[
  "I came here just for a second opinion on what I think on veganism.\nI just think that it's unhealthy to not eat anything from animals or plants.\nYou need to take nutrients from other things to survive.\nPlus,I think the increased meat production can feed a lot of people who don't get enough food,and it would be bad to decrease production.",
  "Many of these species have been breed so as to only be viable within a human farming.\nThey have been evolved under human pressures so as to specifically maximize meat production.  \n\nThere is a reason why you don't see wild cows anymore.  The species is only viable within human captivity.\n\nWhat do vegans plan to do with all the domesticated animals? \nIf they truly weren't viable, would extinction really be preferable to harvesting them?\nWould Vegans set up a special zoo to slowly breed (or genetically modify) them for reintegration with natural ecosystems?",
  "Most vegans are okay with people having pets. However, I see some problems with this. I'll quote the most accepted definition for reference.\n\n>\"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude\u2014as far as is possible and practicable\u2014all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment.\"\n\nFor starters, I am only attacking keeping pets for pleasure. Service animals and other pets like those can be validated by necessity. One very important part of this definition is \"all forms of exploitation.\" This is important as it throws out the ethical milk scenario. A farmer could theoretically give a cow all the land they needed, have them non-forcibly impregnated, and only take excess milk after the cow feeds their calf, and it still would not be vegan as the cow can't consent to their milk being taken, thus protecting them from exploitation. Veganism is not the same as consequentialism - an animal could have a greater total well being as a farm animal than in the wild, but as farm animal we are exploiting them while in the wild we are not.\n\nThis idea is critical in having pets. Arguing for how much better animals get treated as pets vs left alone does not matter at all if having pets requires actions that they cannot consent to. It seems to be the case that this is true. In order to have pets exist in modern society, they require a variety of procedures, such as castration, injections, etc., that they can't consent to. If it's necessary to force an action on an animal in order for them to be a pet, how can that be vegan?\n\nTo be very clear, I am not claiming that these operations damage the animal's well being or are in any way bad for them. I am claiming that since the animal cannot consent to these actions, performing the actions can't be vegan.",
  "Is there such a thing as ethnically consuming animal producta or is it just all unethical. I understand the reasoning why killing animals for food is unethical. I can also guess why enslaving cows  can make eating their products unethical. However, is there such a thing as an \"ethical extraction of animal products\"",
  "The taste of meat is simply unmatchable with vegetables and seasonings. Don't get me wrong, there are some very tasty things that happen to be vegan, but not enough to have a fulfilling diet without actively seeking out vegan alternatives (which are not as nice)\n\nI eat a mainly east Asian / Chinese diet so yes I know about tofu etc. and use it a lot, alongside meat, not as a replacement \n\nEthics etc aside. I am not saying this is a good reason not to be vegan, I am just fed up of this being used as an argument for being vegan",
  "This one may not be so applicable to the US where most of your meat is factory farmed. But here in the U.K. all of our cows and sheep are grass fed/grazers and one of the more legitimate pro-meat/anti-vegan arguments I am often presented with is that ruminants are an important part of our eco-system and keep the land/soil healthy and that a lot of our farming land isn\u2019t suitable for plant/crop farming. \n\nI was wondering what other vegans thoughts would be on if we were to eliminate meat and dairy farming completely, how we would feel about keeping ruminants as grazers for this purpose, but obviously in drastically reduced numbers that were allowed to live out their natural lifespan. \n\nThat way the animals are still playing their integral part of the eco system, at more natural and realistic numbers but are not being cruelly exploited or killed. \n\nThis would also alleviate several other anti-vegan concerns such as whether these animals would go instinct and our use of manure for fertiliser (we could still use this), and the animals that have died naturally or need to be put to sleep for compassionate reasons could be used for the \u2018essential\u2019 uses of animal products (cat food etc). \n\nI think farmers would still be incentivised to do this for the fertiliser use and to keep their lands healthy, even if there\u2019s not such a financial incentive. \n\nWould vegans still see this is cruel and/or exploitation or more of a mutually beneficial arrangement for all involved?\n\nAlso interested to hear anti-vegans thoughts on this as well and whether you can accept that these animals can still play an important part in our eco-system without us having to cruelly kill them young and eat them.",
  "There was a debate in here and it sparked a question in my head.  Veganism isn't vegetarianism in that meat is only off the table because there was a decision made to allow one animal to suffer so a human can eat.  So if that is the case and someone hits a deer in front of me and kills it with their car.  Am I allowed to take the meat home and eat it while still remaining vegan?",
