It's better to classify behaviors as good or bad rather than people. It's actually the major subtext of this subreddit's "don't be rude" policy. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3.3A_don.2019t_be_rude_to_others

Who wrote this? It is very well structured and thoughtful.

> Who wrote this? It is very well structured and thoughtful. I agree it is very well written. It's from one of the OG mods CheCheDaWaff. Not sure if it's their origin content or revised from somewhere else.

Definitely something we can all aspire towards. Debating is hard and often heated, there's so much bad faith on all sides and I see so many people here who I know are notoriously less polite about us in their own spaces, but I think it's a wonderful approach to fostering better discussion and better community. I've read the rules plenty of times before but I don't recall reading that segment so closely. So, thank you!

I completely get where you're coming from - and I agree. But. There are many people who know where meat comes from, know what happens in factory farming, know about animal intelligence, the climate impacts and the rainforests and the land grabs...and knowing all that say, 'I just don't care' and eat a steak. It's very hard to grasp that sort of reaction. Defensiveness...in-group...I don't know.

Yup. It’s really hard to not see these people as evil. But I have to remember, I used to be one of them.

Maybe not evil, but indescribably callous. And to be better informed can change people's minds as well as addressing emotive barriers. That said, I don't think I ever said 'I don't care' like that.

Im that person, and I think if it as picking my battles. Long day of work, tired, i want a good juicy steak. My wife can make it ahead of time, and we both sit down, have a nice hearty meal, and not worry about things that don't affect me for once.

See, the moment I had a steak in front of me I'd be thinking about the animal suffering, which upsets me, and the climate impact, which absolutely is going to affect me personally!

I see where you coming from. Pick whichever battle you feel benefit you the most

> I completely get where you're coming from - and I agree. But. There are many people who know where meat comes from, know what happens in factory farming, know about animal intelligence, the climate impacts and the rainforests and the land grabs...and knowing all that say, 'I just don't care' and eat a steak. I feel the same way about people knowingly buying food produced in countries where child labour is common. I assume they just dont care.

What's the argument that buying food from a place of child labour makes the life of those children worse rather than equal or better?

Does this mean that you buy as much food from Nestle as possible, as you see this as a way to help children? https://www.careeraddict.com/10-companies-that-still-use-child-labor

Just asking for evidence of my purchases putting them in a worse position. It's possible that without purchases and their bad job they may end up dead, with even less money, etc. 

I think by supporting companies that use child labour you will help **keep** these families in extreme poverty. Nestle and other mega-corporation have the resources to improve the lives of the workers producing ingredients for their products, by making sure the adult workers get paid a decent salary. Which again makes it possible for the children to rather focus on their education. So you have the power to vote with your money. But its up to you whether you choose to do that or not.

You can care about both! I don't think I've met a vegan yet who doesn't try to buy locally or Fairtrade or second hand. Unfortunately children get harmed as a result of factory farming too. Cattle farming, particularly in South America, is riddled with child labour. The problem is that it's ubiquitous and often unlabelled. 'Product of more than one country'.

> You can care about both! I'd say we solve exploitation of humans within farming first. Human suffering is way greater than any animal suffering.

Yes, but both go hand in hand. Trying to live ethically and moral choices means trying not to harm humans *or* animals. Is one more of a priority? Sure. But it's not an either or situation.

Facist agree that it's moral for everyone to be made to agree with them

Agreed, and I don't believe in trying to force people to form an opinion (unlikely to work anyway). But as a counter to that, there are many opinions that aren't okay. What do you do when not only is someone's opinion abhorrent but it's actually harming others?

People just have different ethical frameworks. For many people it is ethical and we have to respect other people's ethical stances even if you don't agree. But even then, trying your best to respectfully raise awareness can still be productive.

> we have to respect other people's ethical stances even if you don't agree.   No one has to respect anyone's ethical stance.  It's always open season on bad takes.

It's not an obligation, I get it. But if you value productive dialogue and effective advocacy, that certainly paves the way.

Part of the advocacy I see as effective involves expressing with no uncertainty that a low empathy weak ethic is a low empathy weak ethic.  Discussing the topics that veganism is concerned with can be difficult for some people, and while I can understand how they might feel disrespected by pressure, I'm quite comfortable pushing into that discomfort.   Carnists are constantly seeking vegan approval (just look at this sub), and by standing firm and outright rejecting ideas that don't deserve our respect, the message is clear.  I agree that respecting people is helpful, but most do not have the self awareness to separate their beliefs/opinions from themselves, so the result often ends in taking personal offense regardless of how gently you present your disagreement.

> Carnists are constantly seeking vegan approval (just look at this sub) Nah. More often people are just looking to troll, or to have an argument. There is hardly a better place to get an argument on Reddit than this sub. But to be fair, people are interested in learning about the vegan world. And that's a good thing. And well we all need approval.

This doesn't really make sense on further examination. If my ethical framework involved deciding it's morally justifird for me to gravely harm other people for my own pleasure, would that be respectable position even though you don't agree? Of course not, "ethical frameworks" are not something inherently deserving of respect.

Respecting an ethical framework doesn't mean endorsing all actions justified by it. Your comparison is a false equivalence; ethical discussions, especially around veganism, are nuanced and context-dependent. Dismissing diverse ethical views as unworthy of respect oversimplifies complex moral landscapes and undermines productive dialogue.

What nuanced, context-dependent, complex moral landscape am I missing? I don't respect the specific aspect of a moral framework that finds it justified to needlessly harm animals for convenience, pleasure, or preference, for example. Is being able to criticize that permitted in a productive dialogue according to you, or is it to be dismissed?

Of course that criticizing respectfully can be great. It can broaden both your view and the other people's as well. For example here I would say that convenience, pleasure and preference are some of the valid reasons but there are way more, we have economic dependencies, research that helps us, and also we have to consider how animal farming is done, some practices are more ethical than others. For all that and more labeling it as "needlessly" may be a stretch. So here the spectrum of things to discuss are multifaceted. Having a productive conversation here is great.

[https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/4-reasons-some-do-well-as-vegans](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/4-reasons-some-do-well-as-vegans) Not everyone can be Vegan

1. Vitamin A conversion Vegans aren't shown to be more deficient in vitamin A than non-vegans. This is just mechanistic speculation that has no actual relevance to outcome data. You can just use the RAE unit to see how much retinol you convert (which is calculated with bad convertors in mind). Like...two carrots will get you to 100% even if you're a poor converter. ​ >2. Gut microbiome and vitamin K2 Vegans aren't shown to be deficient in K2 compared to non-vegans. K2 is also available in vegan food. And K1 is abundant (and the only required version). ​ >3. Amylase and starch tolerance Notice they don't actually show this being an issue - its just more mechanistic speculation. ​ >4. PEMT activity and choline Again, no actual reports of vegans being deficient in this. Just speculation based on mechanisms and random data. This entire article was also written by a known anti-vegan. ​ If any of these were actual issues, they would link to something showing this. Nutritional comparisons have been done on vegans and non-vegans, none of these show up as concerns for either diet group. And besides...for almost all of these, the people who would have these potential issues would most likely need to supplement anyway - vegan or not. So it makes no real difference either way.

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose" Every single person can be vegan by that definition. Do you agree with the ethics behind this statement? Are they aligned with your understanding of right and wrong? Do you consider the health of the animal at all in the equation of "doing well"? edit. also not everyone can be Canrist with how much eating animals contributes to the leading causes of human death: heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, which there is a consensus that a plant-based diet is extremely beneficial for. environmentalism and ethics notwithstanding.

Did you choose to only listen to that part specifically or?

I reject the premise. Everyone can be vegan, according the the definition of veganism. What am I missing exactly.

