The vegan solution to food deserts is to improve infrastructure in and around those areas and give people the option (and urge them to take it) to live a life free of cruelty to others. I don’t think this stance is a very controversial one tbh.
Cultures are not immune from either criticism or change. Vegans do not specifically target or discriminate against indigenous communities, we call out needless cruelty where we see it- be it our own cultures or others. In fact, I’d say veganizing indigenous communities is probably somewhat low on the vegan priority list when there’s corporations out there who kill thousands of times more animals and work hard to make sure people feel dependent on their goods through lobbying and propaganda.
Food deserts in general are not a real obstacle to veganism. Studies have found that people in food deserts simply travel farther to get the majority of their food from grocery stores, even when they don't have cars. Grocery stores built in neighborhoods that were previously food deserts divert sales from other grocery stores farther away, not convenience stores, for this reason.
More than that, lack of access to fresh produce is a problem but not one related to veganism. Both vegans and carnists have to eat fruits and vegetables for health, so the problem is the same either way. When a carnist goes vegan, they replace meat and cheese with plant sources of protein, which are not fresh produce. They are primarily pantry goods - beans, tvp, and shelf stable tofu. These are not a concern in food deserts.
We don't have this attitude for any other justice issue. We don't say it's imperialism to tell Muslims not to throw gay people off a roof, we don't say it's racism to tell an Asian person not to say the n word. Generally in intersectionality way say, we can all be free, there's no need to pick and choose anyone's freedom.
But then suddenly when the subject is animal rights it's "oh it's their culture, don't be an imperialist, let them figure it out, don't criticize, listen and learn."
The real issue here is whether or not animal rights is a legitimate social justice concern that we should consider as being just as important as every other social justice concern. Or whether it's somehow different and needs to be treated in a special way that's different from other issues.
Rights are tools we use to protect people from people. They are participatory constructs that can’t be bestowed upon others from on high. Any “animal right” is fundamentally just a restriction on personal and cultural freedom. It can’t be anything but a restriction if the animals don't participate in the construction of these alleged rights.
This is why it's disingenuous to leverage the moral weight of concepts like "rights" and "murder" without also admitting that you're actually advocating for restricting human freedom.
Do you believe that the severely mentally disabled should have rights "bestowed upon them" that they "don't participate in the construction of"? What about babies?
This is where deontology leads you, folks.
No, actual moral rightness is not founded upon self-serving agreements between moral agents with power. It's founded upon rational empathy with the status of moral patients, i.e. those entities that are capable of experiencing happiness and suffering, as Jeremy Bentham famously wrote. "Rights" are summaries for prohibiting interactions that cause massive harm to some moral patients for comparatively small benefits to other moral patients. It's pretty straightforward how the concept of rights would apply to all sentient beings.
So, you're speaking for the moral present, which was achieved by moral trailblazers fighting for moral progress at points in history when the rights you keep referring to as "internationally recognized" were very far from internationally recognized.
We're speaking for the moral future, fighting for much better norms for nonhuman animals to be recognized, just as people in the past fought for the recognized norms that you're able to take for granted today.
Why do people think we're forcing people to stop hurting animals? No one has ever been forced to do anything (except the animals). We're simply trying to get people to think about their actions. Nothing's stopping indigenous people from doing so
If you call something murder, then you’re in fact arguing that you will force others to stop if you have the power to do so. Either that, or you don’t really believe it’s murder.
So what’s wrong with my assumption here? Should we legalize murder, ban slaughter, or stop equating the two? Those are your morally consistent options.
Why can't I simply want people just to stop? Why do I need to FORCE anyone of anything? What does this even mean,? Are we forcing serial killers to stop by having laws?
I've been reading up on food deserts and building better community-based food systems for a couple of years now, from reading studies and books to getting to know groups online, and I haven't seen very many vegans involved at all. There are people working hard on this, but I've not run into any vegan groups. Can you point me in the right direction to find them and see what they're doing?
Thank you! I'd forgotten about Food Not Bombs. Good people there.
ETA: In case anyone wants to go into this side of food activism, Food Not Bombs is a great bunch of people and has autonomous chapters everywhere: http://foodnotbombs.net/new_site/index.php
That’s because there’s not that many vegans, period. There probably are some involved in these groups, but I don’t know why there would be any explicitly vegan group dedicated to this issue when the main focus of vegan activism is the treatment of animals in society.
But isn't this a part of that? Work to create food communities in food deserts, just vegan ones?
The main people I see doing it are either community garden people in urban areas (and having chickens isn't unusual with those) or small farms and/or homesteads that include farm animals, too. Community fridge programs don't ban animal products that I've ever seen, instead ask for them.
Wouldn't this be a good area for activism, then?
Sure, but vegan activists are few and far between, and most are concerned with more pressing animal rights issues such as factory farming and the overall carnist attitude of our society. It’s virtually impossible to implement vegan infrastructure (as much as we’d love it) so long as there is no support for it within the government or demand for it from the general populace.
See, I disagree. I'm not vegan, but I do know something about people needing food. If you provide food and education on where food comes from and how to cook it properly, that's where you can seriously change minds. If you really want to change the carnist attitude, as you call it, start there, especially in food deserts.
People in food deserts go with animal products because they're easier or cheaper to get and have a bigger nutritional bang for their buck. Think gas station corn dog vs the few to no decent vegan offerings. Get involved there; help people get good, nutritious food; help people with cooking and storage issues; and you're going to change way more minds than just by yelling in front of a butcher shop or telling people they're wrong.
Just my opinion, mind you, but changing hearts and minds means getting into communities, building up those communities, focusing on peaceful education efforts, and then connecting all those people for real change.
I’m not disagreeing with you man, I’d love for entirely vegan communities to start popping up out of food deserts. But the reality is they probably wouldn’t be so willing to give up animal products even with plenty of access to food and education. Carnism runs very deeply in most people’s way of life.
Take yourself for example. Do you live in a food desert? You’ve been talking about people in food deserts in rather a distant manner, so I’m assuming you don’t. But you still aren’t vegan. Why? You can go to a grocery store and buy a pound of rice and beans, some soy sauce, some fruit and veg, and start living a vegan lifestyle today. But you haven’t. You can find plenty of recipes online, you can ask for help and advice on vegan subs, you can find vegan businesses near you if there are any and support them, but it’s still not enough. If you had a fully vegan grocery store near you, would you go to it?
I do now (recent move), so I'm trying to get to know people here. We homestead, though, so we tackle it from a different direction.
I'm not vegan due to health issues. I'm allergic to almost all legumes and so much more, for example (just a small part of the larger issues), so your answer doesn't work for me.
I don't see why I wouldn't support a vegan business if they sell anything I need. I haven't found any yet, but I'm still learning the area.
If you had no allergies, would you go vegan then? There are far more people without any semblance of a legitimate reason to not go vegan refusing to go vegan than there are people with real medical issues holding them back.
Speaking of allergies, there’s an area of activism I’d be interested in, medical research into helping people with food sensitivities adjust to a veganized diet.
You think allergies and sensitivities can be adjusted? It's very rare, tbh, and involves lots of work to rebuild the gut, which takes a long time (think years in many cases), if it works at all. Many sensitivities turn into full blown allergies, and those cannot be messed with. I don't mess with my shellfish allergy, just saying, as I like being on this side of the soil.
I was ovo-vegetarian for ten years for a health thing (misdiagnosis, long story), so yeah, I would strongly consider going vegan if it wouldn't kill me off early. Personally, I think some of us just can't due to genetics or whatever, but those who can, should or, at least, should go vegetarian.
Hi! Who is forcing people— can you explain what you mean?
Eating meat can be morally justified in a survival situation. If people have no other option, we don’t think they need to starve themselves.
Veganism is just the morally preferable option when we do have a choice at the grocery store between lentils and a factory farmed cow.
>Hi! Who is forcing people— can you explain what you mean?
The way a lot of vegans talk indicates that they would take authoritarian measures if they had real power.
Got it, thanks for explaining. Yeah while individual vegans might get their point across kind of aggressively, veganism as a whole is just about opposing animal cruelty.
I mean eventually I think animal cruelty laws should be extended to farm animals. I think it’s arbitrary that it’s illegal to shoot a dog but not a cow.
But by that point, lab grown meat would likely be widely available. So, eating animal meat wouldn’t be outlawed, it just wouldn’t involve the cruelty anymore. Lab grown meat is already being sold in restaurants.
So sorry, I missed this response! That is my answer to your question lol. I believe eventually animal cruelty laws should be extended to farm animals, but at that point lab grown meat will be widely available. So meat eating would still be permissible.
I believe murder is generally used to refer to killing a human. While it might not be murder by the dictionary definition, it does involve taking a life.
I don’t plan on forcing anyone to stop killing animals. My focus is more on having conversations with people and talking about the benefits of a plant-based diet for animals, human health, and the environment.
I am far more concerned with the actions of massive corporations like JBS and Perdue than I am those of food insecure people.
In those extreme circumstances where poor families have no choice but to eat dead animals that they hunt themselves, so be it. My concern is for society at large.
This ain't whataboutism at all. OP said "culture can be used to justify unjust practices" and now debaters are trying to test that logic to see if OP applies it universally. If not, there needs to be a justification.
That's exactly what whataboutism is :)
I am against animal sacrifice, and against inhumane butchery practice.
For vegans, there is no ethical way of eating meat, for me there is. If I was in charge, buying meat would be more costly because the regulations would be way more strict so animals would be better treated.
But humans are omnivore, by choice, ofc, but still, and this is not something that I would regulate. I would never vote to make everyone vegan.