  "[Question] Vegans: Does your circle of friends include a large percentage of people who tried veganism at some point but didn't stick with it?",
  "This is my first post here and I'm looking into the real and everyday practical ethics of Vegans. The first things that stands out to me is a disconnect between Vegans and Non-vegans on the definition and reasoning behind, \"Ending exploitation of Animals.\" So my question is, what does animal exploitation mean to you and is exploitation bad always, and if it is, do you see situations that are symbiotic between humans and animals outside of Slaughter.\n\nEdit: Removed the example regarding a cow and milk due to an oversight of how cows make milk. It was a bad example",
  "*\\[This is part of our \u201cquestion-of-the-week\u201d series, where we ask common questions to compile a resource of opinions of visitors to the* r/DebateAVegan *community, and of course, debate! We will use this post as part of our wiki to have a* [*compilation FAQ*](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_faq)*, so please feel free to go as in depth as you wish. Any relevant links will be added to the main post as references.\\]*\n\n*This month we have invited the newly-formed sub* r/VeganActivism *to come join us and to share their perspective on activist specific debates. If you\u2019ve come from*  r/VeganActivism *or* r/Vegan*, welcome, and we hope you stick around! If you wish not to debate certain aspects of your view, especially regarding your religion and spiritual path/etc, please note that in the beginning of your post. To everyone else, please respect their wishes and assume good-faith.*\n\n\\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIs debate an effective form of activism?\n\nIs debate effective to change minds, or does it cause further cognitive dissonance? Is it particularly advantageous, or are there other methods that you find more effective? Is debate indicative of who has a better argument or who has better debate skills?   \nWhy do you come to a space like r/DebateAVegan, and do you view it as a form of personal activism? What are the differences you find in engaging in real life and online debates? Are you open to changing your mind if someone convinces you with their argument? Do you find yourself walking away understanding others more, more convinced of your perspective, or both? Do you find any differences when debating veganism vs debating other topics?  \n\n\n**Vegans**: Has debate ever been personally effective for you to convince someone to go vegan? Do you find it beneficial? Do you find people want to or avoid to have debates with you? What have you learned from engaging in debates with non-vegans?  \n\n\n**Non-vegans**: Why do you engage in debates with vegans? What motivates you to do so? What have you learned from engaging in debates with vegans?\n\n​\n\n\\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nPrevious r/DebateAVegan Threads:\n\n[Is it worth debating people that haven't begun the preliminary work in understanding vegan ethics?](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/8zbhns/is_it_worth_debating_people_that_havent_begun_the/)\n\n[I\u2019m not a vegan; change my mind](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/9yglct/im_not_a_vegan_change_my_mind/)\n\n[What can we agree on?](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/9by68n/what_can_we_agree_on/) \n\n[Who made you go vegan?](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/9e65d8/who_made_you_go_vegan/)\n\nOther links and resources:\n\n[Street Epistemology: The Basics \\[streetepistemology.com\\]](https://streetepistemology.com/publications/street_epistemology_the_basics)\n\n[Acting Without Thinking \\[The New Republic\\]](https://newrepublic.com/article/121635/acting-without-thinking-protest-movements-are-shaped-debates)\n\n[The Trouble with Trying to Win at Everything \\[Medium\\]](https://medium.com/behavior-design/the-trouble-with-trying-to-win-at-everything-4852897b0743)\n\n[I Lost an Argument with a Vegan- Here\u2019s What I Learned \\[Medium\\]](https://medium.com/@cnative100/i-lost-an-argument-with-a-vegan-heres-what-i-learned-9800498d4254)\n\n[How to Handle Vegan Arguments Like a Pro \\[ChooseVeg\\]](https://chooseveg.com/blog/how-to-handle-vegan-arguments-like-a-pro/)\n\n\\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n*\\[****If you are a new visitor to*** r/DebateAVegan***, welcome! Please give our rules a read*** [***here***](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/about/rules/) ***before posting. We aim to keep things civil here, so please respect that regardless of your perspective.*** *If you wish to discuss another aspect of veganism than the QotW, please feel free to submit a new post* [*here*](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/submit)*.\\]*",
  "Is almond milk even healthy? Gellan gum doesn\u2019t seem like something that should be consumed.",
