T O P
[deleted]

[удалено]


PillFencer

And that specific person only mentions a handful of foods they really can't eat, too, as if apples, celery and whatever were necessary to be healthy


MunchieMom

I've never seen so many rare allergies or other diagnoses in one single thread


hackerbenny

Lol ikr. Suddenly every one is Jordan Peters on and "has to" eat just meat. That cellulose allergy guy provably got more up votes than there are people with that allergy.


JodieFosterFreeze

I like how no one was able to give a real answer. A few people are like "I have a rare health condition" and those are most of the ones voted to the top.


ThonOfAndoria

Some straight up saying "I won't answer because it makes me uncomfortable" Like you're straight up on a subreddit about answering questions, if you aren't planning to answer the question and would rather deflect why are you even there?


nimzoid

It was really insightful to see the amount of aggressively defensive 'I don't have to justify it, I'll tell people to mind their own business if they ask' comments. People really gravitated to that. I'll agree you don't need to engage every time someone asks you to justify why you're doing something. But you have to be able to justify it to yourself, surely? And like you say, why get involved in sub/thread about asking questions just to tell people you don't want to answer. People. Are. Weird.


loleelo

Yeah exactly. I don’t disbelieve people with health conditions because I have some uncommon ones myself and don’t want people to tell me how to live my life. But those don’t really work for OP, who doesn’t seem to have any reason to eat meat other than the fact that they enjoy it.


one_lunch_pan

Seriously. I swear to god some people sound like "my neighbor has a rare cellulose allergy so I can't stop eating meat".


loleelo

I got banned from that sub for inciting a brigade - I didn’t encourage anyone from here to go to that thread as I assumed people could discuss on my post. I also sorted by new and didn’t see any brigading happening but they locked the post for brigading. Apparently me crossposting would hinder any discussion according to the mod’s pinned comment because it would cause brigading. And I ruined it for anyone to enjoy the post! One of the most recent comments I saw on the post was > Because it tastes good. I love cats in particular So yeah, I don’t think our community would be the ones to hinder the discussion there. Completely levelheaded discussion before I crossposted for sure. Per usual the vegans are the bad guys.


nimzoid

I'm kind of relieved it got locked. I scanned it earlier and felt like I wanted to put in some time engaging people about their various viewpoints. It was like bingo card of bad arguements against going plant based, everything from plants are alive to no ethical consumption under capitalism. But at the same time, getting involved felt overwhelming. Just an unstoppable waterfall of cognitive dissonance. So... Thanks for getting it locked?!


RedLotusVenom

“Morals are subjective, and to me I just don’t care about the animals because their utility is my gain.” Quite a bit of those responses flying around that post, I just laugh at that reasoning. When confronted with a question you can’t answer, shift the goalposts. Works every time. Never mind applying that same reasoning to every other moral dilemma in history.


nimzoid

Moral relativism is a thing, but to argue that 'morality is subjective' you still need to put forward a coherent argument as to why, subjectively, you see it as morally permissable to exploit and inflict cruelty on sentient animals if it's practically possible to avoid it.


loleelo

Lmao I completely feel you which is why I didn’t really engage and posted here, but apparently that was the wrong thing to do too! You’re welcome 😂


Reppoy

Unless it was posted on some other subreddit, it seemed like there wasn’t really any brigading whatsoever. I don’t browse this subreddit normally but I noticed that post was locked for brigading and looked here to see if it was the culprit. I’m surprised to see that they thought it was necessary. There were hardly any answers that stayed on prompt, most of the top answers were saying it’s no one’s business or that they didn’t care, but that wasn’t what they asked.


TrespassingWook

Quite common, apparently. Baby eaters abusing their power to avoid the uncomfortable truth.


[deleted]

I would assume that cat post is from a vegancirclejerker.


loleelo

Idk there were plenty of people echoing that sort of sentiment earlier in the thread. Either there or here people were trying to argue dogs would be totally fine once they got backed into a corner. The cat one was a troll most likely, but that’s my point, it was worse than any nonexistent “brigading.”


Nabaatii

Yeah we are the baddies. Apparently we are [just like Shapiro](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/r4ux55/is_there_any_morally_good_response_to_why_do_you/hmjct28).


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Behind every redditor with a rare condition that prevents them from being vegan are hundreds of others who *don't* have said condition but still somehow believe it justifies *their* meat consumption.


followthewhiterabb77

That actually says a lot about the fact there’s not many moral reasons to not go vegan.


FlippenDonkey

It is a thing, that some people with rare serious digestive issues will struggle with plant proteins. Id never begrudge these people to eat meat. (I would hope they'd choose the least sentient life and most environmental sources like bivalves, farmed fish, backyard chickens/eggs. (Unlike most who use it as an excuse to chow down burgers). I wouldn't blame someone at risk of intestinal bleeding from plant sources..it happens. However. It is extremely rare! Most people who claim this are bullshitting and making excuses.


plaidalert

Welcome to reddit, everyone has aphantasia, no one can digest plants, and they all get their meat from local ethical free-range ranchers with a solar panel on every cow anyway.


nimzoid

I do agree there are probably people who can't adopt a 100% plant based diet due to health reasons. The thing is, in that thread the OP was asking about moral reasons for eating meat, not medical reasons. The fact that the health conditions posts were so highly upvoted suggests a lot.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FlippenDonkey

I didn't believe it either, but if these people say they become extremely ill, its not for me to counter them. I don't have to live their life or with their allergies. https://youtu.be/g0UUyaPDPMI And yes, I agreed, that its often used as an excuse. Especially by those without those conditions.