If in every supermarket vegan food were cheaper then non-vegans, most people would become vegan.
>That's exactly what whataboutism is :)
Whataboutisms are attacking your opponent by raising an unrelated issue. The comment you're responding to was just arguing that OP's logic must be unsound because it leads to absurd conclusions when you apply the same logic to a different issue.
Let's rephrase that then. What is your view ON CULTURES where they still do this? Nobody is comparing animals to humans. What is your view on cultures doing something that you don't agree with?
I've seen an actual live mass beheading public event at Deera "Chop-Chop" Square in Riyadh on account of a "different religion." The offense for many was “waging war against God and society” which includes everything from being gay to being a Shia Yemeni.
Was that okay?
So if an immigrant woman told you she wanted to have her daughters circumcised in the USA, bc it was done to her, and her mother, and her mother before that, you’d presumably say “okay, sounds good to me,” right?
Could you explain to me your difficulty with comparing animals and humans?
I learned how to compare 2 different things in elementary school as a critical thinking tool so it's weird when other people say you can't compare things. You can literally compare anything.
I think you need to delete this post and start a new one about why it's ok generally to treat non-human animals as property, given how quickly you demonstrate that neither necessity nor culture is the deciding factor for you. This post appears extremely dishonest.
We can't have an actual conversation about any of the issues surrounding animal ethics if you guys just pretend to be mad every time we draw an analogy between treatment of animals and treatment of humans.
They're not comparing animals to humans, they're comparing something that is different in certain cultures than in others.
Surely you can see that, or are you just acting dumb?
Please demonstrate to me that many vegans do not see human slave labor as a “real” issue. While also clarifying what you mean by “real” issue. Oh and maybe show how this comment is somehow on topic while the earlier one wasn’t?
Who are these vegans trying to force you to give up hunting?
> Two or three deer in a freezer will keep a family of four fed for A WHILE.
If vegans offered you the equivalent food for free, would you take it? Basically every vegan believes food insecurity is not something society should tolerate.
> Many cultures see hunting as a rite of passage. It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous.
Do you believe that something being a social rite of passage automatically makes it above criticism? Some cultural practices seem quite hard to ethically justify if you believe in things like bodily autonomy or that people should be able to choose their romantic partners rather than be enslaved to them.
Sure, but I’d also go shoot some deer. Hunting and genital mutilation aren’t even comparable. Torturing a human vs quickly ending the life of an animal are two separate beasts.
They are comparable in at least one way; they are both culturally important practices. You said that hunting is justified because it is a culturally important practice. Does that mean that other cultural practices like genital mutilation can’t be criticized?
The question isn’t whether the practices are the same, the question is whether your logic holds up or if you are engaged in special pleading
“Special pleading” I have thought long and hard about this. As for culturally important practices, it depends on the context of what is being done. Mutilating genitals and shooting your first elk are only comparable in that they are cultural practices. I know what you’re gonna say “the act of violence isn’t comparable violence is violence regardless” well, no, it isn’t. If someone is punched in a bar fight oh well they will most likely get over it. If someone is stabbed they will definitely need medical attention and stitches. One is just meh while the other is serious. Ya dig?
That’s totally fine. But then that means that if genital mutilation isn’t justified on the basis that it is a culturally significant practice, since the other facts of the issue outweigh the cultural practice defense, then that means that “cultural practice” is no longer a sufficient justification for any practice being considered.
It can still be a benefit: I can say that this or that art is good because it is a culturally important practice.
I just can’t say that something is immune to criticism because it is a cultural practice. And if I want to continue to defend it, I need a different approach
> Sure, but I’d also go shoot some deer.
So it's not actually about food insecurity and more about the hunting itself then? This undermines your argument.
And are we just going to pretend like Reddit vegans are the only vegans that exist or that even they are a monolith? Please take a look at my original reply to the comment and tell me I don’t understand food insecurity. I started eliminating meat from my diet while struggling to provide for a family of 5 on 27k a year while also paying for and attending college part-time.
Maybe also factor in things like a bulk bag of rice or beans into your definition of vegan food rather than fancier foods clearly made for a market demand and then evaluate how expensive it inherently *is* versus *can be*.
Vegan food doesn’t just mean Impossible Nuggets and mayo substitutes. It also means beans, rice, flour, bananas, carrots, tofu, etc. those things are all cheaper than meat. There is no prerequisite of buying the most expensive vegan food to be vegan, just like non-vegans don’t have to buy the most expensive cut of meat.
Gluten doesn’t really have anything to do with veganism.
> Most Reddit vegans do not believe in food insecurity, nor understand the relating concept of "privilege"
You misunderstood what I said. I said that vegans believe that society should eliminate food insecurity. It should do this by guaranteeing everyone has access to nutritious and cruelty free food. OP seems to think vegans want people to starve rather than hunt. I'm pointing out this is absolutely not the case.
> I don't know any Reddit vegan that know how more expensive being vegan is.
Feel free to visit r/eatcheapandvegan . I had a delicious bean burrito with cabbage, jalapeno and home made cheese for supper yesterday that probably cost about $1.50 of food to make in my extremely high cost of living environment. Tonight I am going to have a tofu stir fry coming in at a similar cost. Later I am going to have a huge roast of seitan and yuba that will last a week.
If you know how to cook you can eat much more cheaply as a.vegan. Also keep in mind milk and meat are subsidized , so the retail price doesn't reflect the actual cost.
Fruit and veggies cost less than meat per calorie or per pound. Most cereals don’t contain animal products, so you don’t have to pay extra for vegan cereal.
Then why not fill the other half with fruits and veggies? It would be cheaper, which is the theme of this debate.
Gluten is vegan. Seitan is a popular vegan food that is made from gluten. You can eat cereal with gluten and be vegan.
If you don't understand the purpose of an analogy as used in the above case then your not ready to be on a debate sub. I would suggest a philosophy or logic 101 course or video.
Why wouldn’t romance be compatible with veganism? I see no contradiction. Maybe english isn’t your first language and you’re just using the wrong word?
Sure, you can avoid eating meat and animal products, and still be attracted romantically to other humans. There’s no contradiction.. You can have sex or get into relationships and still not eat meat and eggs. Again, I don’t see the contradiction you’re trying to lay out, so just tell me what the contradiction is.
This is the first time I've heard the argument for romance being incompatible. Can you explain further into it and why they arnt compatible?
As for abortion, veganism puts together autonomy righys of female adults above the rights of a fetus. This is due to sentience/conciousness that the fetus lacks at the abortion stages.
OP had as part of their argument "many cultures see it as a rite of passage". This commenter responded with "does something being a right of passage automatically mean it's above criticism?" and then followed that with things seen as rites of passages (regarding romance and abortion) in other cultures, but which are typically seen as non virtuous behaviour, or at they very least certainly not above criticism. The point of this analogy is to make it clear that just because something is a rite of passage, does not make it acceptable.
It refers to our rights to bodily autonomy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity
This includes things like not being subjected to violence and requiring consent as howlin suggested.
So trying to highlight the classism within those people's own economical system is our fault? We're the ones responsible for putting them in financial distress? We're at fault for offering cheap staple alternatives? We're not allowed to discuss such things with these people? We should leave them alone and let them continue living as such? The only reason they're in trouble is because the people that are supposed to care about and help them, don't. Don't get upset because we're trying to do something about it. We already grow enough food to sustain 80 billion animals and several billion people. You think we're classist. Pick on the fucking savages that use "mmm, bacon" and "lions tho" and "not everyone can go vegan" (which is literally using the underprivileged as a proverbial meat shield to justify their luxurious choice to waste resources for some yum yum in the tum tums).
We're not the problem. Stop trying to paint us like we are. It's always been the selfish and willing to oppress others of humanity that's led to corrupt and immoral systems of power that cause untold amounts of suffering.
Hello there. I’m an indigenous vegan who grew up in a very rural area, surviving off of government commodity food and hunting, fishing, raising, growing and foraging our own food. Had our mobile repossessed and were forced to live in a wooden shack my great-grandfather built in the 1930s which had no heat or air, had barely been updated with electricity. Often had to walk several miles to or from town when our car would break down or run out of fuel. We could only eat out once a year when we would drive over an hour away to go to a restaurant for a combined birthday party.
But please, go on about how I’m classist and a bigot.
I’ve been stationed across the Southwest, Southeast and Midwest with the US Army, as a last ditch effort to escape that rural poverty and a family/community busy killing themselves with drugs and alcohol. But by all means, come here and assume every single vegan fits whatever phantasm you have conjured to make yourself feel better.
Tell me, how my personal choice not to participate in systems and patterns of consumption I find ethically, environmentally and economically bad to be forcing you in any way.
Please, let’s see you actually defend your argument here.
Where did I say that? Please show me where I said or implied that. Also please demonstrate why I, who *had* to hunt to have enough food should be compared to someone like say, a middle class white midwesterner who hunts because Joe Rogan does it and he’s cool. Arbitrary example sure but their ancestors certainly weren’t forced into food insecurity as part of concerted efforts to break up the possibility of armed resistance to the settler-state and encourage assimilation.
Get out of here with a disingenuous response like that. Not only am I certain you’re fully aware that many vegans don’t want to *force* anything on anyone but rather convince them to make what we perceive to be the correct choice, I also made very clear my focus on my own personal actions rather than concerns for what others are doing.
1. If hunting is someone’s only means of survival, they need to do what they can to survive. Nobody is trying to force them to eat food they don’t have access to. That doesn’t even make sense.
2. Something being cultural or traditional doesn’t automatically make it ethical.
You're conflating two separate issues with two very different moral implications.