  "This is a serious question, and not some sort of provocation.\n\n\nOn a subject as polarizing as veganism, confirmation bias becomes a crucial issue when one wants to get relevant informations.\n\nIf one types the \"opposite statement\" of the search they have in mind (e.g \"why is butter good for you ?\" right after searching \"why is butter bad for you ?\") they will often only be met with articles, videos and explanations that strengthen their preconceived  worldviews. Seriously, try it out just for fun !\n\nLet's face it, most of us aren't trained nutritionists, dieticians, environment experts nor part of the farming industry, so we NEED shortcuts to make sense of the vast amount of knowledge generated and updated when it comes to those issues, which leads to the question :\n\nHow do you usually proceed to get a good understanding of a topic ?\n\n\nUsually, I would say that reading two articles that get the exact opposite conclusions can highlight most of the conflicting issues/perspective on a subject, then one can get actual keywords to make their research more precise.\n\nFor instance, I used to think of nutrition only in terms of \"carbohydrates, fat, and protein\" but nowadays I find these labels imprecise, misleading and probably damaging our understanding.\nWe are by default incredibly gullible in any field we know nothing about, so specialists can easily use these blindspots to make any story believable.\nIf one thinks of nutrition in terms of glucose, fructose, fiber, gut microbiom, saturated fat, transfats, omega 3 and 6, branched chain amino acids, triglycerides, inflammation, antioxidants, keeping in mind that what is ingested isn't always what is absorbed, etc., most of the inconsistencies that emerge from opposite views can be debunked, but it requires so much effort that virtually nobody will fall in that category.\n\nI took nutrition as an example but the same idea can be applied elsewhere.\n\n\nNow I'd say my understanding comes from podcasts, Google searches, videos and documentaries on the subject. I always try to check the comments or replies because  there are always very knowledgeable people that can call out any BS being spouted.\n\nBeing willing to take a random walk into ideas I don't like is the only option I found to avoid confirmation bias and have a referential for the ideas I discuss.\n\n\nWhat do you think ?\n\nI'm vegan, by the way.",
  "Deepity: A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true.\n\nThe classic example, \"Love is just a word.\" It's trivially true that we have a symbol, the word love, however love is a mix of emotions and ideals far different from the simplicity of the word. In the sense it's true, it's trivially true. In the sense it would be impactful it's also false.\n\nWhat does this have to do with vegans? Nothing, unless you are one of the many who say eating meat is \"just for pleasure\".\n\nPeople eat meat for a myriad of reasons. Sustenance,  tradition, habit, pleasure and need to name a few. Like love it's complex and has links to culture, tradition and health and nutrition.\n\nBut! I hear you saying, there are other options! So when you have other options than it's only for pleasure.\n\nGramatically this is a valid use of language, but it's a rhetorical trick. If we say X is done \"just for pleasure\" whenever other options are available we can make the words \"just for pleasure\" stand in for any motivation. We can also add hyperbolic language to describe any behavior.\n\nIf you ever ride in a car, or benefit from fossil fuels, then you are doing that, just for pleasure at the cost of benefiting international terrorism and destroying the enviroment. \n\nIf you describe all human activity this hyperbolically then you are being consistent, just hyperbolic. If you do it only with meat eating you are also engaging in special pleading.\n\nIt's a deepity because when all motivations are \"just for pleasure\" then it's trivially true that any voluntary action is done just for pleasure. It would be world shattering if the phrase just for pleasure did not obscure all other motivations, but in that sense its also false.",
  "My grandfather passed away last year in a heart attack. He felt no pain or fear inbefore his death. As far as he is concerned, he didn\u2019t even notice that he died. Hence, I don\u2019t feel bad for him. He died in a calm and peaceful death. The same logic applies to animals. They have absolutely no idea of their fate, and when they die, they aren\u2019t in pain for it. To all the vegans who consider it \u201dcruel\u201d to kill animals, why? I agree that using animals in circuses and other forms of (cruel) entertainment is not right, but then the animals actually experience it, as opposed to the slaughtering of animals. (By the way, if you are here to argue whether animals actually experience their slaughtering, you\u2019re wasting your time, modern methods of slaughter are well established to be harmless in terms of pain or fear)",
  "I've  been trying to get several meat-eaters to stop eating meat, but they're  extremely stubborn and refuse to stop eating meat. They keep making excuses/flawed arguments, such as:\n\n* \"Eating meat is my lifestyle, and I don't want to change my lifestyle -- respect my lifestyle\"\n* \"Eating meat is part of the 'circle of life'\"\n* \"It is unhealthy to be a vegan, and you don't get enough nutrients if you're vegan\"\n* \"Because lions kill animals in the wild, it is OK for humans to kill animals\"\n* \"If cows weren't killed and were kept alive, they would defecate too much\"\n* \"Your veganism is just an opinion and not a fact, so I don't have to follow it\"\n* \"You probably don't care about the welfare of insects, so you're a hypocrite because you've probably stepped on them\"\n* \"Where is the 'cut-off point' for which animals are worthy of moral consideration? Is it insects? Fish? Bacteria?\"\n* \"You can't prove that non-human animals feel pain and suffering because you can't talk to them\"\n* \"You can't prove that non-human animals have emotions\"\n* \"Meat tastes good, so I'm not going to stop eating it\"\n* \"Plants feel pain\"\n* \"Evolution has designed humans to eat meat, and humans are omnivores\"\n* \"Poor people have to eat meat because they can't afford to go vegan\"\n* \"You have no proof that speciesism is morally wrong\"\n* \"Non-human animals are fundamentally different from humans, and so humans can exploit them\"\n* \"I'm not going to stop eating meat, no matter what you say\"\n\nIn particular, a conversation about the lion argument goes like this:\n\n* Vegan: \"You should stop eating meat because it is immoral and causes suffering and pain.