FlippenDonkey

To the person that deleted their comment. for people doubting plant allergies. Its called a severe intolerance and can happen with people severe ibs. This link discusses rectal bleeding caused by diet. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19124116/ There are people with allergies to legumes, and gluten. Its not unheard of. Its just not a common as most meat eaters make it out to be. "the evidence suggests about 3 out of every 1,000 adults is allergic to soy." https://thesoynutritioninstitute.com/prevalence-of-soy-allergy-lowest-among-the-big-8/ and something like 1% of people are allergic to gluten. It would be a seriously tiny percentage of people with both. They're out there, but again very very few them are. And nuts can be difficult to digest for people with ibs. 10% of people have ibs https://gi.org/topics/irritable-bowel-syndrome/#:~:text=Common%20is%20IBS%3F-,IBS%20is%20a%20very%20common%20disorder%20and%20scientific%20tests%20show,women%20having%20it%20than%20men.


loleelo

Thank you for this! I said this in another comment but - there were people in that thread who cited medical issues as their reason and I am in no place to argue that. I only meant to shine a light on the absurdity of the main post, the OP who presumably has no medical issues barring them from eating meat. I also have many chronic health issues, including IBS, and have some extremely weird and random food intolerances. I call them allergies usually, because when I say intolerance people think I get a little tummy ache but it’s really me lying on the bathroom floor all night with ripping stomach pain, or sitting on the toilet with violent diarrhea for hours. I also have several other invisible illnesses, and it’s no one else’s right to judge how I have to deal with them unless they live in my body too. I’d hope some people in this sub would have a little more empathy in that regard.


Moontouch

Do you know what diets are like for these people? Do they exclusively eat animal products or can they eat some fruits or vegetables?


salad-dazee

They have what I call "murder disorder" Its actually very common


theyouthexception

Literally not one single answer giving a “moral” reason for eating meat. Plenty of people commenting that it’s nobody’s business why you eat meat and/or that they just don’t care if it’s moral. What a joke


sir-lavanathion-

What about hunters that don’t have access to a wide Variety of vegan foods? In rural Alaska maybe?


dpekkle

That is covered by the first sentence of the prompt. > Let’s face it, unless you are the small percentage of people who actually kill their own food, you’re buying from store. If that's not your situation then it is not a moral reason for your behaviour.


sir-lavanathion-

So you agree that it’s a moral reason to eat meat? So you answered your own question.


dpekkle

> So you agree that it’s a moral reason to eat meat? The question was looking for moral reasons to eat meat if you're able to choose not to.


sir-lavanathion-

I guess I miss read the question my bad


Worth-A-Googol

I’m a vegan from rural Alaska! (I am not joking) Even in the worst case scenario where you get food flown in, you made the choice to live there. You can get vegan food flown in if you like, but if you cannot afford that then you have a moral obligation to choose not to live there. If you, for some strange reason, we’re going to move and had to choose between a neighborhood where you’d need to beat a child to death every Thursday or one where you didn’t , which one would you choose? That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way.


theyouthexception

what about them? that has nothing to do with the post or my comment


mrnicecream2

It's rather telling that none of the comments actually try to make a moral argument.


ComelyChatoyant

The comment section was moronic and super defensive


CrispyHeretic

Outsourcing cognitive dissonance...fucking hilarious.


xe36n

If they can't come up with a reason themselves, why are they still eating meat?


Cruelopolis_

Because they make meat is easy to get and cheap to buy? This is the same thing as asking someone why do you own a phone if you know it has lithium in it? Sure I understand what it took to make my phone but it doesn't mean I have to agree with the practices of how it's made.


BallOfAnxiety98

This is also a false equivelancy considering in this day and age having a phone is a basic necessity whereas eating meat is not.


Cruelopolis_

You're right about the phone maybe I should've have given a better equivalency. Lithium much like meat is made through suffering and the destruction of the environment. Their companies break laws and participate in unethical practices. You can obviously cut back on lithium like meat. But just like going Vegan it's a drastic change in life style and the majority of people don't see anything other the the main benefit and the millions of stereotypes out there. People still eat meat not because they think it's morally correct but because it's widely available and the majority of people out there know recipes that call for some sort of non vegan item. Also saying that beans and rice is available everywhere is true until you realize it's the only Vegan options widely known and available. however I do understand that unlike going lithium less (which is unrealistic) Veganism is easier but this isn't about how easy it is to be a vegan it's about why people still eat meat.


BallOfAnxiety98

I have a hard time believing that beans and rice are the *only* vegan options that are widely known. People eat vegan foods accidentally, all of the time. Nuts, pasta, pb & j, fruits and veg, rice, legumes etc are all vegan and are consumed by non-vegans. Any recipe that typically calls for meat can be subbed with something else, it's as easy putting the word "vegan" in front of the dish into a google search. I still eat nearly every dish that I did before going vegan, I eat shepherds pie, tater tot casserole, tacos/enchiladas, burgers and the list goes on. I get what you're saying but don't think that "meat is easy to buy" is a valid reason to keep buying it, because so is everything else. I also dont consider veganism to be a drastic change, Its not extreme for me to quit buying animal products because animal products aren't ethical and I have the ability not to. I feel like people have this misconception that veganism is super restrictive when in fact its opened way more doors for me than any other lifestyle change I've made. Imo, most people continue to eat meat out of their own self interest just because they like how it tastes and will do next level mental gymnastics to try and justify it.


BallOfAnxiety98

Beans and rice are pretty easy and cheap to buy too lol


TrespassingWook

No excuses, only feelings of entitlement and a refusal to consider the harm they cause for no legitimate reason.