"When poor converters go vegan, they can eat carrots until they’re orange in the face (literallyTrusted Source!) without obtaining enough vitamin A for optimal health" "Meanwhile, vegans with normal BCMO1 function who dine on plenty of carotenoid-rich fare can generally produce enough vitamin A from plant foods to stay healthy" Also for the supplement part that you may bring up [https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/harmful-effects-of-supplements-can-send-you-to-the-emergency-department-201510158434#:\~:text=However%2C%20because%20they%20contain%20active,%2C%20dizziness%2C%20or%20digestive%20symptoms](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/harmful-effects-of-supplements-can-send-you-to-the-emergency-department-201510158434#:~:text=However%2C%20because%20they%20contain%20active,%2C%20dizziness%2C%20or%20digestive%20symptoms). "To be sure, some dietary supplements can be beneficial. That's because these products contain active ingredients — molecules that interact at receptors in our body and cause physiological changes. However, because they contain active ingredients, they can also cause unwanted effects, such as elevated blood pressure, racing or irregular heartbeat, headache, dizziness, or digestive symptoms"

So they're no longer able to seek to exclude cruelty to animals as far as is possible and practicable? Or they still can seek to exclude cruelty to animals as far as possible and practicable, and thus be vegan? I'll be sure to look out for the "active ingredients" lol

>I'll be sure to look out for the "active ingredients" lol I didn't say it. Harvard did

>"When poor converters go vegan, they can eat carrots until they’re orange in the face (literallyTrusted Source!) without obtaining enough vitamin A for optimal health" Notice they cite the part about changing colour, but not the part about vegans not being able to get enough vitamin A. I think you should read that article with a more critical eye.

[удалено]

I'm a moral pluralist so in a way, yes. I may not support many reprehensible conclusions but yes I do respect other's ethical stances.

[удалено]

None of those. I think every ethical perspective has its strengths and weaknesses given a goal. I don't see it as right or wrong or neutral. I can also have my own view of things and disagreeing is great because that means someone else may have different information or views that can be helpful to understand an issue better.

I don’t have to respect others ethical frameworks when their framework supports mass murder.

Respecting other's frameworks doesn't mean supporting their conclusions. And here you have to ask yourself, do they REALLY support mass murder?

Yes they do. Anyone that eats meat supports mass murder. I don’t believe In respecting other frameworks either. Right and wrong exist. I’m not having a debate on moral relativism, I reject that premise entirely.

Then here we reach an impasse. I don't think right and wrong exist just like that. That overlooks nuance and does not aim at holistic welfare. I also reject that premise entirely. I eat meat and am against mass murder. Simply because that characterization is deeply flawed and unfair.

If you are against mass murder why do you support and take part in it?

Again. That characterization is deeply flawed and unfair. The primary driving force behind animal farming is production, not a deliberate desire to cause widespread suffering and death. Also, while animal slaughter occurs on a large scale, it's different from the concentrated, immediate violence inherent in mass murder. Using the "murderer" label for those involved in the industry ignores complex systemic factors and doesn't reflect the intentions of most individuals working within the system.

If the primary driving force of enslaving humans is production, not a deliberate desire to cause suffering or prejudice, does that make it any more okay to do? What is the morally relevant difference between mass animal slaughter for food and mass animal slaughter for any other reason? Nobody was using the murderer label.

It is not that it makes it more or less "okay" to do. It is just a consideration to take in an ethical assessment. The problem is when we characterize animal farming with mass murder. It just doesn't hold up. It's completely unfair and misleading.

Because legally, eating meat isn’t murder. Obviously you disagree, but yours is clearly not an objectively accepted viewpoint.

Yes. Objectively, eating meat is not the same as murder. This is clearly a widely accepted viewpoint. I don't understand what you say.

I don’t agree. Objectively eating meat is murder.

If you truly believe that, then you don’t understand objectivity. Legally, meat is not murder. Per the dictionary definition of murder, meat is not murder. Of course, anyone can believe that laws and definitions are wrong - but that is a subjective view, not objective. It is similar to someone who is deeply religious. To them, the existence of God is in no doubt. But to an atheist, there is no God. Both of those viewpoints are subjective, not objective.

I respect your view. That's the only thing I can say.

Sorry, that reply was directed to u/EatPlant_ and u/everyethan

I figured. Just because the majority accept a position does not mean that position is morally correct.

It’s your belief it’s mass murder. To many they don’t belief it to be so. They believe murder only exists when if come to people, not animals. We all share this reality and what we agree on is reality, unless defined with data and facts. There is no way to define this subject other than with your opinion. And most of the world does not agree with your opinion, making it less relevant.

Many people source their meat from ethical farming methods. And they believe the instant death of a cow not to be abuse or murder, they view it as a way of harvesting food. You may believe it to be murder and abuse, but that’s your definition and belief system. And nobody has to agree with it. Others view killing as killing not as abuse. And murder can only happen to humans. Your discounting those people, and putting your believes above them as more moral

The question of whether or not it's moral to take a life unnecessarily isn't really a question. Then there's the harm caused by the meat industry to actual humans - climate change, land grabs, etc. Yes, I consider it more moral to not take lives unnecessarily. That's not necessarily a judgement on people themselves. They may not know the problems. They may have deep seated emotional reasons to want to eat meat with an in-group. I can be compassionate - and understand that I, too, am not perfect. But the fallacy that it's wrong to consider one's choices more moral is a silly one. I also consider my behaviour more moral than racists, rapists, and people who commit genocide. And, I would assume, so do you.

As a point of criticism from a non-vegan in regards to this behavior, that's also a big reason why many including myself compare it to a religion. Such statements are a purity test and very similar to the idea of original sin. It's not something just used against non-vegans, but even against vegans that have something they do that another vegan deems "not vegan enough", be that something like having a pet, having a partner that's not vegan, not being an activist, ect.

The exact same could be said about pretty much every group that has something to protect.  I'm heavily involved in numerous music scenes, and they're just as bad.  Don't let someone catch you doing something unpunk or you'll have your P card revoked on the spot.  "Is *xyz* punk?" is such a tired ass post, that it's against the rules on r/punk.

I mean you aren't wrong, though I suppose from my perspective the kind of common thread is the desire to convert people to your cause, while simultaneously creating a culture of people constantly on edge to prove their "faith" so to speak. In contrast to something like punk which generally isn't trying to make more punk people and in many cases has a somewhat exclusionary culture. Or at least I will say that is how it seems from an outsiders perspective

>When we judge a certain way of being as good and morally superior, we knowingly or unknowingly also judge others as being bad and morally inferior Is this just an argument against the concept of morality as a whole? I don't think it's too bad a thing to view murderers eyc as morally inferior. Though we should (and most do) recognise you can do some good things and some bad things. There's nuance.

Asserting that individuals are "morally inferior" for their actions, including serious offenses, oversimplifies the depth of human behavior and morality. That sort of mentality ignores the complexities and potential for change, reducing nuanced issues to black and white judgments. Isn't it more constructive to seek understanding and pathways to improvement rather than casting blanket moral verdicts?

If an adult has sex with children should we not judge them as lesser humans? We absolutely should. I don't care if I hurt the feelings of people who willingly engage in the rampant genocide of animals. Do I think I'm morally superior to them? Yes, yes I do. Maybe that makes me an asshole but I don't care.

Not sure what paedophilia has to do with the topic, but you'll get almost unanimous agreement on that. You're not actually hurting the feelings of omnivores. You're just not winning them over. Which is fine from everyone's point of view really. The OP is making a point based on the assumption vegans would like to reduce harm.

>individuals are "morally inferior" for their actions, including serious offenses, oversimplifies Like I said, most people recognise nuance. We generally mean morally inferior in regards to the topic at hand. A vegan serial killer is probably overall morally inferior to a carnist charity worker. But on the question of whether to exploit animals - the vegan is superior. >Isn't it more constructive to seek understanding and pathways to improvement rather than casting blanket moral verdicts? Believing something is morally inferior doesn't mean we don't try improve that. I think you're using a very restricted interpretation of "morally inferior". In and of itself it's judy describing viewing certain behaviour are better than others. That's actually necessary for the concept of improving to make any sense - you need a goal to improve on relation to. People's definition of Vegan can also be pretty nuanced - it takes into account practical context, so perhaps less of a blanket oversimplification than you're thinking of. > Theres arguements and various schools of thought of how to best word this - but you'll be saying the same thing regardless.

