do with any of their decisions, and only much later did i pay anyone, but not the people responsible.
your analogy doesn't reflect the reality at all. a more apt analogy would be that someone paid to have their grandfather murdered, and later had an estate sale. at that estate sale, if i buy a watch, am i responsible for murder? no.
It’s a plain stupid argument to try and make, and it makes no sense.
it's obvious you can't suss it out, but the rest of us have had a pretty good conversation about it til you showed up.
And i’m not even vegan, i just recognize that yes, a part of the money i pay for meat goes to who kills it
no, it doesn't. that person was already paid.
It even comes packaged, with a price on it.. And you choose "yes i want murder" when you put it in your little basket..
your version of the story leaves out some important facts like it doesn't matter whether you put it in your cart because it's already dead, and the person who killed it was already paid by somebody who wasn't you.
That is pretty irrelevant. You purchasing the product signals a certain demand for it, that demand will help determine how much product is requested in the future, there is a cascading effect all the way up the supply chain. Sure an additional chicken might not be bred just because you purchased a chicken, it's way more abstract than that. Maybe if a hundred more chickens are bought then a hundred more chickens will be bred as replacements plus extra to account for growth and failed product (dead or sick chickens). And if you were one of the hundred people who purchased a chicken you can be seen as one hundredth responsible for at least a hundred chickens which is the same as being responsible for the 1+ chicken. Do you think if nobody purchased chickens that they would just keep stocking the shelves?
You purchasing the product signals a certain demand for it, that demand will help determine how much product is requested in the future,
this is not causal. someone decides whether or how much of a product to purchase. they have free will. i am not responsible for their decision.
So while you are eating said chicken, you are thinking "I'm not responsible for what happened to this bird?"
Is it the same as roadkill to you? Like it just so happened to be dead and nearby?
How about this: if person A murders person B, and then sells the meat to person C to consume, are both persons A and C responsible for murder or just A? What if person C is in the room when person B is murdered and butchered, does that change the answer? What if person C lives in another country and the meat is shipped to them, any change then?
I'd ask you to honestly consider that instead of discounting it for replacing animals with humans.
If you don't eat chicken nobody is going to swoop in and eat all the chicken you don't eat. However if a farmer or farming corporation decides to stop harvesting chickens then it's almost certain some entity will swoop in to replace them in the market. So acting like the consumer here is not one of the if not the most important part in this causal chain is just naive.
If you don’t eat chicken nobody is going to swoop in and eat all the chicken you don’t eat. However if a farmer or farming corporation decides to stop harvesting chickens then it’s almost certain some entity will swoop in to replace them in the market.
why do you tihnk both these sentences are true, and how would you go about trying to disprove either of them?
in this causal chain is just naive.
there is no causal chain.
Do you think if nobody purchased chickens that they would just keep stocking the shelves?
do you have a plan to get no one to purchase chickens?
Yes increasing awareness amongst our social groups about the benefits of vegan diets and the detriments of meat based diets. Most people want to be healthy.
The meat industry has a large effect on pollution a well, and affects the environment in many ways in water and on land.
Everyone's not vegan until they decide to be, I was a meat eat for 30 years before I made the decision, I understand its not easy or quick.
Some people just need to live in proximity with a vegan so they can learn by watching. The general public still has a lot of animosity towards vegans and especially vegan activists (and environmental activists as well, when they bring up meat). Sort of similar to how proximity dispels racism in a lot of ways.
good luck.
That's not important. I was illustrating that clearly if nobody ate chicken nobody would harvest chickens for food. Unless you think that the same amount of chickens will be harvested until the very last human gives up chicken then you have to acknowledge that the individual consumer does make a difference.
Unless you think that the same amount of chickens will be harvested until the very last human gives up chicken then you have to acknowledge that the individual consumer does make a difference.
no, i don't
if you were one of the hundred people who purchased a chicken you can be seen as one hundredth responsible for at least a hundred chickens which is the same as being responsible for the 1+ chicken.
i'm not responsible for others decisions at all.
That's a very basic and low IQ comment. I suggest you look up how economics work. Just because it's there doesn't mean that your money doesn't pay for the next. That's how it always works. If nobody wants some animal killing then they won't be killed. Pretty simple.