\"\n* Meat-eater:  \"Well, lions kill animals in the wild, so would you want to kill all the world's lions to make less suffering in the world?\"\n* Vegan: \"No, that's not the point.\"\n* Meat-eater: \"Lions kill their prey via predation, so it's OK for humans to kill animals via predation. It is \"natural\".\"\n* Vegan: \"Humans have the ability to make decisions about what is right and wrong, and lions are incapable of this\"\n* Meat-eater:  \"How do you know that? Maybe lions have their own moral code. You're a  hypocrite because you oppose predation, but only when humans do it. A lion causes pain and suffering when a lion kills an animal, so should we  neuter all of the world's lions so they can't reproduce (so they can't cause more suffering)?\"\n\nI  think the core problem is speciesism, and people's speciesist beliefs --  in other words, meat-eaters view humans as being \"morally superior\" to non-human animals, and this attitude allows them to treat animals as mere objects to be exploited. (Human lives are viewed as being \"more important\" than non-human animal lives -- this is speciesism).\n\nThe interests of non-human animals are more important than how something tastes. Meat-eaters also appear  hypocritical with regard to pets (such as dogs) -- they would never want to see their pets slaughtered, so why are they OK with cows and pigs being slaughtered?\n\nUltimately, why are meat-eaters so stubborn, and why do they get so hostile when one tries to get them to stop eating meat? And why are they close-minded, and why do they come up with excuses to keep eating it?",
  "Not a vegan, but I dont like land meat [rip my iron levels]. The veganism concept sparks a lot of discussion about morality and suffering. Now while *I* don't believe there's anything inherently wrong with being a carnivore, since before we were just like any other animal in the food web. I am aware of the sick process of most meat production and how wasteful it is. I wonder if lab-grown meat would be a solution to make everyone happy? Obviously youll still have the anti-gmo or whatever crowd but lab-grown meat would have the least amount of suffering involved, maybe even none.",
  "I'm a utilitarian vegan. I have regular backlash from vegans, who say that veganism and utilitarianism are not compatible. I fail to see why utilitarianism gets so much resistance from the vegan community.  Is it because Peter Singer has been cornered in some podcasts to say some outlandish things (point 2) or is it because of Cosmic Skeptic? Or are there genuine arguments to be made against utilitarianism from a vegan perspective?\n\nHere are the arguments I have heard so far:\n\n **1. Veganism is about rights and utilitarianism is about suffering.** \n\nThis is just plain false. Rights play a role in utilitarianism, but they are just meant to reduce suffering / increase well-being (or whatever other utility a utilitarian chooses to adhere to). Rule utilitarians even believe that an action is inherently wrong if an action breaks a rule / right.\n\nSome moral philosophies just presuppose rights, but utilitarians ask why rights should exist in the first place. In my view, this is a strong point of utilitarianism. It means we can have rights, but if for whatever reason we get clashes between these rights we still have some calculus to figure out what's morally the best action to take. \n\nThat is in fact why I am a utilitarian. I don't think any of the other moral philosophies can give answers to all moral question when there are tough moral decisions to make. At least utilitarians presuppose some objective function that can always be turned into an inequality to turn any tough moral question into a moral truth statement. \n\n**2. Utilitarians don't care whether an animal dies as long as it lives and dies without suffering and had a happy life.**\n\nWhat if I have a farm animal that was happy its whole life and then it dies instantly without suffering and without causing suffering to other sentient beings, would it have been better for the animal to have existed rather than not? And, oh by the way, somehow this farmer is also not causing any suffering whatsoever by doing this to any other sentient being.\n\nOf course anybody who does the calculus on such a question would have to say yes, but once Peter Singer said yes to this question in a podcast all of a sudden it seems he is condoning animal exploitation. He isn't. He would disapprove of any such setup, but under the assumptions of such a ridiculously unrealistic scenario which has been posed to exist you get an equally odd answer. It is a gotcha argument, the equivalent of the crop-death tho argument for utilitarianism.\n\nEvery moral philosophy has edge cases. In the edge cases where every option sucks, you'll always get crappy outcomes. I just don't think this is a valid argument against utilitarianism, because it presupposes that our intuition should still guide us to the right answer under the conditions of a completely unrealistic scenario. This scenario just isn't feasible nor would any utilitarian condone of such a scenario.\n\n**3. Utilitarians only care about suffering, so instant death is not a problem, because there is no suffering after death.