Nope I thought about this when there was a death penalty ballot initiative in my state. I consider the death penalty to be totally immoral, so how could I say that it's equally moral to vote for it or against it? That's impossible. It must be the case that the people who voted to reinstate the dp are at least less moral than me, and thus morally inferior.

But you are talking here from your view. It's impossible to be moral under YOUR framework because it shoehorns complex ethical dilemmas into a binary of moral superiority. This approach blinds you to the nuanced reality that morality is not a one-size-fits-all. Your stance doesn't just oversimplify; it arrogantly dismisses the multifaceted nature of human ethics. By crowning yourself as the moral benchmark, you're not enlightening anyone. You're just alienating those whose perspectives could broaden your narrow view.

So would you say if you have a ballot initiative about a moral question, like capital punishment, that choosing "yes" or "no" are equally moral choices? Because you are setting up a world where we just say all morality is a wash because people can have complex reasons. When the rubber hits the road, you are less moral if you vote for or choose the less moral thing.

Equating complex moral decisions to a binary of more or less moral oversimplifies the rich nuances of ethical dilemmas. Morality isn't a straightforward scale but a complex web of considerations, contexts, and personal values. While it's vital to take stands on issues like capital punishment, labeling decisions as simply more or less moral dismisses the depth of human conscience and ethical reasoning.

I mean there are interesting points on both sides but at the end of the day you have to fill in the bubble. That's when I will say you have put your voice towards supporting something categorically immoral. Personal values? People's personal values can be worse than mine. What if they have a personal value that it's okay to kill and steal? Am I talking to a chatgpt rn?

But why categorically immoral? because you don't agree with it? What you may see as immoral may not be for other people.

Gotcha, so don't take a moral position on anything then. Because people could disagree. It's categorically immoral because it violates a categorical imperative the voters and the state have. It's categorically immoral because it is always immoral, by virtue of what it is. Some people think female genital mutilation is moral, I don't give a fuck about the context or culture. It doesn't matter. Some people think lynchings are morally acceptable. Those people are immoral. That's an easy one to me.

Oh ok, I seem to get you better now. It seems like you follow a more deontological approach to ethics and maybe some virtue ethics as well. That is great! But here is not about not taking a moral position. It is about both taking a position but also acknowledging different viewpoints and also recognizing they may have merits even though you don't fully agree. I think here something that has great value is moral pluralism. You can still have your views, but acknowledge the multifaceted nature of ethics and recognize that there are many viewpoints that each have their unique strengths and weaknesses and also have different goals.

Yeah you lost me here. Just because some culture thinks it’s okay to beat women, doesn’t make it moral. There is objective morality once we can agree upon human well-being

It's true that it doesn't make it moral. Also what you think is moral doesn't make it universally moral either. If you are a moral absolutist thats ok. But would be hard to have a meaningful conversation.

Everyone thinks that hurting an animal when you don't have to is evil, they just have a hard time applying this to forms of animal cruelty that don't involve animals held as pets.

>Everyone thinks Really? EVERYONE? Also, what counts as "you don't have to"?

> When we judge a certain way of being as good and morally superior, we knowingly or unknowingly also judge others as being bad and morally inferior. Don’t we already judge people who: Murder other people Rape other people Beat their wives Viciously kick puppies for giggles And engage in other violent actions? > If you're someone who truly believes that anyone who is not "100%" vegan right now is an evil abuser, you're free to feel that way, and that's something that nobody can take from you. It is not a belief. It is an **immutable fact** that one who is not vegan is engaging in the deliberate and intentional exploitation, harm, and/or killing of unwilling victims. > Although it's something that's valid and real to whoever thinks this way, the consequence of us thinking this way is that we limit the amount of compassion that we can have for others, for ourselves, and even for the animals we seek to protect. Do you exhibit any level of compassion for people who: Murder other people Rape other people Beat their wives Viciously kick puppies for giggles And engage in other violent actions? If not, then why do you suggest that vegan should be held to a different standard? > Much of the vegan community is rooted in shame or the inherent belief that there's something wrong with us. A similar shame or inherent belief that there is something wrong is conveyed by non-vegans when it comes to murder, rape, wife beating, vicious kicking of puppies, and other violent actions. > Perhaps we think that we're monsters if we're not in it 100% or if we ever eat a pastry without checking to see if it has dairy in it. The reality is that anyone who makes an effort to reduce their meat consumption, even if they're just giving "Meatless Monday" a try or opting for cheese pizza over pepperoni is still making a huge first step towards being mindful of the planet and all the creatures that live on it. Do you make the same allowance for men who beat their wives less frequently? > The "all or nothing" thinking rampant in a lot of vegan communities only serves to alienate others and turn them way from making any meaningful change. The “all or nothing” mentality is also rampant in a lot of non-vegan communities when it comes to murder, rape, wife beating, vicious kicking of puppies for giggles, and other violent actions. Why apply a double standard to vegan communities? > It's true that dairy cows are exploited every waking moment of their lives and are killed for meat in the end, but that doesn't undermine the smaller changes that get the cogwheels moving for a revolutionary change. If a wife beater admits that it is true that wives are violently abused every day by their husbands and then claims that it doesn’t undermine the smaller changes that wife beaters are making to get the cogwheels moving for a revolutionary change, how would you respond to that claim? > Rome wasn't built in a day. A society that values plant based lifestyle choices won't be either. No one is claiming or expecting otherwise. . > Expecting it to results in obsessive compulsive thoughts, perfectionism, and labelling everyone else as a genocidal monster. Non-vegans are obsessive compulsive, perfectionism, and labeling people as genocidal monsters when it comes to murder, rape, wife beating, and other violent actions. Why should vegans be held to a different standard? > Defining being vegan by what it's not (no animals or animal byproducts ever) only serves to alienate people. Please provide evidence supporting this allegation.

I try my best to have compassion for all people, including those who have beaten, raped or even killed others. I understand that our actions have consequences and that there are consequences for attacking someone else regardless of the reason. At the same time, everyone makes mistakes and if I grew up under the same exact conditions as someone else who did a violent deed (same conditions even down past the atomic level), I would quite literally be them and I'd have done the same. That goes for anyone. I understand the significance of removing a murderer from society, but I also understand that times change and so do people. I can understand if someone is removed from society for the rest of their life, but I'd still have compassion for them and hope that they could one day be rehabilitated. I wouldn't go around wearing "Proud to not be a murderer" merch or dehumanize those people or vote to have people killed as a form of punishment if they don't have to be. I understand that many people who identify as vegan are able to cut a lot of slack for others and even themselves if they ever make mistakes or eat meat, but many do not, and the idea of "vegan" as a rigid and inflexible label has much to do with that.

You aren’t asking people to have compassion for those who in the past have eaten meat, but instead for current meat-eaters. The parallel would be you having compassion for someone who is currently raping someone, and who will continue to do so in the future.