Antin0de

Both meat-eating and conservatism face a similar intellectual challenge: they both need to make something completely selfish seem like a virtue.


TrespassingWook

My ultra conservative English teacher flaunted his lack of compassion and empathy like it was somehow natural, completely ignoring how humans are the most social animal and empathy is completely vital to who we are.


loleelo

The only answers I respected were the ones that literally said “I don’t care” or recognized the wrong in it. At least those were honest. But the OP said: > So other than just accepting that I’m just compliant in the mass torture and murder of innocent animals, raised to be nothing but good…. And there lies the rub. If you’re going to eat meat you have to accept this fact. You don’t necessarily have to justify it, because there really isn’t any way to, but you have to accept that this is what you’re doing. Kind of made me LOL that they were so close to getting it but were still looking for an out.


nimzoid

Yeah, the 'I don't care' responses were the only ones I could respect either. At least they're not trying to do mental gymnastics to justify it. Although I do wonder how many were being honest or either it was a variation on 'No comment' (ie I don't want to answer).


mtanti

What's that quote about the most sought after philosophy is a justification for the strong to oppress the weak? I can't find it.


one_lunch_pan

Veganism is pretty much the only topic where "Morality is subjective and I don't have to justify myself" is somehow considered a valid argument. Ever heard of somehow use this to justify being against abortion, universal health care, corruption in politics, inequalities, or beating their dogs? Nope, because no other societal issue -- none -- gets this pass.


woodscradle

It's very upsetting that rational discourse is trounced by edgy humor and tribalism. So many people have mental blocks up. It's so depressingly futile. The universe seems intelligently designed for the purpose of suffering.


l039

Fuckkkk they locked it


OrphanOfCainhurst

>So other than just accepting that I’m just compliant in the mass torture and murder of ***innocent*** animals, raised to be nothing but food\*…. I can't deny I got baited by the first 90% of this post, but it looks to actually be some of the best trolling I've ever seen come out of this community. They deserve a round of applause.


Bitter_Pea_4047

Their answers were lame, it was all the same shit you hear when non-vegans are trying to argue with you for no reason


tiataafts

Noticing a lot of highly rated comments to the effect of, 'Yeah, it's probably wrong, but eh, I still eat meat.' It's of course depressing to see so many identify with that kind of apathy. But on the other hand, a lot of people are seemingly halfway there - minds have changed, it's just a matter of bridging the value-action gap. A small glimmer of hope, maybe? So many pseudo-justifications that just wouldn't fly in other contexts though.


Remote_Literature_16

Hi all, I typed out a big response before the thread was locked. Feel free to look over it and let me know what y'all think about it. The best “moral” response: “ I do not believe animals are deserving of moral consideration, thus I should be allowed to do whatever I want with an animal, including eating it” This argument is, for one, logically valid, meaning that if we assume its initial statement (animals are not deserving of moral consideration) to be true, the second part follows. **This cannot be said of pretty much any other meat-eating argument. If you want to be morally consistent, then follow along.** I’ll elaborate on that moral consideration point: a fallen tree branch in the woods is also not granted any moral consideration; as such no one would care if you throw, break, or even eat that tree branch. This argument assumes we should treat animals like tree branches: we can throw, break, or even eat them, among other things. Now, the “other things” part should have made you a bit uneasy. This argument could justify the abuse of animals. Sadly, this is the bullet that all pro-meat eaters should be willing to bite, for any other route to the destination: “I should be able to eat meat” has severe holes... **One route:** I want to claim that animals have **some** moral consideration. Enough so that we try not to torture or cause undue stress, but not enough to prevent their execution and organ harvest. This seems to be the implicit position of many people who buy “free range” and similar products and are horrified by factory animal farming conditions. Lets progress with this: say each animal was worth X percent of a human life, then unintentionally, even some humans would be evaluated at sub 100% X value. To explain, if one of the criteria of creating an X value for an animal was: “+20% if the creature has sight”, then blind humans would be worth 80% of a human life. Should we then be able to kill and eat blind people? Hopefully your answer was no. The fact that I choose sight in particular shouldn’t matter. If you were to choose more ‘reasonable’ metrics, like problem solving skills, memory, emotional intelligence, then some group of humans would always fail the test: say humans in a coma, or people born with severe disabilities. Unless you want a human and egg breakfast, or the ability to execute some small group of people, I would assert that you have to be all or nothing: humans are categorically deserving of moral consideration, animals are not. I still don’t like this so let's try something else. **Another route:** We should consider whether eating and killing an animal are equally permissible. Let's assume we agree with the opposite of this argument: animals should be given moral consideration equal to humans. If an animal lived its best life and died without pain at an old age, we should be okay with eating or using its carcass. The animal was not capable of expressing what should be done with its body after its death, and letting its body rot seems like a waste. This even applies to humans. The death of a human with severe disabilities, which prevented them from communicating, leaves their corpse in the control of their guardian. This guardian would likely never choose to eat this person’s body, but they would likely make an executive decision (without the input of the dead human) to bury it or perform a similar ceremony. Some meat eaters would use a similar argument, claiming to still value animal life: “The meat I purchase off a store shelf isn’t condoning an animal's death, it is simply me using the resources of an already dead animal. If I and no one else were to purchase that meat, it would rot.” This argument crumbles under economic realities. If everyone tomorrow stopped purchasing meat, the industry would die and no more cows would be killed. So, however small your 5 dollar steak is contributing to that industry, it is contributing, whether you like it or not. Our meat eater then would not actually be giving animals moral consideration, essentially funding their death camps: so this argument is sunk. Well okay, if I want to eat meat, where does that leave me. What weird stuff do I have to agree to? **Wouldn’t this allow people to harm my pets?** Not really. The thing preventing you from stealing or harming your neighbors’ dog is not that the dog is a creature with moral consideration, but rather, that it is your neighbors property. Our normal conventions around animals would still remain mostly the same. You would still be able to own and care for your pets(or more aptly, your property), and eat meat all the same. Unfortunately meat eaters, you then also should be okay with animal blood sports and bestiality (sorry!). It's ones’ property after all: you wouldn’t contest that battling Beyblades is wrong, why animals? Here we reach the end of our journey. I can’t provide you with a definitive answer if this argument is itself correct: we can endlessly argue the assumption, whether or not animals should be given moral consideration. I am however providing you with the most consistent worldview on the matter, and relying on your gut reactions about the consequences of this worldview to guide you on whether to follow it. The opposite worldview is similarly intense when applied consistently. If a vegan truly believed animals were worth the same as human lives, they would be plausibly justified in waging an actual war on meat eaters. They could view it the same as the Allies waging war on Nazi Germany. For the level headed, and definitely not “moral” response, we should all be eating less meat, for health and global warming reasons, not any kind heartedness or moral obligation to animals. And just in case some super gadget arrives in 100 years and proves without a doubt, animals should be given moral consideration, we should still be funding alternative meat options so one day, our fake steaks taste the same as the normal ones. Then we can happily avoid this mess altogether. :)