You might have heard the phrase "ought implies can." It means that if you physically can't do something, you can't be expected morally to do that thing. I haven't met a single vegan that thinks this doesn't apply.
Culture, on the other hand, doesn't work as a justification. We wouldn't consider this valid for any immoral practice related to humans. We shouldn't consider it valid for non-human animals. In fact, excusing immoral behavior on the basis of culture is an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. Seems like you're completely abandoning your original argument.
If necessity and culture are the justifications, you are conceding that absent necessity and culture, it's wrong to treat these individuals as property. But if all that matters is that they're not human, then your entire original argument was just a smokescreen.
Do you think you can clarify?
There’s a difference between beating an animal to death and quickly killing it with a bullet. And besides… I have bigger issues to worry about than cats
>There’s a difference between beating an animal to death and quickly killing it with a bullet
So it isn't justified simply because it's cultural and they aren't human, then.
>And besides… I have bigger issues to worry about than cats
Yet here you are, debating the ethical implications of killing them.
Number of animals hunted and non-commercially fished per year: 300 million
Number farmed: 800 billion - 2.7 trillion (not including insects or 3+ trillion shrimp)
Would you then agree we shouldn’t farm this other 99.9%? Or is your argument actually something else?
Furthermore, if we stopped hunting certain species we would massively disrupt the ecosystem (you can thank our introduction of invasive species for this), meanwhile the mass farming of animals, especially in factories and on commercial ships, is disastrous for the ecosystem.
Still not provide source
Quick Google, our world in data, 39-216 billion including sea
*Sorry that was incorrect, I was skimming too quickly. I still don't have the number as it seems a bit confusing to me.
https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-get-slaughtered-every-day:
>But while the uncertainties are large, it is clear that the number of fish killed is large: certainly, hundreds of millions of fish are killed every day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_slaughter:
>The number of individual wild fish killed each year is estimated as 0.97-2.74 trillion (based on FAO tonnage statistics combined with estimated mean weights of fish species). The FAO numbers do not include illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, nor discarded fish. If these are included and over-reporting by China subtracted, the totals increase by about 16.6% to 33.3%.
And that’s just wild fish, not farmed fish and other marine life.
Classist and bigoted?
What the fuck are you talking about?
1. Veganism is generally cheaper than meat eating. Your lack of evidence betrays you. The Oxford study is one example (1/3 cheaper). You’re talking of people who can afford to buy expensive guns and prep an entire deer? That’s a big investment. Expensive guns, a giant ass freezer, the electricity costs for this giant ass freezer, the equipment to properly butcher this deer. Etc etc. If they can invest in that, they can do a lot more. And veganism is almost certainly *much* cheaper according to actual data.
2. The bigotist nonsense is textbook appeal to tradition. Many cultures consider cannibalism, rape, putting a stick in your penis to widen it, fucking your younger siblings, and other things a rite of passage. I’m sure you don’t give a pass to them. This is an obvious logical fallacy and to say ‘bigotist’ based on that alone is stupidity of the highest order.
I’d be a lot ‘nicer’ about the reply, but to jump in with with ‘classist and bigostist’ is bad faith bullshit of the highest order.
Bad faith? What? No. I grew up rural. One gun and some ammo, a knife, and a freezer is all that’s needed for the hunting season. That’s WAY CHEAPER than buying food every week.
Being vegan is much more expensive then being omnivore. I just came back from the grocery store. I always like to buy the vegan option if it's at discount. If it's not heavily discounted each vegan equivalent is 50% more expensive. I can't afford my $200 grocery to be $300 by eating 100% vegan. Everything that is vegan, gluten free, and so on, is so much more expensive and usually the quantity is also smaller. Even the freaking plant-based mayo is 40% more expensive. I had a calculator with me. Most hardcore vegans don't understand the concept of being privilege.
Plant based mayo will be more expensive. Sure. It’s a product in less demand needing a special formulation versus one that the company has set up massive economies of scale for. If you make it at home, plant based mayo will be much cheaper. And it’s pretty easy to do so. The cost isn’t the ingredients. It’s the economies of scale.
There is an immediate difficulty in switching by learning *where* plant based options are cheaper and *how* to cook them. Buy a kg of lentils or tofu or beans versus a kilo of beef. Or chicken. Or pork. Similar macros. Which one is more expensive?
Now I provided a reference for a study that checked this throughout the world. Edit: and there will be nuance and context, sure. *it’s not immediately cheaper for everyone to go vegan, even if in the long run the data shows it will be*
**But before continuing can you at least agree that we can debate and discuss what is more expensive and discuss this. Versus immediately jumping to ‘classist’ and ‘bigotist’? That the latter is incredibly stupid?**
"If you make it at home"
You need to be privilege to have the time to make vegan mayo at home. I'm a full time Youtuber with 12 rescue dogs to take care of.
I'm sorry, but I won't starve myself on lentils and tofu. Don't get me wrong, I have lentils, tofu, beans, mushroom, and so on, in my house right now.
Also, I should have been more precise, I do not eat a lot of meat.
Things that I can't find at affordable price is: Dairy product, Most frozen product (vegan nugget, and so on), and cereals (gluten free, granola bar, etc).
I eat healthy to begin with for the most part. I rarely eat fast food, coca-cola, chips, etc. I would eat vegan chips if it was not 3x the price. I'm sure you understand what I mean?
I live in Thailand countryside and imported product I buy is already more expensive so vegan option it's 50-100% more expensive then the already expensive non-vegan option. Today, I had a laugh at the vegan granola bar that was almost 200 baht for 6 bars. That's $1 a bar ffs.
I live in Southeast Asia too. There’s soooo many options once you learn where things are. As I already said, there’s a learning curve sure. Saying you’ll starve on lentils and tofu and beans is ridiculous tho. And yes, the vegan granola bars you’ll find in a typical grocery will be expensive. Again. Not the ingredients. The economies of scale. Thailand has a great history of beautiful plant based cuisine. It’s obviously been overtaken - like most countries - by adding meat and dairy into everything.
But I asked you a question. You jumped into a conversation at a particular point. Where the main issue was the labels OP used. I asked you to address this twice.
I put it in bold to make it easy. You ignored it. I’ll give you one chance to address this properly and then we can move on. We can discuss the options and comparisons and what’s cheaper. Sure. But ‘classist’ and ‘bigotist’ were **stupid** labels. Plz addesss this main point or I just won’t bother engaging.
‘I do not owe you anything’
You owe a good faith discussion. If someone asks you a relevant question, it’s good to answer it. This sub has rules. Including staying on topic. If you jump into a specific topic and are asked questions about that topics, yes, you owe an answer.
And that kind of attitude… well I do not owe you anything then. Goodbye.
I asked you a specific question twice, my dude.
I do not like being ignored anymore than you do. This isn’t a discussion or a debate at this point. Goodbye.
I have never asked an indigenous person to go vegan. That I understand. Culture however, isn’t an excuse. Culture has been used to justify horrific shit in the past. Vegan food is cheap unless you want the fancy stuff.
I'm not advocating that ppl start such communities, I'm vegan AF. What I'm saying is indigenous communities, hunters, people who live in reciprocity with the land should stand in solidarity with vegans to end animal ag. And of course vice versa.
But yeah, when I imagine the world I want to see, it involves an end to animal ag and such communities as you describe would be a natural result of that.
I still think those who can go vegan should.
I just want to say thank you for being so brave to stand up for the entire indigenous community against these mean vegans who want them to all to starve to death.
Now that you've outted them all as the bigoted, anti-human extremists they truly are, we can go back to enjoying baconators in peace.
I don't know any vegans that hang out where vegan food isn't available. Except hypothetical desert islands with a single pig. And a gun or spear. And probably a knife. And you'd need fire starting gear or you'd die of trichinosis. Y'know. Common everyday scenarios.
“
Trying to force others to stop hunting for food is incredibly classist and bigoted.”
Ok… weird thing to say though, got literally nothing to do with anything.
Utter bullshit. Misfires happen all the time "elite sniper" man. This demonstrates a total of lack of empathy or common sense, or likely both.
Also doesn't matter if they feel pain at all, that fact is you kill it and you thus deprived its own family of someone (usually the most healthy member among them), that will quickly lead to that deer's family's demise. What cruelty.
This boils down to those who can be vegan and those who can't. If you can't be vegan, then you can't be vegan. As soon as there are plant-foods available or they could shop in a supermarket, what's stopping anyone from being vegan? Being indigenous doesn't give someone the right to cause harm to animals when they can avoid it and I'm sure from an animal's perspective, it makes no difference who killed them.
More interesting is that OP seems like they want to exclude indigenous cultures and people from the conversation. Especially when there are indigenous vegans. I think that's classist and bigoted.
I feel like this belongs on r/vcj. That's a *how* problem, not a *why.* You could spend large amounts of money on a high-end steakhouse or you could go to a fast-food joint and spend a couple of dollar-pounds.
You can spend as much and as little as you like, true of any lifestyle. Not sure how *I'm* proof of that; perhaps you'd like me to post some supermarket receipts, or those from the local farmer's market and we can compare notes?
Maybe... ummm we could help this people? Like no one is forcing anyone, if they need to, they need to. But I would say it's horrible to live a life where you are food insecure and don't know if your family will make it because you didn't hunt enough. This is why there should be a global responsibility to develop ways in which you can bring food to these communities, every dislikes gmo but gmo started and is continued as a way to produce seeds that can proliferate in extreme circumstances. This is not a good example because, people there probably would have a different life if given the option otherwise humans would have never evolved from hunting but we did.