**\n\nMost utilitarians also want to maximize well-being besides minimizing suffering. Most utilitarians also agree that some lives are simply not worth living. Simply the absence of suffering isn't enough. Cutting a life short is not maximizing well-being unless it is under the type of conditions we typically have when committing euthanasia.\n\nAnd then there is of course the suffering caused by cutting a life short. If you then upgrade your hypothetical to also suppose that no suffering is caused by cutting the life short we're back to the point 2. (perhaps point 3 and 2 are really the same, but I thought I separate them anyway, since I've heard both ridiculous hypotheticals as well as this argument). \n\n**4. Utilitarians only care about well-being.**\n\nI've heard this a couple of times. It is almost to ridiculous to name, but it supposes that utilitarians are some kind of hedonists who will condone atrocities for a fun enough party. This is flat out false. You could perhaps construct a utility function and call yourself a strong hedonistic utilitarian who cares only about maximizing well-being, but I don't know if such people even exist. \n\nI believe most utilitarians do not exactly know what the ideal utility function is nor do we know how to measure suffering / well-being, but we just believe (not know with certainty) that an acceptable utility function exists such that if we optimize this function we would find the world to be a morally good place. \n\n**5. Utilitarians are speciesists. Utilitarians only care about utility, more utility comes from humans than animals therefore utilitarians  are speciesist.**\n\nEven with the stated premise this is false, because a utilitarian doesn't care where one unit of utility or another unit of utility comes from. Every unit of utility means exactly the same as every other unit. Utilitarianism is impartial at its core and therefore incapable of speciesism.\n\nNow do some utilitarians construct utility functions that weigh human suffering greater than pig suffering? Sure, simply because humans they believe humans *may* have more capacity to suffer. This is debatable of course, and as I have already said, most utilitarians are somewhat unclear about what the utility function is exactly and how it should be measurable, but if I change the pig to a mosquito at some point most people admit that not all circumstances of all sentient beings should be weighted equally. Is it equally bad to electrocute a human as it is to electrocute a mosquito?\n\n**Concluding**\n\nThis is what I've heard. Honestly none of these arguments convince me that veganism and utilitarianism are incompatible at all, so I truly don't understand why some vegans are so strongly opposed to it. I am currently of the believe that those vegans who do oppose utilitarianism either don't understand utilitarianism or over simplify what utilitarians believe. \n\nMaybe I'm wrong? Feel free to tell me why.",
  "This is based on the foundation of *experience.* Suffering (opposite of preference satisfaction) is undesirable, by definition, but it is only experienced by the individual. Hypothetical:\n\n_There is a universe which contains one being (B1), and B1 is suffering (x) number of \"suffering units\" (S). Then another being (B2), who is also experiencing S(x), is added to this universe._\n\nCan it be *meaningfully* said that the amount of suffering has increased in this universe? Let's first imagine that neither being has knowledge of the other. Without anyone being aware of the number of beings suffering, it seems that their suffering cannot be added together, in a way that *matters.* Suffering is experienced, and the experience is only had by each individual being. Things are only \"suffered\" because they are perceived as such by the individual. From the perspectives in this hypothetical, only one being is suffering. \n\nNow, let's consider the obvious extension of this, and say that B1 and B2 are aware of each other, and they both have increased suffering from the thought of the other being suffering. Can we now, with this new information added, say that the amount of suffering has increased? Yes. But can we reasonably add the suffering of B1 and B2 together? No. There is still only one being suffering, as suffering is only \"suffered\" through the experience of the individual. \n\nThe reason for explaining all of this, is that when I hear people discuss human/non-human animal suffering, it is commonly claimed that practices are *bad* because of the number of beings these practices are used on. If 1,000,000,000 pigs are totured, that is proposed to be \"obviously\" worse than 1 pig being tortured. But only 1 pig is suffering, even if 1,000,000,000 pigs are tortured. \n\nOf course, then there is the obvious response, \"but that affects me!\" That brings us to another question: when you are aware of 1,000,000,000 pigs being tortured, do you suffer 1,000,000,000 times more than if you only knew of 1 pig being tortured? How do we quantify anguish? That said, this is still only *you* suffering. You may not want this suffering, so you may seek to reduce the suffering of others, so as to experience less suffering yourself, but it is still only *you* suffering (and if you recognize that only one being is actually experiencing suffering for the number 1,000,000,000 given, you may experience less suffering yourself).\n\nSo, to bring it back to the main question of the post, is the suffering of multiple beings *really* greater than the suffering of one? Is it reasonable to do calculations with the suffering of multiple beings, the way it is commonly done?\n\nThere are more details that can be discussed for this point, but those can be fleshed out in subsequent threads.\n\n\nEdit:\nI posted this and then things got busy for me. I will be back soon to engage with the responses!",