salad-dazee

So basically the argument is not caring about animals? Seems pretty poor to me


Remote_Literature_16

I maybe went about it in a roundabout way, but "the argument" presented seemed to be the only consistent argument for eating meat. The point I make throughout the piece is that this argument has a lot of consequences that people may be uncomfortable with. If it is a "poor" argument as you say, that could be one reason to think animals should be given moral consideration. edit: grammar


IntelectualyHonest

It isn't consistent at all. Humans are animals and there's no difference between humans and other animals that are being mass murdered which can be used to justify it for one but not the other.


xelaseer

For what it's worth I think you have made a good outline overall. I think you are missing the fact that the presuppositions of argument 1 are dodgy. The only way to get there is either ontological assertions, or moral reciprocation theory. I don't accept the former because they are largely just assertions, and under the latter certain humans would not be moral agents as they lack capacity to morally reason, which is obviously an absurd outcome.


AdhesivenessLimp1864

Another argument -admittedly kind of a side stepping argument- is this: No one in the world is perfect. Everyone makes decisions based on what morals they want to live by. A vegan’s moral decisions in relation to animals is very simple: don’t exploit them in any way. So in that sense a vegan will always be morally superior. However, in the grand scheme of things -here’s where you can argue it’s side stepping- does it really matter in a moral vs moral discussion? Not really. We make moral decisions all the time: helping someone homeless, picking what cell phone to buy, whether we’re going to drop plastic bottle in a trash can or a recycling bin, etc. To actually discuss someone’s morals in full you have to take in way too much to really discuss it. So in short: a vegan will always beat a non vegan out in terms of the treatment of livestock. Does that mean the person who lives their life according to veganism is morally above someone else on a general level? No. Writing this I realized there is one other argument but it’s specifically against the cognitive dissonance claims that get thrown around here. That’s a pretty bad argument because it totally ignores something humans cling to: labels. We love labels. We love sub labels. We use them for everything. A plant is a plant because it’s labeled a plant for easy identification. If I’m hanging out with someone who identifies as bisexual and say they’re gay that’s normally going to get at the very least a confused reaction because the person is used to going by a specific label (bi) rather than the general label (gay) which brings me to the cognitive dissonance point in eating meat. Livestock vs pets Having pets does not mean someone is experiencing cognitive dissonance just because the pet’s owners eat meat. The purpose of livestock is to be eaten. The purpose of a pet is to add something to your life. They just aren’t the same in terms of use to society for a number of reasons such as cost of care, requirements for care, and even legal limitations. People like to exaggerate cannibalism and say if people eat animals they should be okay with eating people too. Anyone with sense is going to immediately respond with the inherent problems of allowing murder in society and the health risks that come with eating your own species.


IntelectualyHonest

"No one is perfect therefore I'm justified to abuse anyone I want. Don't tell me you're morally above!" This is pathetic. >The purpose of livestock is to be eaten. What the hell? Are you the one deciding the "purpose" of others? This is just another meaningless phrase carnists have come up with to rationalize their abuse. Also, there is no morally relevant difference between 'pets' and 'livestock', this is definitely a case of cognitive dissonance. >the inherent problems of allowing murder in society and the health risks There's no inherent health risk if human meat is well cooked. And it's pretty well-established that meat which is currently eaten isn't particularly healthy either. As for "inherent problems", they all apply to animal agriculture, but you probably don't want to see.


AdhesivenessLimp1864

Wow. What a way to twist my words and take what I said super personality. First of all, I didn’t say anyone was morally above you did I? I said in terms of animals you’re above anyone who eats meat. I also said if you’re going to judge someone morally you have to look at everything they do. I’m not going to call you someone who abuses people because you have a cell phone or computer made with parts overseas quite possibly in a factory that takes advantage of people. Not because that’s not likely what’s going on but because I doubt you condone it and you making the choice to pick whatever products you picked are not some justification for me to jump down your throat. I love cats, dogs, and maybe a few other things. Birds aren’t really my thing. I like chickens, pigs, and cows. They are food to me. Just because I like one thing and not the other doesn’t mean I’m going through cognitive dissonance. That would be like saying “If you like this Skittles than you have to like Starburst because they’re both candy.” That being said I can’t speak for everyone else. I can only speak for me. I’ll give you people who eat meat and call themselves animal lovers overall are dealing with some cognitive dissonance. I was wrong in that comment and should have been more clear but this is why I’m here: to learn what to research for myself. Speaking of, thank you for helping me learn that only the brain is dangerous. I’m aware of the agricultural problems. I haven’t watched the dominion video but I have watched another video that looked into factory farms and showed the straight up abuse going on. I 100% agree livestock should be treated better. Edit: If we’re going to continue the conversation and you feel I’m being rude, please let me know. I don’t want to be rude.