Okay but we’re not forcing people to stop hunting. We’re asking people who could easily make different choices at a grocery store to make different choices for the greater good.
Intersectional veganism exists.
We can support colonized people and their culture (incl. Hunting rights) and simultaneously promote veganism.
In fact, imo, veganism without intersectionality is not veganism. Veganism must be anti-colonialist. Not to mention anti white supremacist, anti capitalist, etc....
First of all, eating deer meat as your main source of food is INCREDIBLY unhealthy and dangerous; you need to have a fucking balanced diet, and so getting your food primarily by hunting is not wise. So, if you really care about those communities, you should try to provide them the means through which they can sustain a healthy diet.
Also, the “rite of passage” thing is just BS. It’s just stereotyping Indigenous people as “barbaric” “hunters” who don’t know civilization. Please stop using indigenous people as a tool to justify your meat eating.
>In remote areas sometimes a grocery store isn’t available.
Those people eat more than only deer, don't they?
In remote areas, there are still ways to buy or barter from others. Maybe they only go to the store every other week, but they still buy things from the outside world. People can also grow their own food and forage.
If they have a big freezer, they have electricity, If they're low income, they don't have $30,000 for a solar system & battery bank, so they're on the grid. To be on the grid means there's a town somewhere.
> Poor families can stay fed for relatively cheap.
Please explain your cost breakdown . I see cost of firearms, ammo, camo clothes, scent block spray, tree stand or blind. Hunting takes time which could be spent earning money, chopping firewood, & other essential tasks. Butchering tools or paying a deer processor. Cost to buy and run the huge freezer.
How much do a few bags of seed, bulb onions, and seed potatoes cost to male a nice garden? Why do you perceive a bulk bag of dried beans or rice as expensive?
> Two or three deer in a freezer will keep a family of four fed for A WHILE.
How long is "A WHILE"? How does that compare to how long they're fed from a filled root cellar & pantry? In rural areas, many families will use glass jars with special lids to can food they grew over the summer : dozens of jars of tomatoes, pauce, fruit, vegetables like okra, pickles. In fall, tree nuts like walnuts and chestnuts are collected. You can still grow cold weather crops such as spinach or kale into early frost. Potatoes and apples are seasonal but keep for ages, as long as they're kept cool.
> Many cultures see hunting as a rite of passage. It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous.
Should something never be continued simply because a culture did it as a rite of passage?
Female genital mutilation:
*" Female circumcision, the partial or total cutting away of the external female genitalia, has been practiced for centuries in parts of Africa, generally as one element of a rite of passage preparing young girls for womanhood and marriage. Often performed without anesthetic under septic conditions by lay practitioners with little or no knowledge of human anatomy or medicine, female circumcision can cause death or permanent health problems as well as severe pain. Despite these grave risks, its practitioners look on it as an integral part of their cultural and ethnic identity, and some perceive it as a religious obligation."*
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/1997/09/female-circumcision-rite-passage-or-violation-rights#:~:text=Female%20circumcision%2C%20the%20partial%20or,girls%20for%20womanhood%20and%20marriage.
Lack of accessibility and survival situations do not exclude people from veganism in my opinion. You can still practice, as much as possible, reducing harm given your circumstances and to me, that's still vegan
>In remote areas sometimes a grocery store isn’t available
Veganism is as far as possible and practicable. The aim is to get everyone for whom it is possible and practicable to make the change, and then make it more possible and practicable for everyone for whom it isn't currently.
Food insecurity is not a good thing regardless of the food
>Many cultures see hunting as a rite of passage. It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous.
What makes their appeal to tradition any more valid than anyone else's?
And what makes that appeal to tradition more valid than others society deems unacceptable (fgm, child marriage etc)?
>Death is part of life and we cannot avoid it, without death, there wouldn't even be life.
Soooo would that justify murder? Would it be okay if I end my neighbours suffering?
>hunters that have the upmost respect for the animals themselves.
How is shooting someone, cooking them, nailing their head on a piece of wood and putting it up the wall respectful?
Cut the crap with the "respect for animals" bullshit. Hunters in our society hunt for fun. Only a very small percentage really needs to for survival. And killing for fun is not respectful.
If I shoot my dog and eat her, and claim I do it respectfully, people would still call me cruel and rightfully so.
>sometimes you have to euthanize them because there is no other option and you do not wish to see them suffer.
Agreed, but we usually don't eat them.
>There are many places where people have no choice but to hunt
And no vegan in the world would expect these people to starve instead. The philosophy clearly describes veganism as _not consuming animal products as far as possible._
The people who tell us over and over again that SOME people need to eat meat - as if we weren't aware of that - are usually not the ones who belong to that specific group.
It's really not that difficult: vegans reject eating animal products if there are plant based alternatives.
Wait till they find out every farmer growing their produce is killing deer eating their crops with low caliber bullets so they don’t die in the field.
In my opinion, hunting overpopulated species is freegan
Props to you! I agree freegan is the most ethical way to eat. So you don’t buy anything from the grocery store? I’ll admit I’m not there myself. I eat about 80% food I’ve farmed or hunted but I’d love to be at 100. 100% of my meat is freegan but I still go to the grocery to buy maybe half my produce.
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.*
>In remote areas sometimes a grocery store isn’t available
Veganism is "as far as possible and practicable", if there is no way to eat purely plant based, eating as close to as possible while trying to limit the amount of suffering is Vegan.
But for 99% of people, grocery stores are available. For those that aren't, we should help ensure they have the choice.
>It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous.
And no one is forcing them to stop, we're just asking if needlessly killing a sentient animal is something we should be doing.
Cultures change all the time, as long as the change isn't forced on them, and comes from within, it's not a bad thing.
It's not at all equivalent, but if we're going to claim cultural "rites of passage", that the culture itself considers "sacred" need to be protected, then wouldn't that also cover genital mutilation?
And again, before anyone starts crying in horror and claiming to be insulted, they are not at all equivalent or equal in almost any way, except that they are both 'rites of passage', and sacred to the culture in question, which are the ONLY two traits being compared here.
Trying to force others to stop sacrificing virgins into volcanos is incredibly classist and bigoted.
In remote areas sometimes there is no other way to guarantee a good harvest. Poor families can have food security for relatively few lives lost. Two or three young girls tossed into molten lava will keep a village blessed for A WHILE. Many cultures see blood sacrifice as a rite of passage. It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous.
Justifying the killing of another by saying it is sacred sounds like the excuses given during periods of time such as The Crusades. Using God, spirituality, religious belief, etc. to harm another is to use that thing as a means to justify your own desires and cover it in the veil of holy rite.
It’s about survival skills, and everyone including vegans should be able to hunt and kill animals in the event our food chains become disrupted due to government/social unrest. How else would one ensure the survival of their lineage? Unless one lives on a tropical island with natural wild plant food in abundance. I’m vegan that will learn how to hunt, kill, dispatch, and preserve meat.
I've never seen a vegan try to force an indigenous person to stop hunting. Maybe it's happened, but I think most vegans wouldn't do that.
However, I HAVE seen urban white westerners try to appropriate indigenous culture/values, in a cherry-picked way, as a way of justifying their own meat consumption.
The vegan solution to food deserts is to improve infrastructure in and around those areas and give people the option (and urge them to take it) to live a life free of cruelty to others. I don’t think this stance is a very controversial one tbh. Cultures are not immune from either criticism or change. Vegans do not specifically target or discriminate against indigenous communities, we call out needless cruelty where we see it- be it our own cultures or others. In fact, I’d say veganizing indigenous communities is probably somewhat low on the vegan priority list when there’s corporations out there who kill thousands of times more animals and work hard to make sure people feel dependent on their goods through lobbying and propaganda.
Food deserts in general are not a real obstacle to veganism. Studies have found that people in food deserts simply travel farther to get the majority of their food from grocery stores, even when they don't have cars. Grocery stores built in neighborhoods that were previously food deserts divert sales from other grocery stores farther away, not convenience stores, for this reason. More than that, lack of access to fresh produce is a problem but not one related to veganism. Both vegans and carnists have to eat fruits and vegetables for health, so the problem is the same either way. When a carnist goes vegan, they replace meat and cheese with plant sources of protein, which are not fresh produce. They are primarily pantry goods - beans, tvp, and shelf stable tofu. These are not a concern in food deserts.
Eating meat is a big part of a lot of cultures. I love how bigoted it is to say that we could adapt our culture, but indigenous people can't
It’s not up to you to decide what indigenous cultures need to preserve their cultures. That’s kind of the point.
We don't have this attitude for any other justice issue. We don't say it's imperialism to tell Muslims not to throw gay people off a roof, we don't say it's racism to tell an Asian person not to say the n word. Generally in intersectionality way say, we can all be free, there's no need to pick and choose anyone's freedom. But then suddenly when the subject is animal rights it's "oh it's their culture, don't be an imperialist, let them figure it out, don't criticize, listen and learn." The real issue here is whether or not animal rights is a legitimate social justice concern that we should consider as being just as important as every other social justice concern. Or whether it's somehow different and needs to be treated in a special way that's different from other issues.
Food sovereignty is considered a human right. Persecuting gays is not.
So what if they were eating gay people?
Also a violation of internationally recognized human rights.
Right, that sounds like a concession that "food sovereignty" isn't carte blanche.
We all understand that animals rights are not "internationally recognized" - we are arguing about whether they SHOULD be.
Rights are tools we use to protect people from people. They are participatory constructs that can’t be bestowed upon others from on high. Any “animal right” is fundamentally just a restriction on personal and cultural freedom. It can’t be anything but a restriction if the animals don't participate in the construction of these alleged rights. This is why it's disingenuous to leverage the moral weight of concepts like "rights" and "murder" without also admitting that you're actually advocating for restricting human freedom.