That’s a very basic and low IQ comment. I suggest you look up how economics work.
this is handwaving, not evidence for your position
Then don't use that stupid argument.
You think iPhones are "already made" and it won't make Apple a big company if you buy one?
If nobody wants some animal killing
do you have a plan to achieve this? I'll help. let me know when I'm the last one.
What are you saying? Keep your ignorant sarcasm for yourself if you can, please.
I'm being earnest
The BEHAVIOR of a very small subset of vegans unfortunately causes a small but ridiculously vocal subset of non-vegans to tar all vegans with the same brush.
Since volume equals truth for a not insignificant number of people in the Internet, far too many people don't stop to separate behavior choices from professed beliefs and that's how we get where we are now, I unfortunately.
The world would be a better place if people stopped automatically associating and assuming causation and instead treated bad behavior as just that.
Same goes the other way around. There's people treating vegans like trash. Even threatening them.
on lemmy?
...carnist...
Like the words, "woke" and, "terf" the word, "carnist" identifies the non-ironic user as an ideological extremist. It isn't vegans who get a lot of hate, it is vegan extremists. I love my vegan friends and bend over backwards to accommodate them. People who use the word, "carnist" can choke on a horse dick.
I simply used the definition that was used in the post by the /c/vegan mod(s).
Definitions made up by vegan extremists. Carnist, corpse munched, and blood mouth, sneered through clenched teeth are a dead giveaway that you're dealing with a lunatic extremist.
Get your facts straight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism
You're making stuff up
Show me "corpse muncher" and "blood mouth".
"Carnist" was co-opted by vegan extremists and is sneered through clenched teeth as an slur at anyone who doesn't agree with them by those extremists just as "woke" and "progressive" are sneered by right wing extremists at anyone who doesn't fully embrace the Project 2025 vision of a Handmaid's Tale version of the United States, "terf" is sneered by trans extremists at anyone who doesn't agree that you can magically change your sex by changing your gender, and the n-word has been sneered by racist extremists for centuries at anyone they see as racially impure.
Extremists are all the same.
So, show me "corpse muncher" and "blood mouth" or we're done here
Do you have a problem with the word chud? Because you sure sound like one.
I only care if I respect the person saying it and their opinion. In your case, not in the slightest. Carry on.
The /c/vegan mods in turn banned the Admin from the community because it was obvious there was no objective basis to these removals. The admin in turn got themselves unbanned and banned the mods.
What else did they expect?
I really don't think it's hate, in the classic sense. I think most of it is sort of a hamarotic response that's made possible by the fact that these forums show up in everybody's feed, and given that vegans typically have negative views on the eating practices of the rest of the world, can be seen referring to those people as they do in private. As you seem to be insinuating, it feels-bad-man to have your lifestyle casually attacked, and nearly always elicits retaliation because humans.
I feel like a lot of it is a matter of terminology. For instance, using the word "omnivore" instead of "carnist", or "Bovine Matchmaker", instead of "Animal Rapist".
it's not rape, it is a veterinary procedure
All of this. I just blocked the sub. It's not in my interest to raise my blood pressure over what a bunch of chuckle fucks think of my choices. It's fucking weird the pejoratives they invent. Carnist? That's cool, like an artist. Whatever. They can live in their world and I'll stay out of it. They aren't affecting me.
“Bovine Matchmaker”, instead of “Animal Rapist”.
We shouldn't tone down our language because others might be offended by it. "Bovine matchmaker" just isn't the reality of what artificial insemination is.
I agree with you, but/and you are making my point for me.
I'm not sure how I am?
It's hate.
They are projecting their ignorance of their own molested values and morals.
People hate it when you get real, and veganism is the realest it can get. "Live and let live"
I'm going to skip a LOT of the trope level arguments here. How about this:
Do you believe that lions in captivity (whatever your feelings about lions in captivity are), should be fed a vegan diet?
I bet the cats being fed a vegan diet aren't living that long.
They can live just fine, as long as attention is paid to them getting all the essential nutrients a growing cat needs, but like..... Why would you?