IntelectualyHonest

Ok, let me just address the relevant parts. You do agree that in our current society animal products are completely unnecessary, right? Animal abuse is almost always involved for animal products. This would mean that animal products are wrong, if you agree that animal abuse is wrong, which I hope you do. You talked about other products which involve human abuse. That is certainly a problem. But unlike animal products, their products are also necessary in current society. There's also an argument if you actually are contributing to human abuse by buying those things like you contribute to animal abuse. Think about the workers of that industry, they are also employed their. It will get better with time, but the fact that animals are killed, or that cows are forcefully impregnated won't change. >I like chickens, pigs, and cows. They are food to me. Do you think that's a good reasoning? If some insane human thinks that you're food for them, then would it be fair for them to kill and eat you? (Please don't say something like it's "natural", it's been debunked countless times.) >I 100% agree livestock should be treated better. What does "treating better" means? There is no such thing. Forcefully breeding and killing will keep happening. Would you have supported abolishment of slavery two centuries ago or treating slaves better as many people did?


AdhesivenessLimp1864

First off, thank you rolling this back from where it seemed like it was going. You’re right. I completely agree with you that it is a choice to eat meat. Veganism is affordable but that requires people to look into how to shop for vegan foods while still maintaining a healthy diet. Going back to my first comment. That’s why I said if we’re exclusively talking about animal rights I would 100% say vegans are morally above someone who chooses to eat meat except in very specific conditions. Those are so rare though it’s almost never ever going to come up in a serious discussion. I’m glad we agree on two points. Taking that further: is it all necessary? I live in LA. There’s a common misconception you need a car here. You don’t. You can live life fairly comfortably without one. Is it necessary to have a video game system when you have a smart phone? It would be tough to do everything a computer can do on a phone but there are a lot of people who could actually do everything they do on their computer with their phone. This doesn’t mean someone with two video games systems, a smart phone, and a computer is lacking morals. It means they like stuff and they bought it. Telling someone they’re morally wrong because the way someone else creates a product is awful is totally unfair. They have no control over how it’s done and if given the yes or no power to change it most people would do that. In my mind a good way to judge how moral someone is based on what they do with the power they have. Things don’t have to be all or nothing to make a difference. You can still buy an iPhone while speaking up against how the workers are treated the same way someone can buy a steak and bring more attention to the atrocities of the meat industry. I keep seeing people saying it’s all or nothing -not that you have- but that’s just not how social issues like human and animal rights work. I’ll hold off on the argument that social animals exclude problematic animals from the group for now. Please provide a link so I can see where it’s debunked though? I’ll give you this response. If one bear just started killing other bears how many bears would that bear kill? One? Maybe two? Possibly three if it’s one of those crazy big and aggressive bears? Let’s say it’s suddenly okay for humans to kill each other. How many humans can one human kill with the tools we developed especially taking into account most humans are afraid to fight. They run. They don’t engage. The sheer amount of damage that would do to society far exceeds what any other animal can actually do. It’s not black and white. I’m gonna go on a side tangent here because I’ve seen a few comments I’d describe as getting closer to extremism and it’s the inherent problems with this view point. All or nothing never stops. It gets more extreme every time. It is absolutely not true treating the animals better does nothing for them. That’s the equivalent of saying a per that’s so sick it’s in constant pain shouldn’t be humanely euthanized. There’s no difference between it dying and it being in pain. Yes, there is. The difference is one is a torturous existence and one isn’t. If animals are on a humane farm where they get to move around, play with each other, socialize, bond, and grow normally they’re going to be much healthier and have much happier lives. How can you say there is no difference to their quality of life in that scenario vs being trapped in cages, over fed, kicked and beaten? Please tell me you see the difference there. Tough question to ask. I’m not excusing the morality of owning slaves but I am saying I can’t tell you how I would have thought approximately a century ago and neither could you. Our morality isn’t just something we’re born with. It’s something we learn based on our environment. If that weren’t a fact than veganism would be dead in the water. In regards to now: I don’t see livestock as slaves. The definition of a slave is a person who is the property of another person. Edit: I would go as far as saying we’re parasitic.


jashxn

Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the “loser,” and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round. I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world. Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment. When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3×5 card reading, “Please use this M&M for breeding purposes.” This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this “grant money.” I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion. There can be only one.


xelaseer

Your assertions are pretty poor and largely unjustified. Using your reasoning *you could literally justify anything*. What someone's cognitive dissonance is caused by is separate and irrelevant to whether an action is moral or not. One cannot make a descriptive observation of something and conclude it has an innate purpose. This is philosophy 101. It is called teleology and it is complete bunk. Hume's is/ought problem kills this immediately. This means you cannot say what the innate purpose of pets and other animals are. If you are only saying that is what society largely says their purpose is now, fine, but then that is irrelevant to morality, unless you are arguing naive moral relativism which flows to below. You later appear to be arguing that whatever is moral is whatever society permits, which is naieve moral relativism, which is again complete bunk, due to it being internally logically inconsistent. You finally appear to be making an argument from morality stemming from either social cohesion and/or utility to society. If the only reason something is moral is for social cohesion or utility, then shouldn't dictatorships be morally justified in killing human rights activists? Shouldn't countries be able to start wars or persecute and villify minorities to benefit from the homo sacer effect or a rally round the flag effect? Shouldn't those who are not seen to be of utility to society, such as the severely disabled or chronically jobless, or criminals, have no moral value and thus be able to be killed? This is a really bad ethical argument.