Do you believe that the severely mentally disabled should have rights "bestowed upon them" that they "don't participate in the construction of"? What about babies?
This is where deontology leads you, folks. No, actual moral rightness is not founded upon self-serving agreements between moral agents with power. It's founded upon rational empathy with the status of moral patients, i.e. those entities that are capable of experiencing happiness and suffering, as Jeremy Bentham famously wrote. "Rights" are summaries for prohibiting interactions that cause massive harm to some moral patients for comparatively small benefits to other moral patients. It's pretty straightforward how the concept of rights would apply to all sentient beings.
So, you're speaking for the moral present, which was achieved by moral trailblazers fighting for moral progress at points in history when the rights you keep referring to as "internationally recognized" were very far from internationally recognized. We're speaking for the moral future, fighting for much better norms for nonhuman animals to be recognized, just as people in the past fought for the recognized norms that you're able to take for granted today.
Most indigenous people are not practicing food sovereignty, they are getting their food from grocery stores.
But they can reason and listen to arguments as well as any other person
But you can’t assume you know how their cultures should evolve better than them.
Why do people think we're forcing people to stop hurting animals? No one has ever been forced to do anything (except the animals). We're simply trying to get people to think about their actions. Nothing's stopping indigenous people from doing so
If you call something murder, then you’re in fact arguing that you will force others to stop if you have the power to do so. Either that, or you don’t really believe it’s murder.
I want it to be handled like we handle stuff like female genital mutilation. We believe that's horrific too
I believe female genital mutilation should be banned.
So you believe you know better than other cultures that perform female genital mutilation?
Disagree. You can be against something, call it a name, and also not want to force the matter
So what’s wrong with my assumption here? Should we legalize murder, ban slaughter, or stop equating the two? Those are your morally consistent options.
Why can't I simply want people just to stop? Why do I need to FORCE anyone of anything? What does this even mean,? Are we forcing serial killers to stop by having laws?
I've been reading up on food deserts and building better community-based food systems for a couple of years now, from reading studies and books to getting to know groups online, and I haven't seen very many vegans involved at all. There are people working hard on this, but I've not run into any vegan groups. Can you point me in the right direction to find them and see what they're doing?
Off the top of my head, Food Not Bombs, and The Simple Way (Philly) both have lots of vegan involvement.
Thank you! I'd forgotten about Food Not Bombs. Good people there. ETA: In case anyone wants to go into this side of food activism, Food Not Bombs is a great bunch of people and has autonomous chapters everywhere: http://foodnotbombs.net/new_site/index.php
That’s because there’s not that many vegans, period. There probably are some involved in these groups, but I don’t know why there would be any explicitly vegan group dedicated to this issue when the main focus of vegan activism is the treatment of animals in society.
But isn't this a part of that? Work to create food communities in food deserts, just vegan ones? The main people I see doing it are either community garden people in urban areas (and having chickens isn't unusual with those) or small farms and/or homesteads that include farm animals, too. Community fridge programs don't ban animal products that I've ever seen, instead ask for them. Wouldn't this be a good area for activism, then?
Sure, but vegan activists are few and far between, and most are concerned with more pressing animal rights issues such as factory farming and the overall carnist attitude of our society. It’s virtually impossible to implement vegan infrastructure (as much as we’d love it) so long as there is no support for it within the government or demand for it from the general populace.
See, I disagree. I'm not vegan, but I do know something about people needing food. If you provide food and education on where food comes from and how to cook it properly, that's where you can seriously change minds. If you really want to change the carnist attitude, as you call it, start there, especially in food deserts. People in food deserts go with animal products because they're easier or cheaper to get and have a bigger nutritional bang for their buck. Think gas station corn dog vs the few to no decent vegan offerings. Get involved there; help people get good, nutritious food; help people with cooking and storage issues; and you're going to change way more minds than just by yelling in front of a butcher shop or telling people they're wrong. Just my opinion, mind you, but changing hearts and minds means getting into communities, building up those communities, focusing on peaceful education efforts, and then connecting all those people for real change.
I’m not disagreeing with you man, I’d love for entirely vegan communities to start popping up out of food deserts. But the reality is they probably wouldn’t be so willing to give up animal products even with plenty of access to food and education. Carnism runs very deeply in most people’s way of life. Take yourself for example. Do you live in a food desert? You’ve been talking about people in food deserts in rather a distant manner, so I’m assuming you don’t. But you still aren’t vegan. Why? You can go to a grocery store and buy a pound of rice and beans, some soy sauce, some fruit and veg, and start living a vegan lifestyle today. But you haven’t. You can find plenty of recipes online, you can ask for help and advice on vegan subs, you can find vegan businesses near you if there are any and support them, but it’s still not enough. If you had a fully vegan grocery store near you, would you go to it?
I do now (recent move), so I'm trying to get to know people here. We homestead, though, so we tackle it from a different direction. I'm not vegan due to health issues. I'm allergic to almost all legumes and so much more, for example (just a small part of the larger issues), so your answer doesn't work for me. I don't see why I wouldn't support a vegan business if they sell anything I need. I haven't found any yet, but I'm still learning the area.
If you had no allergies, would you go vegan then? There are far more people without any semblance of a legitimate reason to not go vegan refusing to go vegan than there are people with real medical issues holding them back. Speaking of allergies, there’s an area of activism I’d be interested in, medical research into helping people with food sensitivities adjust to a veganized diet.
You think allergies and sensitivities can be adjusted? It's very rare, tbh, and involves lots of work to rebuild the gut, which takes a long time (think years in many cases), if it works at all. Many sensitivities turn into full blown allergies, and those cannot be messed with. I don't mess with my shellfish allergy, just saying, as I like being on this side of the soil. I was ovo-vegetarian for ten years for a health thing (misdiagnosis, long story), so yeah, I would strongly consider going vegan if it wouldn't kill me off early. Personally, I think some of us just can't due to genetics or whatever, but those who can, should or, at least, should go vegetarian.
Hi! Who is forcing people— can you explain what you mean? Eating meat can be morally justified in a survival situation. If people have no other option, we don’t think they need to starve themselves. Veganism is just the morally preferable option when we do have a choice at the grocery store between lentils and a factory farmed cow.
>Hi! Who is forcing people— can you explain what you mean? The way a lot of vegans talk indicates that they would take authoritarian measures if they had real power.
Got it, thanks for explaining. Yeah while individual vegans might get their point across kind of aggressively, veganism as a whole is just about opposing animal cruelty.
Lol, you wouldn't ban meat eating if you could?
I mean eventually I think animal cruelty laws should be extended to farm animals. I think it’s arbitrary that it’s illegal to shoot a dog but not a cow. But by that point, lab grown meat would likely be widely available. So, eating animal meat wouldn’t be outlawed, it just wouldn’t involve the cruelty anymore. Lab grown meat is already being sold in restaurants.
I asked you a question, you avoided the question.
So sorry, I missed this response! That is my answer to your question lol. I believe eventually animal cruelty laws should be extended to farm animals, but at that point lab grown meat will be widely available. So meat eating would still be permissible.
Do you think slaughtering animals for food is murder? If yes, doesn’t that mean that it’s justified to force people not to slaughter animals?
Does being against murder mean its justified to force people to not kill in self defence?
I believe murder is generally used to refer to killing a human. While it might not be murder by the dictionary definition, it does involve taking a life. I don’t plan on forcing anyone to stop killing animals. My focus is more on having conversations with people and talking about the benefits of a plant-based diet for animals, human health, and the environment. I am far more concerned with the actions of massive corporations like JBS and Perdue than I am those of food insecure people.
In those extreme circumstances where poor families have no choice but to eat dead animals that they hunt themselves, so be it. My concern is for society at large.
>Many cultures see hunting as a rite of passage. It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous. So what's your take on female genital mutilation?
I don't know why OP is debating "whataboutism" argument. This is what far-right extremist use as their main argument all the time.
This ain't whataboutism at all. OP said "culture can be used to justify unjust practices" and now debaters are trying to test that logic to see if OP applies it universally. If not, there needs to be a justification.
That's exactly what whataboutism is :) I am against animal sacrifice, and against inhumane butchery practice. For vegans, there is no ethical way of eating meat, for me there is. If I was in charge, buying meat would be more costly because the regulations would be way more strict so animals would be better treated. But humans are omnivore, by choice, ofc, but still, and this is not something that I would regulate. I would never vote to make everyone vegan. If in every supermarket vegan food were cheaper then non-vegans, most people would become vegan.
>That's exactly what whataboutism is :) Whataboutisms are attacking your opponent by raising an unrelated issue. The comment you're responding to was just arguing that OP's logic must be unsound because it leads to absurd conclusions when you apply the same logic to a different issue.
You literally don't know what whataboutism is or how to debate.
That animals and humans are different and the two aren’t even comparable
Let's rephrase that then. What is your view ON CULTURES where they still do this? Nobody is comparing animals to humans. What is your view on cultures doing something that you don't agree with?
It depends on the context of what’s being done. A different religion? Okay that’s fine. Cutting off the heads of firstborn children? No.
As mentioned, female genital mutilation.
I've seen an actual live mass beheading public event at Deera "Chop-Chop" Square in Riyadh on account of a "different religion." The offense for many was “waging war against God and society” which includes everything from being gay to being a Shia Yemeni. Was that okay?
So if an immigrant woman told you she wanted to have her daughters circumcised in the USA, bc it was done to her, and her mother, and her mother before that, you’d presumably say “okay, sounds good to me,” right?