  "Hello, \n\nWhat do you think about my summary after watching this sub for a while. This is inregard to health concerns and preferences. Let\u2019s say someone has lived a vegan diet for years. They supplement and ensure well rounded nutrition. However they feel and perform better on a non vegan diet. This can\u2019t be proved through bloodwork or the like but rather it\u2019s personal to the person - their body, their health and how it feels, only known to them. A vegan wouldn\u2019t care if the person feels better on a non vegan diet and instead believes they should choose the ethics of a vegan diet regardless of how it makes them feel. Do I have this right?",
  "The argument goes like this:\n\nImagine you knew that when you reached the age of 50, you would be painlessly euthanized. Would you rather live your life and be killed at age 50, or would you rather not exist at all? Personally, I think 50 years of life is much better than none, so obviously I would want to exist.\n\nThe reason there are millions of cows in the US is because people eat beef and cheese. Before being killed, a dairy cow lives about 5 years, and a beef cow about 3 years. Imagine if you could ask the cow if they would rather live a few years and be killed, or not exist at all. What would they say?\n\nUnfortunately, I think the lives of most cows right now is pretty terrible. And actually, under these circumstance, I would rather have had never existed than to exist for 3 years in those atrocious conditions.\n\nHowever, it doesn't have to be like that. It is possible to raise happy cows that have good lives. Suppose a law was passed that enforced that. Wouldn't eating beef become the more ethical choice? Because by eating beef, you are paying to raise that cow. A cow that never would existed otherwise. By not eating beef, you are preventing that cow from being born and having an enjoyable life.",
  "What the fuck is your answer to that",
  "https://www.reddit.com/user/Albombinable/\n\nMy comments in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/5ssz90/sounds_kinky/\n\nI ask this because it is a little hard to believe for me that 99% of humans are overlooking such an obviously immoral practice and I feel like I'm missing something. Are there actually any valid arguments for factory farming?",
  "[Jeff McMahan](http://jeffersonmcmahan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/The-Moral-Problem-of-Predation.pdf) holds the view that, if we take animal rights seriously, then it follows that we do, in fact, have a moral duty to stop predation (and all of the death and suffering that entails).\n\nI'm inclined to agree with McMahan that animal liberation entails this conclusion, but I'd like to get a taste of the views here. I find this conclusion, though valid, to be contrary to our moral intuitions, and I think it would qualify as a strong defeater for animal rights views in general.\n\nIf we went all out with seeking to end natural predation and animal suffering, it would very likely destroy the natural environment, and biodiversity would plummet. Environmentalism and animal rights don't seem to be compatible in this regard (for more on this, see Mark Sagoff's [\u201cAnimal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce\u201d](http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Introduction_to_Philosophy_Fall_09/Sagoff_Animal_Liberation_&_Env_Ethics.pdf))\n\nSo what do you people think? Does ethical veganism have these implications? Are these counter intuitive?",
  "I had been a long term vegetarian, came to that conclusion on my own one day just saying to myself I can\u2019t do this anymore. (ironically it was a meat loving friend who questioned the ethics of eating pork because their hearts are close to human that triggered my thoughts about the ethics of eating meat) I had heard about veganism before and I honestly thought it was the raw food diet. Because every YouTube video I saw about veganism was also featuring raw food people. So when I found out more about veganism in 2018 I cut eggs out of my diet even though I hardly ever ate eggs in the first place. I had struggled with the idea of going fully vegan because of the logistics of it. Like what if I\u2019m out and there\u2019s no vegan food? Because things like picking up a muffin for lunch or a piece of pizza could no longer be done when you\u2019re vegan. Finally after doing some research about dairy I truly believe it\u2019s not good for you and it\u2019s bad for the in animals and environment. I had went to go vegan in July 2019 but I come to find out that I was never vegan to begin with. I had not checked labels thoroughly enough and some foods that I thought were dairy free contain small amounts of milk. I had gone to Dunkin\u2019 Donuts and got almond milk in my latte only to find out that their Vanilla syrup had milk in it. I have been struggling with the idea of what if I get a veggie burger of course with no cheese and the bun may have a small amount of milk in it? Will it really be that bad? I was never a big cheese person to begin with so that wasn\u2019t hard and I switch to non-dairy milk and yogurt. But I came to the conclusion that I will never be vegan even if I\u2019m 100% plant-based because I will have to control vermin in my house. And I will continue going to Six Flags even though they have a Safari. And I enjoy the impossible burger which I know is the subject of debate. I saw social media post from groups called anonymous for the voiceless and they claim that being plant-based or even a vegetarian who is 99% plant-based is worse than being a meat eater. I figure why even bother because I\u2019m just going to be judged. Anyhow I know that I\u2019m not the same as a meat eater I eat exclusively plant based at home and I do my best to eat a plant-based diet when I\u2019m out but I feel uncomfortable interrogating waitstaff about food. I\u2019ll just order a dish with no eggs milk or cheese.  For the record I don\u2019t consider myself the same as a meat eater because every meat eater I know eats a ton of different kinds of meat eggs and cheese.",