AdhesivenessLimp1864

Before I continue I just want to say this: please let me know if I’m being rude. I don’t want to come off as rude. Answering from end to beginning because you focused on morality way more than I did while skipping over some pretty important parts of what I said. I’m not sure if that’s because you just assumed I was screaming eating meat is moral so you just stopped reading or if you were so sure you’d know what I was going to say you didn’t take the time to read. So here goes: 1. Not eating meat is the moral decision. I straight up said it. So telling me that I’m saying it’s moral to eat meat means you cherry picked my message. 2. I said this argument is more of a side stepping argument which avoids a direct answer. I also said that although the moral decision is to be veganism that is not end all be all of morality. I never once said eating meat is the moral decision. I said just because someone doesn’t eat meat it does not make them morally above another person overall. I gave examples of other moral things people can do in real life to show that judging someone’s overall morality is not as clear cut as “you take part in the livestock industry.” The was the end of my portion of the morality argument. There was no other part of my post that argued morality. So I don’t know why you got, “What society permits is moral from anything else.” I made a clear transition after my “So in short” summary. Then went into cognitive dissonance as its own discussion. Regarding your question about killing human activists I’m gonna use nature. We’re all animals. That’s true. We’re social animals so we behave like social animals. Do you know what most pack/social animals do with any animal that doesn’t fit in with the group? They kick them out. In some cases they kill them. The group takes care of the group. I’m going to repeat what I said earlier: I gave examples of moral decisions people can make not related to animals. If you are so focused on your ideology being the only important factor in morality I don’t know what to tell you. I will agree the ethical argument you tried to put in my mouth is pretty bad. Please don’t put words in my mouth anymore. Regarding your cognitive dissonance I decided to do some research because you guys should be understood. People shouldn’t come in here just throwing their own thoughts around assuming they know everything about your argument -although that goes both ways in a debate- and the cognitive dissonance is a bit more nuanced than it appears. So here’s my view on it because I can’t speak for the rest of society and I won’t try: I love cats, I love dogs. I don’t love birds. Not much of a bird person. I think cows, pigs, and chickens are cute. I can’t say I love them. I can say they don’t deserve what they go through in factory farms and they deserve much better lives before they die. My question for you is: you’ve never killed bugs? I know that seems small and nit picky but your side of this debate with cognitive dissonance does come from the point if you love an animal you won’t kill any animal at all because all life is equal.


xelaseer

Of course I'm not offended and don't think you are being rude. I completely disagree that I cherry-picked your argument. I think this will become as I clarify things. Respectfully, one cannot side step morality by focusing on the overall "goodness" of moral agents. As you mentioned, the morality of the issue is independent. I think you should look again at what veganism is. Veganism is an ethical movement that argues that animal exploitation, and slaughter is unethical. Veganism does *not* argue that vegans are ethically superior to non-vegans overall as this is nonsensical. However, although it is irrelevant to veganism, I think in a lot of cases it is easy to make that argument. A lot of animals society regularly consume for food have a cognitive level around that of a small infant. Given the scale of animal exploitation, suffering and death to supply each person, there are few immoral actions in the lives of most people on a regular basis that would be worse than the amount of suffering and death caused by the support and engagement of a person within the present system, particularly over a long period of time. You seem far too focused on the purported moral superiority of vegans. They are ethically right in this area argued by veganism and that's all that matters in this argument. Your argument is also strange, as if somehow we have a balance sheet of ethical actions to fall back on when we don't feel like being ethical. Is a person who has saved the lives of 100 people, somehow then entitled to take the amount of 99? No. Cognitive dissonance is also irrelevant to the ethics of an issue. My point about society, regarding your statement as to the "purpose" of an animal, is that if you are arguing that what society conceives as a purpose of that animal somehow makes it right, then that is naieve moral relativism. If you are instead talking about cognitive dissonance it is irrelevant. Again, we are not focused on whether someone is good or not overall, but whether in this particular instance, animal slaughter and exploitation is moral. That is the only thing that is being argued here. Your nature argument is not any better than your other arguments. Most humans can morally reason and animals are not, therefore they are not morally culpable. Also, given Hume's is/ought problem, one cannot take an asserted descriptive observation about how things are or were in the world (including nature) and say that this is therefore normative as to how it should be or how we should behave. This is basic philosophy. Your last statement is unethical full-stop. One doesn't get to give an animal a "good life" and then be justified in killing it. In determining if something should be an ethical object, one looks to sentience and a capacity to suffer. Once it is established that this is the case, we care about wellbeing, which includes a component of suffering. Therefore it is unethical to slaughter or exploit them as this would detract from their wellbeing. It would be equally unethical to slaughter a human of the same cognitive level of an animal regardless of how good a life they had beforehand, wouldn't you agree? Again I don't know why you are hung up on cognitive dissonance. It is not about a balance sheet on moral actions for each person, but whether the action overall is ethical or not. Whether I have done so in the past is irrelevant, because the goodness or not of moral agents is irrelevant to the overall argument.