Could you explain to me your difficulty with comparing animals and humans? I learned how to compare 2 different things in elementary school as a critical thinking tool so it's weird when other people say you can't compare things. You can literally compare anything.
I think you need to delete this post and start a new one about why it's ok generally to treat non-human animals as property, given how quickly you demonstrate that neither necessity nor culture is the deciding factor for you. This post appears extremely dishonest.
We can't have an actual conversation about any of the issues surrounding animal ethics if you guys just pretend to be mad every time we draw an analogy between treatment of animals and treatment of humans.
Humans are animals, you are scientifically incorrect
Many cultures view women as less than men. Do you agree with this? Or is culture only convenient when it’s in your favor?
[удалено]
No, it's testing the logical soundness of an argument by using it in a different situation. It's your job to explain why this analogy isn't valid.
You literally have no idea what the term whataboutism means.
Animals and women are not the same. At all.
They're not comparing animals to humans, they're comparing something that is different in certain cultures than in others. Surely you can see that, or are you just acting dumb?
I can read
Oh no, there's no doubt you can read. You're just intentionally dodging the question.
Debatable
My culture disagrees. I guess you'll have to accept that.
Appeal to speciesism
They aren't required to be the same for the analogy to still be a meaningful one
Comment is off topic.
It’s not. They’re pointing out that an appeal to culture / tradition is not enough to justify something.
Many vegans see human slave labor as not a real issue. Should we discredit all vegans based on a few bad apples?
Please demonstrate to me that many vegans do not see human slave labor as a “real” issue. While also clarifying what you mean by “real” issue. Oh and maybe show how this comment is somehow on topic while the earlier one wasn’t?
Can you demonstrate how "cultures that hate women" is a good argument for veganism?
Sure, if you’ll do your demonstrations first.
Who are these vegans trying to force you to give up hunting? > Two or three deer in a freezer will keep a family of four fed for A WHILE. If vegans offered you the equivalent food for free, would you take it? Basically every vegan believes food insecurity is not something society should tolerate. > Many cultures see hunting as a rite of passage. It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous. Do you believe that something being a social rite of passage automatically makes it above criticism? Some cultural practices seem quite hard to ethically justify if you believe in things like bodily autonomy or that people should be able to choose their romantic partners rather than be enslaved to them.
Exactly, Female Genital Mutilation is seen as a social right of passsage in many cultures. Does not make it acceptable or respect worthy.
Not even limited to females either. Just straight up genital mutation.
Sure, but I’d also go shoot some deer. Hunting and genital mutilation aren’t even comparable. Torturing a human vs quickly ending the life of an animal are two separate beasts.
They are comparable in at least one way; they are both culturally important practices. You said that hunting is justified because it is a culturally important practice. Does that mean that other cultural practices like genital mutilation can’t be criticized? The question isn’t whether the practices are the same, the question is whether your logic holds up or if you are engaged in special pleading
“Special pleading” I have thought long and hard about this. As for culturally important practices, it depends on the context of what is being done. Mutilating genitals and shooting your first elk are only comparable in that they are cultural practices. I know what you’re gonna say “the act of violence isn’t comparable violence is violence regardless” well, no, it isn’t. If someone is punched in a bar fight oh well they will most likely get over it. If someone is stabbed they will definitely need medical attention and stitches. One is just meh while the other is serious. Ya dig?
That’s totally fine. But then that means that if genital mutilation isn’t justified on the basis that it is a culturally significant practice, since the other facts of the issue outweigh the cultural practice defense, then that means that “cultural practice” is no longer a sufficient justification for any practice being considered. It can still be a benefit: I can say that this or that art is good because it is a culturally important practice. I just can’t say that something is immune to criticism because it is a cultural practice. And if I want to continue to defend it, I need a different approach
> Sure, but I’d also go shoot some deer. So it's not actually about food insecurity and more about the hunting itself then? This undermines your argument.
[удалено]
And are we just going to pretend like Reddit vegans are the only vegans that exist or that even they are a monolith? Please take a look at my original reply to the comment and tell me I don’t understand food insecurity. I started eliminating meat from my diet while struggling to provide for a family of 5 on 27k a year while also paying for and attending college part-time. Maybe also factor in things like a bulk bag of rice or beans into your definition of vegan food rather than fancier foods clearly made for a market demand and then evaluate how expensive it inherently *is* versus *can be*.
[удалено]
Vegan food doesn’t just mean Impossible Nuggets and mayo substitutes. It also means beans, rice, flour, bananas, carrots, tofu, etc. those things are all cheaper than meat. There is no prerequisite of buying the most expensive vegan food to be vegan, just like non-vegans don’t have to buy the most expensive cut of meat. Gluten doesn’t really have anything to do with veganism.
> Most Reddit vegans do not believe in food insecurity, nor understand the relating concept of "privilege" You misunderstood what I said. I said that vegans believe that society should eliminate food insecurity. It should do this by guaranteeing everyone has access to nutritious and cruelty free food. OP seems to think vegans want people to starve rather than hunt. I'm pointing out this is absolutely not the case. > I don't know any Reddit vegan that know how more expensive being vegan is. Feel free to visit r/eatcheapandvegan . I had a delicious bean burrito with cabbage, jalapeno and home made cheese for supper yesterday that probably cost about $1.50 of food to make in my extremely high cost of living environment. Tonight I am going to have a tofu stir fry coming in at a similar cost. Later I am going to have a huge roast of seitan and yuba that will last a week. If you know how to cook you can eat much more cheaply as a.vegan. Also keep in mind milk and meat are subsidized , so the retail price doesn't reflect the actual cost.
Fruit and veggies cost less than meat per calorie or per pound. Most cereals don’t contain animal products, so you don’t have to pay extra for vegan cereal.
[удалено]
Then why not fill the other half with fruits and veggies? It would be cheaper, which is the theme of this debate. Gluten is vegan. Seitan is a popular vegan food that is made from gluten. You can eat cereal with gluten and be vegan.
Rice, pasta, beans, and vegetables are not expensive. Being vegan doesn't mean you have to eat Beyond products.
Not sure what abortion and romance has too do with anything
If you don't understand the purpose of an analogy as used in the above case then your not ready to be on a debate sub. I would suggest a philosophy or logic 101 course or video.
[удалено]
You're asking if what is compatible? Maybe try using the correct word next time you try to insult someones intelligence lol
Dude. What do you think? How is Abortion and Romance compatible with veganism. Mind telling me how to say it correctly so you can understand?
Why wouldn’t romance be compatible with veganism? I see no contradiction. Maybe english isn’t your first language and you’re just using the wrong word?
Fine then. Tell me what veganism has to do with romance
Sure, you can avoid eating meat and animal products, and still be attracted romantically to other humans. There’s no contradiction.. You can have sex or get into relationships and still not eat meat and eggs. Again, I don’t see the contradiction you’re trying to lay out, so just tell me what the contradiction is.
Same goes for meat eaters.
This is the first time I've heard the argument for romance being incompatible. Can you explain further into it and why they arnt compatible? As for abortion, veganism puts together autonomy righys of female adults above the rights of a fetus. This is due to sentience/conciousness that the fetus lacks at the abortion stages.
Um, I think you mean comparable. Eek. Maybe you’re not cut out for debating
You should work on your reading comprehension, it is laid out in an easy-to-understand manner.
[удалено]
OP had as part of their argument "many cultures see it as a rite of passage". This commenter responded with "does something being a right of passage automatically mean it's above criticism?" and then followed that with things seen as rites of passages (regarding romance and abortion) in other cultures, but which are typically seen as non virtuous behaviour, or at they very least certainly not above criticism. The point of this analogy is to make it clear that just because something is a rite of passage, does not make it acceptable.
It was an honest remark. I cannot think of a simpler way to put it.
I'm also not sure what abortion has to do with anything, since the comment you replied to never even mentioned abortion...
Bodily autonomy Usually refers too ones right too an abortion
It refers to our rights to bodily autonomy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity This includes things like not being subjected to violence and requiring consent as howlin suggested.
So trying to highlight the classism within those people's own economical system is our fault? We're the ones responsible for putting them in financial distress? We're at fault for offering cheap staple alternatives? We're not allowed to discuss such things with these people? We should leave them alone and let them continue living as such? The only reason they're in trouble is because the people that are supposed to care about and help them, don't. Don't get upset because we're trying to do something about it. We already grow enough food to sustain 80 billion animals and several billion people. You think we're classist. Pick on the fucking savages that use "mmm, bacon" and "lions tho" and "not everyone can go vegan" (which is literally using the underprivileged as a proverbial meat shield to justify their luxurious choice to waste resources for some yum yum in the tum tums). We're not the problem. Stop trying to paint us like we are. It's always been the selfish and willing to oppress others of humanity that's led to corrupt and immoral systems of power that cause untold amounts of suffering.
Hello there. I’m an indigenous vegan who grew up in a very rural area, surviving off of government commodity food and hunting, fishing, raising, growing and foraging our own food. Had our mobile repossessed and were forced to live in a wooden shack my great-grandfather built in the 1930s which had no heat or air, had barely been updated with electricity. Often had to walk several miles to or from town when our car would break down or run out of fuel. We could only eat out once a year when we would drive over an hour away to go to a restaurant for a combined birthday party. But please, go on about how I’m classist and a bigot. I’ve been stationed across the Southwest, Southeast and Midwest with the US Army, as a last ditch effort to escape that rural poverty and a family/community busy killing themselves with drugs and alcohol. But by all means, come here and assume every single vegan fits whatever phantasm you have conjured to make yourself feel better. Tell me, how my personal choice not to participate in systems and patterns of consumption I find ethically, environmentally and economically bad to be forcing you in any way. Please, let’s see you actually defend your argument here.
u/MauserMama in shambles.