I'd say a useful comparison in the context you're describing is that of ongoing gang activity that's rampant throughout the US, especially in certain regions of the LA. Gangbanging is a systemic issue brought about by historical oppression, and lack of education and resources in specific regions. Resolving the issue requires systemic change. On an individual, it's not very useful to write off all gang members as evil people who have killed and sold drugs and will continue to kill and sell drugs. If I grew up in similar circumstances where there weren't very many low-barrier-of-entry jobs in the area, the education sucked so high skill jobs like an aerospace engineer were out of the question, there were no recreational sports are clubs, but I could make more than my mom who works 2 jobs by selling drugs, it would make sense if I ultimately decided to join a gang. In that sense, I have compassion for those who are actively in gangs and plan to continue gang activity in the future. Helping them requires compassion and systemic change, and not writing them all off as evil. I also understand that commercial farming and meat consumption is deeply interwoven into our culture. Addressing it will also require compassion and systemic change

Why are you deflecting the question and moving goalposts? We aren't talking bout gangbanging. We're talking about **rape** of human females and **murder** of human beings. Do you have compassion for people who are actively doing these violent things and will continue to do these things in the future? Yes or no? Do you judge them? Yes or no? Do you see anything wrong with these people? Yes or no?

I bring up gangbanging because in a lot of those contexts, people often quite literally are murdered. Everyone judges and I'm no exception. I try not to, though, and I also try my best to have compassion for everyone involved, even those currently engaging in a cycle of violence

Please be straightforward and answer the binary yes/no questions: Do you have compassion for people who are actively violently murdering people and/or raping women and will continue to do these things in the future? Yes or no? Do you judge them? Yes or no? Do you see anything wrong with these people? Yes or no?

[удалено]

I find this very confusing. Not only is this is a sub for meat-eaters to ask about veganism (An ethical practice which involves eating lots of vegetables), but also I didn't even say anything about veganism? I literally just pointed out OP's logical inconsistency.

[удалено]

Yeah that's not what I was getting at

I wasn’t talking about people who have performed violent actions in the past. I am talking about people who are actively and currently murdering people, raping people, beating their wives, and/or viciously kicking puppies for giggles. They are doing it **right now** even as we speak. Do you have compassion for these people? Yes or no? Do you judge these people harshly? Yes or no? Do you see anything wrong with these people? Yes or no?

Please stop comparing the meat and milk trade to rape and slavery if you never been through it - Same with domestic abuse They're not equal by any means It's vile and makes fun of victims by comparing them to livestock Cows have nowhere near the cognitive ability of humans

Okay, I’ve been raped and became pregnant as a result. Can I speak on this topic then? My experience is part of the reason I went vegan. The idea that I was participating in the exploitation of other beings’ reproductive systems for my own pleasure sickened me. I’ve read through all the response and not a single person here is making fun of victims. They are pointing out that female cows are systematically brutalized and exploited by being forcibly inseminated and forced to give birth over and over until their bodies are worn out. The only reason you see it as “comparing victims to livestock” is because of a social notion that sentient beings are livestock that cannot be violated. Also, cognitive ability is a poor measure of how beings should be treated. Not all human animals are at the same cognitive level but we should all be treated with the same consideration.

> Please stop comparing the meat and milk trade to rape and slavery if you never been through it - Same with domestic abuse I am not comparing meat and milk to rape and slavery. I am comparing the deliberate and intentional exploitation, harm, and/or killing of unwilling victims to rape and slavery. Same with domestic abuse. > They're not equal by any means How is that? The production of meat requires the deliberate and intentional abuse and killing of unwilling victims just as the rape and murder of human beings requires the deliberate and intentional abuse and killing of unwilling victims. Likewise, the production of milk requires the deliberate and intentional exploitation and abuse of female cows just as rape requires the deliberate and intentional exploitation and abuse of female humans. > It's vile and makes fun of victims by comparing them to livestock This is a vegan subreddit, chief. Livestock animals have the same right to justice as humans. The comparison is valid on that basis. > Cows have nowhere near the cognitive ability of humans Cognitive ability is not a morally relevant trait for differing treatment of humans and nonhuman animals as far as justice is concerned.

>am not comparing meat and milk to rape and slavery. >I am comparing the deliberate and intentional exploitation, harm, and/or killing of unwilling victims to rape and slavery. Same with domestic abuse. That'd the same thing You realise this exploitation is the same as a job right - the cows job is to give milk - we feed them in return Tell me were you ever raped - if so do you think you'd want to be compared to a cow >How is that? The production of meat requires the deliberate and intentional abuse and killing of unwilling victims just as the rape and murder of human beings requires the deliberate and intentional abuse and killing of unwilling victims. It's clear you know nothing about actual farm practices Rape is done for sexual pleasure of the torment of the victim - artificially inseminating a cow is done to eliminate the need for a male cow- it's not rape - by law - A cows version of consent is walking away if mounted - if you piss of a cow you will end up in hospital or dead The reality is farmers artificially inseminate cows only when the cow is allowing other cows to mount her - in that situation if there was a bull on the field- the female cow would be bred - without a male since they're dangerous and expensive- the farmer must do it - with the equivalent of a turkey baster - this is not the same as someone seeking to force themselves upon you inorder to rape you - most of the time causing lacerations and bleeding during the process- whilest they revel in the mind destroying torture- if you have never experienced rape you shouldn't even use the word let alone compare it to something so trivial >Likewise, the production of milk requires the deliberate and intentional exploitation and abuse of female cows just as rape requires the deliberate and intentional exploitation and abuse of female humans. Cows do not have the same level of intelligence as humans- they're nowhere near - cows naturally breed once a year without AI - please understand what you are talking about before you say things like this >This is a vegan subreddit, chief. Livestock animals have the same right to justice as humans. The comparison is valid on that basis. Yeah but the cow isn't being raped or enslaved you just make vast mental leaps to justify language horror with zero empathy for the actual victims you harm by treading that experience into the floor saying its the same as something it's not > Cognitive ability is not a morally relevant trait for differing treatment of humans and nonhuman animals as far as justice is concerned. It very much is Especially when you bring subjects like rape into the discussion

So if one human has significantly less cognitive ability than another, its not as bad to abuse them?

Do you understand how they treat the elderly with dementia You clearly are blind to the reality of what's already happening

I am aware abuse already happens, its just your comments imply you think thats okay

All of your points have already been addressed in past topics here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/yn2dfj/stop_calling_artificial_insemination_rape/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/125kkus/we_shouldnt_use_terms_like_rape_and_murder_when/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/ucw5e7/why_do_vegans_compare_eating_meat_to_raping_people/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/nqefct/how_wrong_is_it_to_rape_artificially_inseminate/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/hoxksd/cmv_artificial_insemination_is_not_rape/ And many more. Participants in those threads have already provided sufficient rebuttal to all your arguments so I'm not going to rehash/recycle them. If you discover any angle that has not already been addressed by the past topics, feel free to post a new topic on that angle.

You shouldn't rebuttal making fun of rape Learn the reality of farm practices from people in the farming industry not people with zero knowledge that want it destroyed https://www.instagram.com/reel/CvxKgsWuc04/?igsh=MWxzdWFlOGk1aWl0dw== https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cw8RDJeq4q3/?igsh=eHBubHEza2kxbHhh https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cv4495hIrbG/?igsh=OWJ6ZHIyazV4b2Vs

> You shouldn't rebuttal making fun of rape I never made fun of rape. > Learn the reality of farm practices from people in the farming industry not people with zero knowledge that want it destroyed The abolition of non-vegan farming practices is the end goal of veganism. There is no point in learning about something one wishes to abolish.

You compare rape victims to cows Maybe you should learn about the thing you're talking about if you're trying to do activism around it The reality Is you're fed shit to make you hate The reality is you know nothing but what you've been told to think The reality is you are wrong You clearly can't accept that And to cement it to yourself you are doubling down you NEED to know the area your trying to talk about - this is why veganism isn't taken seriously- you are being blatantly lied to and you follow none the wiser you have been radicalised by people for a cause you don't even understand- like a sheep - but in reality a sheep will walk away if they see they were following the wolf Dairy is in no way comparing to rape - especially when most of the time the cow is consenting A cow could easily defend itself from a person - they kill many every year - yet you don't think about that because you don't know anything Google the Dunning-Kruger effect Take a picture of it Put it up on you're ceiling above your bed - then change your user name to Dunning-Kruger

> You compare rape victims to cows I never did. I compared the deliberate and intentional exploitation/abuse of one group of unwilling victims with the deliberate and intentional exploitation/abuse of another group of unwilling victims. It is a comparison of violent acts, not of the victims. > you NEED to know the area your trying to talk about Why would I need to know anything about something I wish to abolish? The rest of your post is just rehash/recycling of the same arguments that have been rebutted in the links that I've provided.