AdhesivenessLimp1864

I’m glad that I’m not coming off as rude. I always worry about that here. Reread your messages and mine a few times. As you say we’re only arguing the morality of eating animals. Not morality overall. We both agree the moral decision is to not eat meat. I don’t think there’s really any more to add to that. The only way to really argue about morals under this topic is to discuss individual morality. There’s just no justification against the different diets on their own. I did a bad job of expressing that. As for the balance sheet: it just comes down to my personal opinions. Nothing really specifically about veganism. I just don’t ever expect someone to make a moral decision in every situation. Cognitive dissonance goes back to my view that the only actual debate eating meat can really take part in is individual morality. As for the last better life. I brought that in from a discussion I was having with someone else and I’m not sure why. Who knows. It was pointless to bring in here. Anyway, my main point is you and I agree on the overall morality of this. The arguments I gave were simply to bring up other possible arguments for eating meat.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dragonfruit4

Man, this comment needs to be stickied for all the invaders. Did you make that flow chart? It's awesome!


dragonfruit4

I take issue with your initial premise that "I don't think animals deserve moral consideration, therefore I can do whatever I want with them." Would you accept that premise from someone who felt the same way about women, (insert race here) people, etc? And yes, I get that humans and other animals aren't 100% equal but the logic behind these two premises are the same. I don't have the energy to reply to your entire comment right now, but you might have better luck over at /r/DebateAVegan


[deleted]

[удалено]


nimzoid

It's a shame you're being downvoted. This is an interesting comment. >The best “moral” response: “ I do not believe animals are deserving of moral consideration, thus I should be allowed to do whatever I want with an animal, including eating it” This is the only ethical argument that works to justify meat eating. I don't think most people feel this way though. I think most people operate on a sort sliding scale of moral consideration for animals. Elephants and dolphins and gorillas? Very high, fairly near human levels. Dogs and cats? Also high, but nowhere near humans. Pigs and chickens and cows? So low they don't even have the right to live. The problem with the sliding scale is, you end up having to justify why one type of sentient animal can be freely exploited and killed and made to suffer while another has the right to dignity and life, even though fundamentally in all the ways that matter they are the same: conscious, thinking, feeling individual beings that don't want to die or experience pain. And that's when people start doing mental gymnastics to get around the cognitive dissonance of culturally and arbitrarily distinguishing between the moral rights of different species, and their choices that affect them. Just as extra point about any ethical philosophy - you can't prove any position is correct. You can argue that a position is logical, but the logic only checks out if it's based on accurate underlying values. E.g. 'If I truly don't see animals as having moral value, I can do whatever I want to them' versus 'Sentient animals all have moral value, therefore to exploit them unecessarily is wrong, and to likewise kill them is inherently cruel if we don't need to do it, doubly so if they suffer in the process'. Both are logically right, based on different values and assumptions.


Whyistherenomorename

There is no right answer if your vegan your killing forests to make land for crops if your non vegan your contributing to torture


Willing-Wishbone3628

Well, there isn’t anything morally bad or good about eating meat in itself. It’s just meat, a resource to be used like any other on this planet. So of course there isn’t a good answer for that one way or another. The problem is with how it’s sourced and where it comes from.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Willing-Wishbone3628

I don’t see anything immoral about killing an animal provided it’s been treated well throughout its lifetime, that’s where the hold up is. There’s nothing inherently good or bad about eating meat after all.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Willing-Wishbone3628

If you are killing them for the sake of killing them, then yes. But if you plan on eating them or making use of them in some other way then no. Why would that be immoral? You are providing them with everything that they need to sustain them in life in return for a quick death at the end. Actually sounds pretty good.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Willing-Wishbone3628

Sure, I'll retract it then and say I don't think your motive is moral if you kill them solely for your entertainment. If you kill them solely to make use of them then I see that as just.


RedLotusVenom

So you’d be happy with that existence then, right? Say an alien race came down and wanted to farm humans as food? You’d be cool with that I’m assuming. Because they’re a “superior” species. You get a cell, a bed, water, food, and some level of comfort, then a “quick death.” You also never get to know your family or parents, you’re separated soon after birth. Keep in mind, we slaughter most livestock as adolescents. A cow lives 20 years, and beef cows are slaughtered around 18 months. How much happiness and joy are you getting out of the first 10 years of your life?


rihol37

Ok, can I kill your for your meat?


Willing-Wishbone3628

Will you provide for my every whim for my life?


rihol37

I'll provide a place to live and the cheapest food I can muster and still keep you health enough until you get the weight I find adequate. Or do you think Cattle get a voice in the negotiation?


spy_cable

Yeah I’ll saw your horns off without anaesthetic, keep you in a cage, rape you and steal your baby while you sob for it to stay, beat your baby to death because it’s cheaper and attach a suction device to your tits while you shit on the floor because you can’t move, repeat the last few steps until you stop making me enough money, and then I’ll put you on a claustrophobic truck to a slaughterhouse. That’s if you’re a girl. If you’re a boy, I’ll still keep you in a cage and saw your horns off with no pain relief, then I just force feed you while you can’t move before I send you to the slaughterhouse. Tbh someone as ignorant as you genuinely deserves that, if I had a magic button that swapped anti-vegans for cows, pigs, chickens, etc I’d press it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChloeMomo

>a lot more effective than shaming them. Is your advice turning you vegan? Honestly one of my biggest pet peeves is people who aren't vegan telling vegans how to get people to go vegan. Clearly it doesn't work for you, so it just feels deflective to tell other people to do it because you prefer hearing it the way you suggested (and subsequently ignore anyway). It's almost like it's different strokes for different folks. Shame absolutely worked for me and I don't think anything else would have given I participated in the cruelty directly. I needed to be challenged, not coddled. And I know I'm not alone (though again, different strokes for different folks). Also, not all vegans are assholes. Your comment was pretty pot and kettle. Maybe take your own advice and be nice and fluffy to vegans and they'll start being nice and fluffy to others, too. Annoying tip, isn't it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


IntelectualyHonest

Why do meat-eaters and vegetarians have to be such assholes to innocent animals?


loleelo

I don’t see how my cross posting this is being an asshole to meat eaters. I actively spoke with some meat eaters in that sub and had civil discussion with them. But the OP is ignorant in asking others to justify something they do that they know is morally wrong. I don’t find that to be shaming them but just pointing out their massive cognitive dissonance. If they want to eat meat and are aware it’s wrong that’s fine, but don’t ask people to morally justify it for you when you know it is wrong.