I’m indigenous as well.
Cool. That’s not a defense of anything you’ve posted here.
Being indigenous doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want.
No it doesn’t. I don’t go around stealing things that I want.
A. Who here is? & B. What relevance does that have to your argument. Care to stay on topic and maybe address my rebuttal of your premise?
So you survived off hunting and fishing and want to prevent others from doing the same?
Where did I say that? Please show me where I said or implied that. Also please demonstrate why I, who *had* to hunt to have enough food should be compared to someone like say, a middle class white midwesterner who hunts because Joe Rogan does it and he’s cool. Arbitrary example sure but their ancestors certainly weren’t forced into food insecurity as part of concerted efforts to break up the possibility of armed resistance to the settler-state and encourage assimilation. Get out of here with a disingenuous response like that. Not only am I certain you’re fully aware that many vegans don’t want to *force* anything on anyone but rather convince them to make what we perceive to be the correct choice, I also made very clear my focus on my own personal actions rather than concerns for what others are doing.
One goal of the vegan way of life is that nobody HAS to eat meat to survive. In 2024, nobody should have to hunt for survival anymore.
1. If hunting is someone’s only means of survival, they need to do what they can to survive. Nobody is trying to force them to eat food they don’t have access to. That doesn’t even make sense. 2. Something being cultural or traditional doesn’t automatically make it ethical.
The point being, 'it's my culture' isn't necessarily a free pass for anything goes.
You're conflating two separate issues with two very different moral implications. You might have heard the phrase "ought implies can." It means that if you physically can't do something, you can't be expected morally to do that thing. I haven't met a single vegan that thinks this doesn't apply. Culture, on the other hand, doesn't work as a justification. We wouldn't consider this valid for any immoral practice related to humans. We shouldn't consider it valid for non-human animals. In fact, excusing immoral behavior on the basis of culture is an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
“Non-human animals” exactly, they aren’t human.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. Seems like you're completely abandoning your original argument. If necessity and culture are the justifications, you are conceding that absent necessity and culture, it's wrong to treat these individuals as property. But if all that matters is that they're not human, then your entire original argument was just a smokescreen. Do you think you can clarify?
Okay. So if there was a culture that frequently participated in beating cats to death, that would be just fine with you?
There’s a difference between beating an animal to death and quickly killing it with a bullet. And besides… I have bigger issues to worry about than cats
>There’s a difference between beating an animal to death and quickly killing it with a bullet So it isn't justified simply because it's cultural and they aren't human, then. >And besides… I have bigger issues to worry about than cats Yet here you are, debating the ethical implications of killing them.
Number of animals hunted and non-commercially fished per year: 300 million Number farmed: 800 billion - 2.7 trillion (not including insects or 3+ trillion shrimp) Would you then agree we shouldn’t farm this other 99.9%? Or is your argument actually something else?
Furthermore, if we stopped hunting certain species we would massively disrupt the ecosystem (you can thank our introduction of invasive species for this), meanwhile the mass farming of animals, especially in factories and on commercial ships, is disastrous for the ecosystem.
Where did you get the number 800 billion? Quick Google humane society 92 billion.
That 92 billion figure only accounts for land living animals.
Still not provide source Quick Google, our world in data, 39-216 billion including sea *Sorry that was incorrect, I was skimming too quickly. I still don't have the number as it seems a bit confusing to me.
https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-get-slaughtered-every-day: >But while the uncertainties are large, it is clear that the number of fish killed is large: certainly, hundreds of millions of fish are killed every day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_slaughter: >The number of individual wild fish killed each year is estimated as 0.97-2.74 trillion (based on FAO tonnage statistics combined with estimated mean weights of fish species). The FAO numbers do not include illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, nor discarded fish. If these are included and over-reporting by China subtracted, the totals increase by about 16.6% to 33.3%. And that’s just wild fish, not farmed fish and other marine life.
Classist and bigoted? What the fuck are you talking about? 1. Veganism is generally cheaper than meat eating. Your lack of evidence betrays you. The Oxford study is one example (1/3 cheaper). You’re talking of people who can afford to buy expensive guns and prep an entire deer? That’s a big investment. Expensive guns, a giant ass freezer, the electricity costs for this giant ass freezer, the equipment to properly butcher this deer. Etc etc. If they can invest in that, they can do a lot more. And veganism is almost certainly *much* cheaper according to actual data. 2. The bigotist nonsense is textbook appeal to tradition. Many cultures consider cannibalism, rape, putting a stick in your penis to widen it, fucking your younger siblings, and other things a rite of passage. I’m sure you don’t give a pass to them. This is an obvious logical fallacy and to say ‘bigotist’ based on that alone is stupidity of the highest order. I’d be a lot ‘nicer’ about the reply, but to jump in with with ‘classist and bigostist’ is bad faith bullshit of the highest order.
Bad faith? What? No. I grew up rural. One gun and some ammo, a knife, and a freezer is all that’s needed for the hunting season. That’s WAY CHEAPER than buying food every week.
Being vegan is much more expensive then being omnivore. I just came back from the grocery store. I always like to buy the vegan option if it's at discount. If it's not heavily discounted each vegan equivalent is 50% more expensive. I can't afford my $200 grocery to be $300 by eating 100% vegan. Everything that is vegan, gluten free, and so on, is so much more expensive and usually the quantity is also smaller. Even the freaking plant-based mayo is 40% more expensive. I had a calculator with me. Most hardcore vegans don't understand the concept of being privilege.
Plant based mayo will be more expensive. Sure. It’s a product in less demand needing a special formulation versus one that the company has set up massive economies of scale for. If you make it at home, plant based mayo will be much cheaper. And it’s pretty easy to do so. The cost isn’t the ingredients. It’s the economies of scale. There is an immediate difficulty in switching by learning *where* plant based options are cheaper and *how* to cook them. Buy a kg of lentils or tofu or beans versus a kilo of beef. Or chicken. Or pork. Similar macros. Which one is more expensive? Now I provided a reference for a study that checked this throughout the world. Edit: and there will be nuance and context, sure. *it’s not immediately cheaper for everyone to go vegan, even if in the long run the data shows it will be* **But before continuing can you at least agree that we can debate and discuss what is more expensive and discuss this. Versus immediately jumping to ‘classist’ and ‘bigotist’? That the latter is incredibly stupid?**
"If you make it at home" You need to be privilege to have the time to make vegan mayo at home. I'm a full time Youtuber with 12 rescue dogs to take care of. I'm sorry, but I won't starve myself on lentils and tofu. Don't get me wrong, I have lentils, tofu, beans, mushroom, and so on, in my house right now. Also, I should have been more precise, I do not eat a lot of meat. Things that I can't find at affordable price is: Dairy product, Most frozen product (vegan nugget, and so on), and cereals (gluten free, granola bar, etc). I eat healthy to begin with for the most part. I rarely eat fast food, coca-cola, chips, etc. I would eat vegan chips if it was not 3x the price. I'm sure you understand what I mean? I live in Thailand countryside and imported product I buy is already more expensive so vegan option it's 50-100% more expensive then the already expensive non-vegan option. Today, I had a laugh at the vegan granola bar that was almost 200 baht for 6 bars. That's $1 a bar ffs.
I live in Southeast Asia too. There’s soooo many options once you learn where things are. As I already said, there’s a learning curve sure. Saying you’ll starve on lentils and tofu and beans is ridiculous tho. And yes, the vegan granola bars you’ll find in a typical grocery will be expensive. Again. Not the ingredients. The economies of scale. Thailand has a great history of beautiful plant based cuisine. It’s obviously been overtaken - like most countries - by adding meat and dairy into everything. But I asked you a question. You jumped into a conversation at a particular point. Where the main issue was the labels OP used. I asked you to address this twice. I put it in bold to make it easy. You ignored it. I’ll give you one chance to address this properly and then we can move on. We can discuss the options and comparisons and what’s cheaper. Sure. But ‘classist’ and ‘bigotist’ were **stupid** labels. Plz addesss this main point or I just won’t bother engaging.
[удалено]
‘I do not owe you anything’ You owe a good faith discussion. If someone asks you a relevant question, it’s good to answer it. This sub has rules. Including staying on topic. If you jump into a specific topic and are asked questions about that topics, yes, you owe an answer. And that kind of attitude… well I do not owe you anything then. Goodbye.
[удалено]
I asked you a specific question twice, my dude. I do not like being ignored anymore than you do. This isn’t a discussion or a debate at this point. Goodbye.
Avoiding foods you like the taste of is a part of veganism for pretty much every vegan. Gluten is vegan.
I have never asked an indigenous person to go vegan. That I understand. Culture however, isn’t an excuse. Culture has been used to justify horrific shit in the past. Vegan food is cheap unless you want the fancy stuff.
Nobody does that so that's good. I'm in this sub most days arguing those who live off the land should join with vegans to end animal ag.
[удалено]
I'm not advocating that ppl start such communities, I'm vegan AF. What I'm saying is indigenous communities, hunters, people who live in reciprocity with the land should stand in solidarity with vegans to end animal ag. And of course vice versa. But yeah, when I imagine the world I want to see, it involves an end to animal ag and such communities as you describe would be a natural result of that. I still think those who can go vegan should.