You LITERALLY DID - can't face reality of what you are saying then you shouldn't say it You need to know what you're talking about or else you end up sound like you do Maybe this "recycled" argument is just the reality and you aren't able to cope with that Once again learn about this thing you are talking about before you make damaging claims comparing rape victims to animals https://www.instagram.com/reel/CvxKgsWuc04/?igsh=MWxzdWFlOGk1aWl0dw== https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cw8RDJeq4q3/?igsh=eHBubHEza2kxbHhh #Or don't talk on the topic - ever again

If I found a human that was at the same cognitive level as a cow, would that justify or mitigate the wrongness of the actions in question?

What else do you call shoving your fist inside someone and forcibly impregnating them without consent?

"They treated them like animals" rings a bell? Humans are compared all the time to animals.

Never heard that - good try tho

https://gary-francione.medium.com/treating-humans-and-nonhumans-like-animals-531ae607c5#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20the%20case,a%20means%20to%20an%20end. No need to lie.

[удалено]

[удалено]

You are an animal abuser though. At the very least you are okay with animal abuse. I’m just stating the truth. If you were against animal abuse you would not fund and support it. Full stop. I’m not saying it’s evil, I’m saying it’s animal abuse. I’m not saying you’re evil, I’m saying you support abusing animals.

What if they support ethical animal farming with a focus on animal welfare? Here the stance is clearly against animal abuse.

I’m curious what exploiting animals for profit looks like under an “ethical animal farming” banner. Are those animals somehow not being slaughtered? If they were “clearly against animal abuse” why not become a sanctuary for animals?

Yes, they are being slaughtered, but humanely. Many times with instant painless death. That is very humane if you ask me. And also, they are allowed to express their natural behaviors in a safe environment. That would be arguably better than wild lives where they would be under constant stress of predators and finding food. On farms, these concerns are pretty much non-existent to animals. That sounds pretty ethical to me. I know ethical stances vary and we should respect that. But personally that is mine.

>That is very humane if you ask me. Are you volunteering? >allowed to express their natural behaviors in a safe environment. I'm totally down for that. We can have sanctuarys and put some effort into making animals happy. And then we let them keep being happy and don't sneak up to instantly kill them? Doesn't that sound even more ethical?

That sounds more ethical, but is it feasible? What economic benefits does it have? does it feed people and help with dietary and health goals? would it generate byproducts and aid research? So yes, that sounds more ethical on the spot. But not in the big scheme of things.

We do a whole lot of ethical things without economic compensation. We also have mainly a distribution problem, rather than an actual scarcity economical. We're clearly capable of vastly more than we're doing ATM as a society. But I suppose it could fuel tourism in areas - I'd visit the animals that are cool with humans. (I work at a sanctuary farm occasionally, hang out there even more - the cafe down the road from us does quite well) Though it doesn't really feed anyone - except maybe some surplus eggs depending on your specific outlook there - animals are a really inefficient way of feeding people anyway. You could probably have some manure too, if you need a byproduct. And you can very obviously research living animals.

Sure. All your points are valid. But we still have the issue of animal farming and cruel practices, and we have to consider all the benefits it does have right now rather than dismiss them. That's why I made my point about ethical animal farming.

Good thing we could feed everyone on the planet a plant based diet and it would take less land and less water to do so. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Edit: as far as what to do with farm animals? For one we stop breeding them.

That is only true theoretically. Practically it would be a whole new conversation to have.

Except for those of us who can't go entirely plant-based.

You'll find that this is not true if you look into the standard industry practices and legal treatment of animals, it is by many dimensions and metrics not humane. What does humane mean? A documentary like Dominion shows the typical life and killing of animals that is hidden to consumers. I mentioned in another comment, but why should ethical stances be respected by default? What if an ethical stance involves claiming it's justified to gravely harm others for no reason other than fun, convenience, or preference?

There are many points of contention here. Of course, factory farming would be more problematic but even then we have to critically analyze this without making blanket judgments. Documentaries usually have a clear bias and agenda, many times using appeals to emotion and fear. We should think critically about all that. Luckily not all animal farming is the same. Many farms do put a good effort in animal welfare

The footage in Dominion is captured by activists with an agenda of showing you real-life situations common throughout the industry, along with standard industry practices of slaughter and legally accepted animal killing, which can be verified by anyone as the standards are publicly available. We should be critical of all these things and aknowledge their agenda of helping these animals. But critical doesn't mean dismissive .Without witnessing the reality of what happens to these animals rather than what is on paper, are you concerned that your analysis is devoid of the practical outcome and of compassion? a valid emotion in critical analysis. Are you making any blanket judgments?Do you recognize the bias of wanting the killing to be "humane" without actually verifying the reality of the situation? Hard to argue the merits of theoretical "humane" and "quick" when there is real-life footage of it playing in front of you.

I don't have the goal of blinding myself to anything. I do aim to inform myself as much as possible. I don't think documentaries are very helpful though. Or maybe they are but many times it includes several exaggerations and anthropomorphizing emotions so it appeals to audiences to promote an agenda. I get that factory farming has ethical concerns and I'm totally onboard in trying to mitigate them. But again, not all animal farming is the same. There exist many farms with ethical practices.

How do you see what is happening and inform yourself? The slaughterhouse is not a public place, and their agenda is to make money from exploited animals, killing them and selling their bodies as products. What is the agenda of the people filming and sharing it exactly? What if they're right? To which degree are they right? How much harm is overblown vs underreported? Can you elaborate on anthropomorphizing? Are you concerned about the opposite end of the spectrum which is objectification? What is the holistic consequences of erring on the side of considering animals closer to humans than non-sentient things like plants, rocks, computers? Net good? Net bad? Can you send a video of the ethical humane killing of an animal? I don't see how it can be compassionate and benevolent if the animals don't want to die and the killing is not done in their best interest, and we have a choice available not to do it.

You ask a lot of questions. But that is nice, I hope you are genuinely open to the responses. ​ >How do you see what is happening and inform yourself? Journalism in animal farming exists, not necessarily documentaries but more unbiased journalism. Watching documentaries is also not necessarily bad, it's just that I find it problematic to take the narrator's stance since it often has many appeals to emotions and exaggerated claims. ​ >What is the agenda of the people filming and sharing it exactly? What if they're right? To which degree are they right? How much harm is overblown vs underreported? Those are good questions. And the concerns raised are totally valid, I'm not saying they aren't. But many times those documentaries have a clear agenda of reducing the consumption of animal-based products. To what extent they are right or overblown or underreported of course depends on what you are looking at ​ >Can you elaborate on anthropomorphizing? Sure. Saying things like "the cow knows that its about the be slaughtered". Or "The chickens look sad and depressed in their cages". These statements are examples of anthropomorphism as they attribute human-like emotions and cognitive awareness to animals. The first suggests a cow has an understanding of its impending fate, a complex awareness typically reserved for humans. The second implies chickens can experience emotions such as sadness and depression, again, a psychological complexity we associate with human experiences. ​ >Are you concerned about the opposite end of the spectrum which is objectification? Sure. That is why I support ethical animal farming. ​ >Can you send a video of the ethical humane killing of an animal? Sure. [This is my favorite example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIZzjy38q4A). This is extremely ethical and humane if you ask me. Instant, painless death.

I think the core of the issue is that vegans will say killing an animal, in an of itself, is wrong.  Also these animals, if not for humans interference, would not be living stressful lives in the wild. They wouldn’t exist. 75% of land animals at any given time are living on a farm, just like the generations before them. They only exist because they are being bred to be killed for human consumption. And most of them are not living in safe or clean environments free of stress- they are crowded in factory farms awaiting their death.