  "Obviously the large scale meat industry is causing mass suffering with animals.\n\nBut let's say we're able to scale down the industry and have a more traditional approach like back when there were less people to feed on the planet and people ate less meat. Would this kind of world have less suffering than for example in the Jurassic era? Where competition between animals is highest? Huge carnivores, huge nasty bugs, every animal has some kind of spikes for protection. \n\nVegans for me seem to have a big problem with suffering in general. And with their actions wish to make animals in nature happier. While I think suffering is kinda the basic state of nature. Animals in nature aren't happy, they are twitchy creatures wary of every sound, they don't know peace. Only animals that are more relaxed and have lower stress responses, are domestic animals, dogs, cats, cows.\n\nSo if you delete human race, there would just be another Jurassic era right? If humans can learn to cooexist in their environment and not fuck it up, aren't we the only creatures capable of decreasing net suffering in the world?\n",
  "Hey all, I've had this debate internally for a while. Which is better? The vegans who fit the stereotypical \"aggressive\" vegan who shows animal torture/calls people out directly/protests in grocery stores/etc or the cuddly, empathetic vegan who understands where the Omni is coming from and tries to coax them into \"eating more veggies\"/showing the health benefits/using a more health oriented approach/Stays generally non-judgmental.\n\nI need opinions from both sides.\n\nFor reference, I fall into the cuddly, empathetic vegan but (secret) mad respect for the people who break farm animals out of slaughter houses (This was just to address my own bias in the question for the reader, I don't want to talk about the legality of freeing/stealing farm animals)",
  "sorry, i'm not sure if this is the right subreddit. also please don't attack me.\n\ni can understand that with a balanced diet, we can avoid eating meat. i think it's cool. but if it's possible, why did cavemen decide to eat meat? it was way easier to just eat plants right? (you just have to pick up a plant, meanwhile you have to fight a big ahh animal to eat it)\n\n(also, off topic but do you have any \"better\" subreddit to ask this if it doesn't belong here?)",
  "Assuming you have nobody to give it to, or nobody is willing to accept the food (CoVid times). Would it be more vegan (in concept) to eat the dish than to throw it away? \n\nFor argument\u2019s sake, not like a steak but like. Beef bolognese spaghetti, instead of vegan bolognese like you ordered. \n\nJust curious about how people would approach the situation.\n\nEdit: Thanks for the responses, I decided to collate the arguments presented. Thank you all who decided to participate in civil discussion. I have learned from this experience. \n\n1. No. \n\n1a. Primary reason 1: Health (stomach not being able to take meat anymore, red meat is unhealthy, meat is unhealthy etc)\n\n1b. Primary reason 2: Meat is not viewed as food, as very well explained by u/RisingQueenx \n\n\"vegans are working toward no longer seeing animals as food. Therefore...it isn't really \"food\" going to waste.\" \nand\n\"When you don't see animals as food, then we don't really see it as a waste when an order is wrong.\"\n\n(Analogies to dog/cat/insects/organ meat/humans in my opinion, are separate discussions all together. There are other different reasons people will refuse such dishes. \n\nCats/dogs: typical \"pet\" animals in the US may not be viewed in the same light in other places, where they eat such animals. I personally do not believe there is an *objective* difference in consuming dogs/cats and cows/pigs. Both groups of animals are intelligent and are capable of forming bonds with people and each other. And both groups of animals are intelligent enough to have complex emotional functions. I understand the disgust when \"pet\" type animals are being eaten in other cultures, and the disgust and outrace is understandable. However if a cow-eating person thinks that its objectively morally wrong to eat dogs, I think its hypocritical. \n\nHumans/limbs/children: cannibalism isn't safe, from a brief google search, cannibalistic behaviors can be lethal. It seems to be the go to argument but I believe that the cannibalism argument dilutes the point trying to be made when it is used. \n\nInsects: around 2 billion people eat insects. Also it would be impossible to rule out the existence of insects or insect parts in vegan-labelled produce. There's bound to be an unlucky resident of leafy greens or something that will be too small to be detected and removed. And the whole cockroach thing points to hygiene more than anything else, in which case, even if you found a toe nail or bit of plastic in your vegan food, it would be an issue still.) \n\n1c. Primary reason 3: I paid for a specific dish, and not another/My body is not a trash can. (Sorry I left out in the scenario that you do, receive the correct dish as well, and are now left with 2 dishes. I asked this question in the first place because an acquaintance, who is usually vegetarian, but occasionally eats meat, ordered vegan food and got meat in it. The restaurant messed up the order twice on delivery and got the order right on the third try. (Unprofessional, I know, I'm not here to talk about that). The order was pretty big and the two orders being thrown out imo was a bit wasteful. I thought they could have given it to someone else, I grew up in a household where food waste in frowned upon, and the onus is on the individuals of the household to not waste food. However, this discussion has led me to realise that the guilt of waste should be tied to the restaurant, and not the individual in this scenario. So I guess I learned something from this.