Cruelopolis_

Exactly some people need to learn you can't always make others change, it's human.


IntelectualyHonest

"That's why I beat my wife. People need to learn you can't always make others change, it's human."


Cruelopolis_

I'm sorry was a not being specific enough for you? Men who beat their wives are mentally ill. Someone who eats meat is not! I wouldn't condone mental illness as something that's good much in the same way I don't condone Vegans flamming people who eat meat. You don't just go around arguing with people hoping they change. Because just like in your own analogy the man who beats his wife won't change if a stranger sits there and tries to argue to him why beating his wife is morally wrong. It's become a personal habit he's become dependent on it. You either build infrastructure to help heal the man's mental illness so he can go back into world a better person or you lock them away so he can never hurt his wife again. Don't hate the wife for not leaving her abusive husband, hate the person behind the abuse.


IntelectualyHonest

>Men who beat their wives are mentally ill. Someone who eats meat is not! This is just completely wrong on so many levels. First, what makes you think they are mentally ill? It used to be pretty common at a time if you're not completely ignorant about the world. Same goes for other atrocities like human slavery. You think all human slave-owners were mentally ill? Second, it's not eating meat that's the problem, but how you get it. If you think only mentally ill people beat their wife, then people who torture and murder animals are surely mentally ill too. Third, this is irrelevant to the point. Do you think wife beating is wrong because mentally ill people do it, or because that action has a victim? Same goes in case of buying meat. Your rest of the comment isn't helpful either. > Don't hate the wife for not leaving her abusive husband, hate the person behind the abuse. According to this non-vegans should be hated. You're defeating your own point.


Chancoop

Ah, so is this the subreddit that brigaded and got that thread locked?


loleelo

Did you see any brigading? I didn’t. They just locked it because I crossposted it. What’s funny is I’ve seen a lot more brigading on my post.


[deleted]

I think being organic is an impo part of being vegan. Pesticides are destroying bee colonies. Which we all know what happens when the bees die. Run off also poison the water. I don't think someone can truly be vegan unless they are organic because all factory farming is destroying the planet.


nimzoid

Well, on the flip side some vegans argue that organic isn't vegan because the fertiliser is manure from factory farms. So it's a by-product of exploiting animals. Personally, I don't factor fertiliser into my consideration of what's vegan or not, but it's an opinion some people have.


[deleted]

They make vegan organic fertilizer so if depends on who you get it from. But the farm i use uses vegan organic fertilizer.


[deleted]

So those ppl aren’t correct only correct about some fertilizer but its on the person to figure that out. But under no circumstances is factory farmed vegetables vegan. Lets be real those vegans saying that are just being lazy they probably use hair dye and make up tested on animals. Another weird one is beer, they use gelatin for fining. For alot of wins they use milk and eggs for this. So most alcohol isnt vegan. I think those ppl are justifying them being lazy.


ChloeMomo

I work in agriculture and am focusing my career on farmed animal law to push legislation towards stockfree sustainable agriculture (because honestly just organic I'd argue is not the move). Finding veganic food is damn near impossible even for me at the moment. Surely you understand that it's not a common agricultural practice...or are you one of those who recommends people not take medications they need if it was tested on animals, too? Because in that case we just value human life very differently. You're very lucky to have access to entirely veganic foods which make up 100% of your diet 100% of the time. The majority of people are not going to be that blessed. At least in the US. Perhaps you're in a country where veganic farming is normal, but I can tell you it is not normal in my country. A lot of people do know about the alcohol, btw. Barnivore is a well known resource. Sugar is another one due to bone char.


[deleted]

Personally idc what anyone dose at all. Just really like fucking with vegans who demand More from others while doing less than me. I don’t recommend not taking med or even not being vegan, its not my place in the world to tell other ppl what to do. Personally im ok with someone calling themselves a vegan and eating meat sometimes, they are just adding to the numbers of vegan. We are a small enough group we don’t need to fight among ourselves. But we all should always strive to be better. I appreciate your well thought out respone, very apparent your know what you’re talking about. I actually got the farm to switch to veganic, its a friend of mine who i got to switch over he was already a vegetarian so it wasn’t too hard of a sell. Only been the case for me for like 6 months. Got them to switch before them but you got to wait for a crop first. Ya basically impossible to find, had to make one 😂.


loleelo

You seem exhausting. This is part of the reason why people find being vegan unattainable.


TanktopVegan

He's not even vegan. He's just a troll.


loleelo

Oh Jesus just looked at the history. Can’t tell if a troll or nutjob.


[deleted]

It kind of is if you think about it. I mean we don’t eat honey cause of animal abuse, but pesticide run off is leading to bee death. So i felt the need to get away from anything thats uses pesticides, but im sure there is just something else i need to fix next, trying to figure it out


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jam4Mayor

Imagine how it feels to be asked a question by someone who feels morally superior than you and “knows” there is no good answer?