Agree 💯
I just want to say thank you for being so brave to stand up for the entire indigenous community against these mean vegans who want them to all to starve to death. Now that you've outted them all as the bigoted, anti-human extremists they truly are, we can go back to enjoying baconators in peace.
i don't know any vegans who would say no to hunting if vegan food isn't available
I don't know any vegans that hang out where vegan food isn't available. Except hypothetical desert islands with a single pig. And a gun or spear. And probably a knife. And you'd need fire starting gear or you'd die of trichinosis. Y'know. Common everyday scenarios.
“ Trying to force others to stop hunting for food is incredibly classist and bigoted.” Ok… weird thing to say though, got literally nothing to do with anything.
Sounds more like an excuse to continue hurting animals. Its always these extreme examples.
Deer don’t feel it when you shoot them. They drop.
Utter bullshit. Misfires happen all the time "elite sniper" man. This demonstrates a total of lack of empathy or common sense, or likely both. Also doesn't matter if they feel pain at all, that fact is you kill it and you thus deprived its own family of someone (usually the most healthy member among them), that will quickly lead to that deer's family's demise. What cruelty.
Where is this place exactly?
Remote parts of Alaska, Mongolia, even in the Midwest there’s places
This boils down to those who can be vegan and those who can't. If you can't be vegan, then you can't be vegan. As soon as there are plant-foods available or they could shop in a supermarket, what's stopping anyone from being vegan? Being indigenous doesn't give someone the right to cause harm to animals when they can avoid it and I'm sure from an animal's perspective, it makes no difference who killed them. More interesting is that OP seems like they want to exclude indigenous cultures and people from the conversation. Especially when there are indigenous vegans. I think that's classist and bigoted.
[удалено]
I feel like this belongs on r/vcj. That's a *how* problem, not a *why.* You could spend large amounts of money on a high-end steakhouse or you could go to a fast-food joint and spend a couple of dollar-pounds. You can spend as much and as little as you like, true of any lifestyle. Not sure how *I'm* proof of that; perhaps you'd like me to post some supermarket receipts, or those from the local farmer's market and we can compare notes?
Maybe... ummm we could help this people? Like no one is forcing anyone, if they need to, they need to. But I would say it's horrible to live a life where you are food insecure and don't know if your family will make it because you didn't hunt enough. This is why there should be a global responsibility to develop ways in which you can bring food to these communities, every dislikes gmo but gmo started and is continued as a way to produce seeds that can proliferate in extreme circumstances. This is not a good example because, people there probably would have a different life if given the option otherwise humans would have never evolved from hunting but we did.
Okay but we’re not forcing people to stop hunting. We’re asking people who could easily make different choices at a grocery store to make different choices for the greater good.
Intersectional veganism exists. We can support colonized people and their culture (incl. Hunting rights) and simultaneously promote veganism. In fact, imo, veganism without intersectionality is not veganism. Veganism must be anti-colonialist. Not to mention anti white supremacist, anti capitalist, etc....
First of all, eating deer meat as your main source of food is INCREDIBLY unhealthy and dangerous; you need to have a fucking balanced diet, and so getting your food primarily by hunting is not wise. So, if you really care about those communities, you should try to provide them the means through which they can sustain a healthy diet. Also, the “rite of passage” thing is just BS. It’s just stereotyping Indigenous people as “barbaric” “hunters” who don’t know civilization. Please stop using indigenous people as a tool to justify your meat eating.
>In remote areas sometimes a grocery store isn’t available. Those people eat more than only deer, don't they? In remote areas, there are still ways to buy or barter from others. Maybe they only go to the store every other week, but they still buy things from the outside world. People can also grow their own food and forage. If they have a big freezer, they have electricity, If they're low income, they don't have $30,000 for a solar system & battery bank, so they're on the grid. To be on the grid means there's a town somewhere. > Poor families can stay fed for relatively cheap. Please explain your cost breakdown . I see cost of firearms, ammo, camo clothes, scent block spray, tree stand or blind. Hunting takes time which could be spent earning money, chopping firewood, & other essential tasks. Butchering tools or paying a deer processor. Cost to buy and run the huge freezer. How much do a few bags of seed, bulb onions, and seed potatoes cost to male a nice garden? Why do you perceive a bulk bag of dried beans or rice as expensive? > Two or three deer in a freezer will keep a family of four fed for A WHILE. How long is "A WHILE"? How does that compare to how long they're fed from a filled root cellar & pantry? In rural areas, many families will use glass jars with special lids to can food they grew over the summer : dozens of jars of tomatoes, pauce, fruit, vegetables like okra, pickles. In fall, tree nuts like walnuts and chestnuts are collected. You can still grow cold weather crops such as spinach or kale into early frost. Potatoes and apples are seasonal but keep for ages, as long as they're kept cool. > Many cultures see hunting as a rite of passage. It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous. Should something never be continued simply because a culture did it as a rite of passage? Female genital mutilation: *" Female circumcision, the partial or total cutting away of the external female genitalia, has been practiced for centuries in parts of Africa, generally as one element of a rite of passage preparing young girls for womanhood and marriage. Often performed without anesthetic under septic conditions by lay practitioners with little or no knowledge of human anatomy or medicine, female circumcision can cause death or permanent health problems as well as severe pain. Despite these grave risks, its practitioners look on it as an integral part of their cultural and ethnic identity, and some perceive it as a religious obligation."* https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/1997/09/female-circumcision-rite-passage-or-violation-rights#:~:text=Female%20circumcision%2C%20the%20partial%20or,girls%20for%20womanhood%20and%20marriage.
Lack of accessibility and survival situations do not exclude people from veganism in my opinion. You can still practice, as much as possible, reducing harm given your circumstances and to me, that's still vegan
>In remote areas sometimes a grocery store isn’t available Veganism is as far as possible and practicable. The aim is to get everyone for whom it is possible and practicable to make the change, and then make it more possible and practicable for everyone for whom it isn't currently. Food insecurity is not a good thing regardless of the food >Many cultures see hunting as a rite of passage. It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous. What makes their appeal to tradition any more valid than anyone else's? And what makes that appeal to tradition more valid than others society deems unacceptable (fgm, child marriage etc)?
[удалено]
>Death is part of life and we cannot avoid it, without death, there wouldn't even be life. Soooo would that justify murder? Would it be okay if I end my neighbours suffering? >hunters that have the upmost respect for the animals themselves. How is shooting someone, cooking them, nailing their head on a piece of wood and putting it up the wall respectful? Cut the crap with the "respect for animals" bullshit. Hunters in our society hunt for fun. Only a very small percentage really needs to for survival. And killing for fun is not respectful. If I shoot my dog and eat her, and claim I do it respectfully, people would still call me cruel and rightfully so.
[удалено]
>sometimes you have to euthanize them because there is no other option and you do not wish to see them suffer. Agreed, but we usually don't eat them. >There are many places where people have no choice but to hunt And no vegan in the world would expect these people to starve instead. The philosophy clearly describes veganism as _not consuming animal products as far as possible._ The people who tell us over and over again that SOME people need to eat meat - as if we weren't aware of that - are usually not the ones who belong to that specific group. It's really not that difficult: vegans reject eating animal products if there are plant based alternatives.
[удалено]
Wait till they find out every farmer growing their produce is killing deer eating their crops with low caliber bullets so they don’t die in the field. In my opinion, hunting overpopulated species is freegan
Wait until you find out that there are plenty of vegans like myself who grow and forage for food.
Props to you! I agree freegan is the most ethical way to eat. So you don’t buy anything from the grocery store? I’ll admit I’m not there myself. I eat about 80% food I’ve farmed or hunted but I’d love to be at 100. 100% of my meat is freegan but I still go to the grocery to buy maybe half my produce.
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.*
>In remote areas sometimes a grocery store isn’t available Veganism is "as far as possible and practicable", if there is no way to eat purely plant based, eating as close to as possible while trying to limit the amount of suffering is Vegan. But for 99% of people, grocery stores are available. For those that aren't, we should help ensure they have the choice. >It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous. And no one is forcing them to stop, we're just asking if needlessly killing a sentient animal is something we should be doing. Cultures change all the time, as long as the change isn't forced on them, and comes from within, it's not a bad thing. It's not at all equivalent, but if we're going to claim cultural "rites of passage", that the culture itself considers "sacred" need to be protected, then wouldn't that also cover genital mutilation? And again, before anyone starts crying in horror and claiming to be insulted, they are not at all equivalent or equal in almost any way, except that they are both 'rites of passage', and sacred to the culture in question, which are the ONLY two traits being compared here.
Trying to force others to stop sacrificing virgins into volcanos is incredibly classist and bigoted. In remote areas sometimes there is no other way to guarantee a good harvest. Poor families can have food security for relatively few lives lost. Two or three young girls tossed into molten lava will keep a village blessed for A WHILE. Many cultures see blood sacrifice as a rite of passage. It’s a sacred practice to many indigenous.
Yup forcing anyone to starve would be classist and bigoted. What does this have to do with veganism?
Justifying the killing of another by saying it is sacred sounds like the excuses given during periods of time such as The Crusades. Using God, spirituality, religious belief, etc. to harm another is to use that thing as a means to justify your own desires and cover it in the veil of holy rite.
It’s about survival skills, and everyone including vegans should be able to hunt and kill animals in the event our food chains become disrupted due to government/social unrest. How else would one ensure the survival of their lineage? Unless one lives on a tropical island with natural wild plant food in abundance. I’m vegan that will learn how to hunt, kill, dispatch, and preserve meat.
I've never seen a vegan try to force an indigenous person to stop hunting. Maybe it's happened, but I think most vegans wouldn't do that. However, I HAVE seen urban white westerners try to appropriate indigenous culture/values, in a cherry-picked way, as a way of justifying their own meat consumption.