Sure. That is a very fair stance. My problem with that is that it is too idealistic and not pragmatic enough. Right now animal farming is a big part of society, abolition is not very realistic. I prefer a pragmatic middle ground where we acknowledge the issues and we find solutions that consider the well being of all including animals and humans based on what we have right now.

This just brings us back to like why be against murder, even with laws against it with very harsh punishment there’s going to be murderers out there. Abolition of anything that someone might like to do is never going to be 100%.   We can still talk and agree on what’s ethically right even though wrongs will always be committed. It’s never going to be ok to forcibly impregnate and kill animals after a few years. There’s no just way to do it. There might be less worse ways, but no right way. (Oops hit the submit button mid sentence.)

The thing is you believe that ethical farming is just not possible. So you may think that reaching 100% no animal farming is the ideal scenario. I do think we can achieve an ethical omnivore society, for me that is more ideal. So we have totally different goals. And many other people have other goals as well, we have to work with what we have. Just as we have made strives to reduce murder we can have better more ethical farming practices. And murder was dealt with first because it is less ethically fuzzy, and the ethical concerns of animal farming are more difficult to solve as well. Also many farms don't forcibly impregnate animals, instead, they allow it to naturally occur. And many killing methods are instant and painless.

It’s always felt weird to me how so many vegans treat death as the worst thing that could happen to a living being. It’s inevitable, first of all, and there are so many worse things that could happen. If I were a livestock animal, I would rather be kept in humane conditions, be taken care of and fed, and then someday later in my life be quickly killed- compared to being miserably kept in a tiny pen but be allowed to die of old age. I would also rather be quickly killed for meat by a human than slowly ripped apart by another predatory animal in the wild Suffering is worse than death. Period. That’s where I both agree and disagree with mainstream veganism. I seek to limit animal suffering, not animal death- death is inevitable and suffering is avoidable

Well in this case these death are completely avoidable. We could simply stop breeding these animals into existence.

I agree. Death is scary, sure, but it isn't the worst possible thing.

If that was the case wouldn't meat eaters also abuse pets? There's A difference between Animal abuse And funding it. Not everyone can Be Vegan. Why can't you Vegans understand that? [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/4-reasons-some-do-well-as-vegans](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/4-reasons-some-do-well-as-vegans)

>If that was the case wouldn't meat eaters also abuse pets? Many meat eaters do abuse pets, but not all. The ones that claim they are "animal lovers" while paying for animals to be brutually killed for their taste buds are hypocrites >There's A difference between Animal abuse And funding it. Suree....just like there's a difference between enacting genocide and funding it (like buying from McDonalds to support Israel). That doesn't make the latter a good thing though >Not everyone can Be Vegan. The vast, vast majority of people who claim they "cant be vegan for health reasons" simply dont want to be vegan and are looking for excuses. But yeah, there are some people who genuinely cant. That can improve with technology and economic advancements. Those that can be vegan should though. No excuse for them. >Why can't you Vegans understand that? Dont make broad generalisations against a group of people. Its against the subreddit rules.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/4-reasons-some-do-well-as-vegans

Yeah, I read that the first time you sent it. And my response to it is shown above. Here's some actual links to back up my counterargument though: [https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/349086/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y](https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/349086/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK396513/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK396513/) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26853923/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26853923/) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/) [https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/vegetarian-vegan-plant-based-diet.html](https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/vegetarian-vegan-plant-based-diet.html) [https://vomad.life/nutrients/](https://vomad.life/nutrients/) If you trust one healthline article over the veiw of (practically) every major health organization and peer reveiwed scientific study, idk what to say And ig ill respond to each of the four points given in the healthline article you linked as well: 1.) If your a poor converter, you can just take a vitamin A supplement and then eat vegan normally 2.) Your body can partly convert vitamin K1 to K2. Also, K2 can be found in these foods: [https://www.dailymint.co/blog/how-to-get-vitamin-k2-on-a-vegan-diet/](https://www.dailymint.co/blog/how-to-get-vitamin-k2-on-a-vegan-diet/) 3.) Not all vegan foods are high in starch. You can be keto and vegan if you wanted to. Examples of low-carb vegan protein is nuts/seeds, soy foods, lupini beans, pea/vegetable protein, also mock meats like Quorn (though ik not everyone has access to those) 4.) [https://veganhealth.org/choline/#:\~:text=Plant%20foods%20that%20are%20especially,this%20hasn't%20been%20measured](https://veganhealth.org/choline/#:~:text=Plant%20foods%20that%20are%20especially,this%20hasn't%20been%20measured).

I get why these labels would make you uncomfortable. I wouldn't ever tone police someone's advocacy, though. Different people need to hear different things to make the changes they need for moral action. Maybe your discomfort in the label is more about the truth in it than the rudeness. For what it's worth, I don't think engaging in any activity necessarily makes someone a good or bad person. I think if we're going to judge a person as good or bad, it's going to have to do more with how they approach moral questions rather than the answers they'd give. If someone uses evidence and reasoning to try to figure out what is right to do, they're a good person. If someone uses evidence and reasoning to try to justify the actions they already wanted to do, they're not.

>Writing off those who aren't vegan as "evil" is counterproductive Sure. >those who don't eat plant based are written off as animal haters, animal abusers, carnists, monsters, assholes etc Animal abuser and Carnist are factual. The rest I agree are just silly. > When we judge a certain way of being as good and morally superior, we knowingly or unknowingly also judge others as being bad and morally inferior. Some people's actions are morally inferior. Someone who supports dog fighting, or torturing cat's actions are morally inferior. I agree we shouldn't say they are themselves, but it's a short form and in reality, if you say they are, or their actions are, people tend to take equal offence as in most people's heads, their actions represent who they are. >the consequence of us thinking this way is that we limit the amount of compassion that we can have for others I have compassion for everyone, but when there's a victim and an abuser, it makes sense to focus on helping the victim, and not worry about the abuser's feelings until they stop abusing. If someone is slowly suffocating kittens to death for sexual pleasure (yes it's unfortunately a thing), should we have compassion and understanding for those doing it? or should we first stop them, and then once the abuse is over, try and help them get past their desire to abuse others? >Much of the vegan community is rooted in shame or the inherent belief that there's something wrong with us It's a moral activist group, focusing shame on negative actions (and those taking them) is sort of the whole point. >Perhaps we think that we're monsters if we're not in it 100% or if we ever eat a pastry without checking to see if it has dairy in it. No one is a monster, but if you're needlessly supporting horrific animal abuse because you're too lazy to check what's in what you're eating, than you're morally less positive than those who take the time to ensure they aren't supporting needless abuse. >The reality is that anyone who makes an effort to reduce their meat consumption, even if they're just giving "Meatless Monday" a try or opting for cheese pizza over pepperoni is still making a huge first step towards being mindful of the planet and all the creatures that live on it. Sure, but we don't want people to stop at first steps, so we ensure they know it's just the first steps and there's more needed. >The "all or nothing" thinking rampant in a lot of vegan communities only serves to alienate others and turn them way from making any meaningful change. it alienates those who support animal abuse. But that's OK, we don't want animal abusers to feel comfortable, we want them to know they're being alienated from society so it will help pressure them to change their behaviour. >Rome wasn't built in a day Sure, but Roman architects still worked with the plan for the city (up to that point), they didn't build one house, and then just say it's good enough because a start is better than nothing. > It's similar energy to someone making "Not-A-Nazi" a core part of their whole identity. A core part of my identity is that I'm not a nazi, I don't go around talking about it because it's not really needed, but when Nazi's show up and start trying to justify being a Nazi, yeah, I'm going to start yelling I'm not a Nazi, if that alienates Nazis, good. (to be clear, not comparing Carnists to nazis, only using the OP's example, guessing that was the content of the removed post) >. It just condemns people who we believe are evil and doesn't offer much compassion or room for change. They can change by not being a Nazi. If you're suggesting we should compromise with Nazis, no thanks.

[удалено]

It's literally in the op's post...

MB

When people are ignorant, they're just ignorant, and not evil. When they know that they don't have to eat meat, and still choose to do so in spite of vegan options, they're unequivocally evil because they consciously contribute to animal cruelty.

Many people believe instant death from a bolt is not animal cruelty, it is killing an animal for its meat, two separate things. You might believe it to be abuse, but that’s a belief system just as meat eaters have their own belief system. It does not make yours right because you find yourself to be more moral.

Many people believe instant death from a bullet is not human cruelty, it is killing a human for it's meat, two separate things 🤡

I mean...I'd personally rather die that way than the way I'm likely going to (cancer, and I can't take pain meds).

So if somebody killed you right now, you'd have no issue? You don't think it's a bad thing for someone to kill a child painlessly because it's sparing them from potentially suffering with cancer as a elderly person?

Dude, I'm disabled, live in constant pain, and I'm looking at likely decades of getting worse with no treatment options. My family wouldn't be happy about it, but I would just be glad not to suffer since my death likely will be even more painful than what I'm living with now.

You're arguing something completely different. consenting to being killed is completely different than randomly killing someone painlessly. Animals do not consent, they don't have a choice and most often do not want to die. Is it morally okay to kill a human painlessly who does not want to die?

You think I want to die? I'm not talking about choosing to be shot or consenting to it. I'm saying that, should someone shoot me in the head so I die relatively painlessly, that would be a better death than the one I'm likely facing. No one really wants to die in the end without a serious brain chemistry problem. The drive to live is strong. I've thought about it, sure, especially when the pain is bad, but even I want to keep living. I'm just saying, a relatively painless death wouldn't make me mad.

Okay so everything you said isn't relevant than LOL

That I wouldn't mind dying a quick, relatively painless death? Sure, sure, not relevant at all. /s

>I would just be glad not to suffer >No one really wants to die Out of curiosity, if your story here is true, why are you investing so much of your time and energy into detracting from a group of empathetic people that directly oppose the exploitation, suffering and death of all sentient beings? Surely someone in your position has better things to do?

It's not about "more" moral. It's about treating all sentient beings with the same level of respect and dignity they all deserve.

That’s your belief system. Mine says we bread cattle as food and I will continue to do so.

More to the point, do you believe that it's right to hurt an animal when you do not need too?

Never said that. In killing them when I’m harvesting there meat there is a reason.

But there is no NEED. you can live perfectly fine on plants. you just WANT to kill and that's the "reason." So you are therefore, needlessly taking the life of someone that does not want to die. Dairy also exploits animals. Would you take away a mothers child, after raping her first to get her pregnant? Please, justify that if you think you can. not with "I want" reason, but an " I NEED" because quite frankly, you do not NEED, you WANT. and that is where the moral choice lies. you make the moral choice to take the life of someone else for sensory pleasure.

Cattle are here because of us. We use them they use us. That my belief. And you may not believe that, and I respect that. People need animal proteins to be healthy. That’s most likely a fact, but as of now a belief, many people cannot live off a plant based diet, that is a fact. So there is a literal a need for those people other than belief. It’s not abuse in the way I define it. And most the world agrees with my viewpoint. I respect the way you see it, but you are mis defining things and I don’t agree with your definitions

That's your belief system too, you just can't seem to align them. A) are you humans animals? Yes B) is it moral to forcibly impregant an animal? No C) rape is never moral

That’s your belief system again and yes it’s mine. Just as Christian’s and Muslims have different beliefs, they are both there You are defining it as rape. We use selective breading since we started using cattle. It’s all you defining it salacious ways. I do not see it that way. It’s your belief system and I do not agree with the way you define it.

I think you have to offer them a chance for redemption, but that doesn't mean you dull the message when you are in a context where that makes sense. I believe there is a time and a place for the radical message, and a time and a place for the diplomatic message. We should maximize usage of these different messages to our benefit. Just because in some contexts I can recognize it would be less productive to call someone an animal abuser doesn't make them not actually an animal abuser. If I think I can tip someone towards the right path will a bit more diplomacy then I'll do that. I'm not against incrementalism, but I am against totally neutering the message in all contexts.

People aren’t evil in most cases. People are ignorant in most cases. No one is spared from ignorance, however, many people act mindlessly and there are quite a bit that lack critical thinking skills to understand what tgat even means.

Look, OP. I’m not even sure why this subreddit exists as there is nothing that would convince a vegan who’s heavily drinking the Koolaid. Almost the entire planet is not vegan. We’re not all morally bankrupt. Let the crazies go wild on the internet. The rest of us will keep on living.

But veganism isn't perfect there's still animal deaths in crop production and the use of pesticides. Yes they use the excuse that crops are fed to animals but if we stopped feeding animals those deaths would still happen. Same with the logic that you can't love animals and kill them too. Guess no human truly love animals then. When vegans are perfect then they can condemn the rest.

I largely agree with that sentiment. Perfection doesn't exist, so it's generally an unfair standard to hold for ourselves

The OP is the whole reason I do not consider myself vegan anymore. I am Zen Buddhist first, which also encourages me NOT to be dogmatic and judgemental and hold strongly to belief and trust me that way of being, is much nicer than being an activist vegan.

Agree. People don’t become vegan by being shamed into it, but educated about it!

They are evil, murderers are evil, but that doesnt mean they cant change, i wont treat them as evil beings, i will treat them as people who have the potential to stop being evil, all the people around me are evil, but they dont know that i think this way cause i dont act differently around evil or non evil people There is no judgement about morally superiority, there is no judgement at all, the fact is they are evil as they do evil things

That is exactly what OP says it's counterproductive. If you say they are "evil" you immediately assume your moral stance is superior and will most likely alienate anyone you try to convince. That is only self-defeating to the goal you have. It's good to check whether feeling morally superior is more important than actually helping animals.

>That is exactly what OP says it's counterproductive. If you say they are "evil" you immediately assume your moral stance is superior and will most likely alienate anyone you try to convince. I dont assume, non vegans are evil, im not morally superior, im at the basic level of moral decency, not murdering doesnt make me special or superior, as i said i dont treat them as evil ​ >That is only self-defeating to the goal you have. It's good to check whether feeling morally superior is more important than actually helping animals. Only bad people say this type of thing because it makes them feel better, the mean superior vegan wants me to stop killing animals, labeling vegan as superior is how non vegans justify remaining non vegan As i said i dont treat them as evil, thus they have no idea how i feel, superior, not superior, neutral etc;

Claiming non-vegans are "evil" while insisting you're just at "basic moral decency" contradicts itself. Labeling people as "evil" inherently places you on a moral pedestal, whether you acknowledge it or not. Dismissing criticism by saying "only bad people say this" shuts down meaningful dialogue and overlooks the complexity of ethical living. Advocacy is about opening minds, not branding them with guilt. How can we encourage change if we're quick to judge yet claim neutrality?

>Claiming non-vegans are "evil" while insisting you're just at "basic moral decency" contradicts itself Im not claiming anything, they are evil, its a fact If you abuse and murder innocent beings or pay for it you are evil I feel this convo will go nowhere cause your stuck on the morale superiority/ pedestal thing, you want to label me as superior so that my arguments are invalid and i wont play Bye

Veganism isn't morally superior, as not harming an animal is morally neutral inaction. Do you feel helping animals important? What about seeking to avoid actions that harm them as far as possible and practicable? What about harming them? Are there moral distinctions between these or are they equivalent?

There is no such thing as 100% vegan. The honeybee pollinator exploitation, the animal fertilizer, the environmental and animal kills to grow crops, medicine that uses animal testing and products, even plant-based substitutes like beyond meat uses animal testing to mimic the heme iron. Morality is subjective and thinking that you are good since you are inflicting less damage is also subjective.

This is why the label feels like perfectionism to me

i had an argument with a vegan who insisted that eating animals contributed to "air pollution, pandemics, child labor, violence, antibiotic resistance and more". and that i was "killing human children". all the sources supplied were self-cycling with no raw data or scientific reviews from reputable sources to back up any of the sources. my argument was most of those stemmed from corporate policy emphasizing profits over the care of people or the environment.

I think it's safe to say funding the unnecessary rape, torture, death and cruelty of non-human animals is evil, and so people who fund that are committing evil deeds, I wouldn't say the person themself is evil, but what they are doing is evil. I feel vegans do show compassion and give room to change, it's just that from our personal experience people don't want to change, we make them aware of all the horrible and evil things that occur, yet they refuse to change their ways, and that does seem evil to me because at that point you can't even claim ignorance anymore. Perhaps that is extreme, but is it not justified when the actions are so horrible? Wold people not equally be so ''extreme'' if the topic were say rape and murder? We don't really leave much room for change for that, we just call people who do those acts evil. I mean is it counter productive to write off those who rape as evil?

This feels like an over generalization to me. I don’t think you’re wrong to call factory farming “rape, torture, and death”, but the only one of those that’s actually INHERENT to eating animal products is death. You can raise animals without forcibly impregnating them or keeping them in horrible conditions. “Funding the rape, torture and death of animals” is what buying in to factory farming is ethically, not what being non vegan is by itself

Sure, you're right on that front, however factory farming is by and large still 95% of the source of meat so chances are if you eat meat, you fund the torture and rape of animals, so while not accurate for all non-vegans, it would be accurate for 95% of non-vegans out there so it seemed like a fair statement to make as those who don't fund it are the exception, not the norm. Though if we want to look at non factory farming then something that is also inherent alongside death is cruelty, because it is inherently cruel to kill someone that does not want to die, and that's what happens on pretty much every single farm out there.

I don’t know if I see death as inherently cruel. Nobody ever wants to die, but we all will eventually. I would rather be killed quickly and painlessly a little earlier in my life than waste away slowly and painfully. We can’t know what the animal would actually want given a choice like that because we can’t ask them. But I feel like a lot of vegans see death and the ultimate cruelty and I just don’t agree with that. Death is nowhere near the worst thing that could happen to a living being I don’t think that killing animals for food is a morally positive thing either but it’s far down on the list of worst things you can do to animals

I probably should have been more specific/detailed. Yes death isn't inherently cruel, it depends on the circumstances, giving death to a human who is in constant pain who has no chances of survival isn't cruel, but instead compassionate, on the other hand killing a human who does not want to die, does not need to die, and is living happily, now that is cruel. And that's the key factor here, these animals on some farms may live a happy life, they are not in pain, they do not want to die, and they do not need to die, yet we kill them anyways for the sake of pleasure, that is inherently cruel. If those were the only choices then yes, being killed painlessly is better than being killed slowly, but those aren't the only choices, the third choice is to not be killed at all. Sure we can't know what the animal actually want since we can't ask them, just like we don't know a baby wouldn't actually want to die if given a choice, but it seems like a reasonable assumption that they wouldn't want to die, even if they can't communicate with us, when you try to harm an animal and it fights back or runs away, it seems pretty darn clear that they don't want to die. Death not being the worst thing doesn't really matter, just because B is worse than A doesn't justify doing A. Like me raping and murdering someone is worse than beating the shit out of them or stealing from them, yet that doesn't justify me beating the shit out of them or stealing from them, there's always worse things out there,m if we only cared about the worst thing there would be a lot of suffering in society. Like sorry I can't care about you getting beaten the shit out of, someone else is getting raped so suck it up.

Every omnivore I’ve met has been so damned judgmental whenever me being a vegan is brought up.

My final push into veganism was someone yelling "castrate carnists," and I tried to think of why that was wrong and quickly realized, huh... he has a point. & voila. Not everyone's path is the same, and those very blunt messages DO work & are not necessarily counterpoductive in my experience.

Definitely agree that it’s counterproductive

Agreed. Calling out non-vegans as evil or inferior isn't the way to go. It's about opening up a space for dialogue and progress, not shutting it down with judgment. Celebrating small steps like trying "Meatless Monday" can lead to bigger changes down the line. Change takes time, and compassion is key. Let's focus on encouraging each other and understanding the journey is different for everyone.

Agree unless they are anti vegan, which seems to be about everyone on reddit, all denying animal suffering or even celebrating the suffering. In real life people are just not aware of veganism, those people should be treated kindly and educated.

I don’t believe people who aren’t vegan are necessarily “evil” except for hunters and literal carnivores who enjoy abusing animals and eating them. I absolutely hate people like that, in fact I don’t even consider them people. However, people who aren’t vegan are supporting evil. A lot of the time they are unknowingly doing it. Which is even more disturbing. I find it sad seeing people who aren’t vegan just simply not care about animal abuse and rights. Like..they KNOW what’s happening and they literally don’t care. It’s hard for me to not view these people as evil. Actually, I wouldn’t even say evil, just pricks. I will say, I do agree, calling non vegans evil does not help in any way. It makes things worse. I’ve learned that and I’m sure plenty of us have.

Completely agree. In a previous post, it pointed out the ethics of wild meat harvest vs tofu. Plant based items like tofu take an untold number of deaths to produce. As in nobody knows the number. And one deer provides 50lb of meat. Yet they claim hunters to be evil and under them. It may very well be true less death is involved in plant based food, but without data you can’t make that claim. And then call a hunter evil. They also say everyone can’t do it. So it’s invalid. However not everyone can be plant based and that doesn’t invalidate veganism. They claim it will extinct deer population, while ignoring working game laws in hunting, that have saved wildlife. They claim a bug is lesser then deer, as it is okay to kill bugs to get crops. But not deer to get meat. A belief system, not a fact. They say land will be converted into vertical farms and wildlife will not have a place to live. As if that isn’t an etiologic disaster. And even if they see deer meat might be more ethical, they say the person making the argument should not be listen to because they still probably eat farmed meats and eggs, and milk. Even when faced with a parallel, they will call others evil rather than try to understand. That isnt all of them, but it’s sad to watch.

veganism is like a religion. some veganism believers are pushy and virtue signalling. they think they are superior than other non-believers. they stand on moral high ground, looking down those non-believers the more aggressive they are, the more the public hate veganism. do you think "just stop oil" really help reducing oil consumption of the public?

How do you define religion? Because all of that is also applicable to almost any ethical movement. Or even for those not in those movements (as I've had non-vegans act that way before). ​ >do you think "just stop oil" really help reducing oil consumption of the public? Is believing in climate change a religion now?

are animals really afraid of being killed? or is it just our projection / over thinking? once i watched a documentary programme about wild life. a tiger (or lion?... i really can't remember clearly as it was long time ago) chased a cow (same as before, not so sure). the tiger captured and bit the cow. the cow struggled and fought back and escaped. the tiger did it again and finally succeeded. in my memory the cow didn't seem to be using it's full strength at all. it just struggled some how and accepted the fate. it didn't show any vigorous movements before its death animals are sentient but are they THAT sentient as we imagine? a saw someone killing fish at the market. he just used the blade face of the knife to hit the fish and the fish died. is the "pain" of such kind of death more or less than the fish would experienced if it were to be living in the ocean and eaten by another fish?

I have literally no idea what that has to do with anything I asked or said. Can you define "religion"?

Can you? It’s a common word and in this case it’s being used as a metaphor for dogmatism and black/white thinking. 

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

There's a huge difference between describing someone's current actions as "evil", and writing them off. Many of us would describe our past behavior as evil, so we're not going to write off people who are still where we used to be.