\n\n1d. Primary reason 4: Not normalising meat eating. \n\n2. Yes\nWaste, doesn't cause additional animal suffering.",
  "Is whey **ethically** vegan?\n\nNutritionally, it isn't. No debate there.\n\nMeat and dairy aren't nutritionally or ethically vegan either. No debate there.\n\nBut, the way I see it, and from what I have read online, whey is made from a byproduct of the cheese industry. This means that it's different from milk or cheese in that there *is no net animal suffering increase from whey consumption*. The same calves have already suffered in the making of cheese, and the whey would be thrown away if there was no market for it.\n\nIs whey in your opinion not ethically vegan? **Why?**\n\nPlease, if you have the time, answer the same question regarding: Backyard hen eggs, freeganism (dumpster diving) (not like I would ever do that but I want to hear your opinions), and pet ownership (even of you feed your dog vegan food, are you sure it likes the leash? Have you ever let it out in the wild to see if it comes back?\n\nThanks for your time, waiting for responses!",
  "Hunting to save animals from starvation? \n\nA common defense of hunting is that it is used to prevent overpopulation in wild animal populations, and if the animals starved to death, it's more painful than being shot. \n\nPS, where's the FAQ? ",
  "I'm mainly carnivorous with veg for vitamins (full carni diet isn't actually maintainable). Anyone willing to discuss veganism with me?\n\ncanadaposting#7414 (my discord, but I'm willing to discuss in the comments)",
  "Let me preface this by saying that I think veganism is a genuinely noble and moral aspiration, but there is something that always nagged at my mind whenever the topic arises. What are the implications of using a lot of consumer products as a vegan when they're wrought through the suffering of other humans? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a large, driving reason that I see in a lot of people switching to veganism is the morality (or lack thereof) of killing animals for consumption, specifically ones of heightened intelligence. Are the humans who make many of our utilized objects seen in a similar light or as an unfortunate reality since they ultimately don't get directly killed by way of their labor? Sorry if this is a common question, I've just never seemed to receive or found any answer for it.",
  "So I'm still undicided about horse riding as I've heard mixed opinions on wheter the damage caused to their back is due to improper riding, but I do think there is real value in the bond shared between a domesticated horse and their human, something I would like to see continue, so if your against riding as it can cause back problems, what your guys opinions on chariots?",
  "I saw this today and it didn't seem very accurate, but I don't really know all the benefits to plant protein. I was hoping for a few oppinions from both sides, why it's accurate and inaccurate, and the benefits to plant based you can't get from animal protein. \n https://imgur.com/gallery/XPYjs",
  "Burning barn. There's a cow inside. You can save its life, but you have to go in the barn to rescue it. Your life would be at risk. Is saving the cow the vegan way, or would the vegan do nothing and stand outside the barn, listening to the cow's screams of pain as it burned alive? Was that a *necessary* death?\n\nSecond, much different example: It was a rainy day, but the sun finally came out. You go for a walk on a popular sidewalk and notice lots of earthworms. Hundreds of them laying around all along the stretch of concrete. I want to make clear that earthworms do feel pain and can suffer. Does the vegan get to work and individually move every worm into the grass to prevent the worms from either drying out or, more urgently, get trampled to death? Could a vegan ethically justify ignoring the worms and letting them suffer and die, which would lead to the vegan killing some worms because the vegan'd be walking on that sidewalk, too? Here a vegan could make an immediate difference, preventing the death and suffering of hundreds of animal. Can the vegan ethically ignore this?\n\n3rd example: Let's the the vegan was almost late for work and about to be fired, and comes upon this sidewalk. Is your job worth the death and suffering of hundreds of animals? How could a vegan justify ignoring the earthworms?",
  "I know I'm not converting any vegans into meat-eaters with this question, I just had a weird thought last night and I'm curious what your opinion is.\n\nBillions of farm animals have been raised and slaughtered over the past hundred years and most of them lived undesirable lives, but if everyone on earth had instead been vegan for the past hundred years then those animals would've never been born in the first place. \n\nSo is it worse to be a farm animal or is it worse to have never existed in the first place? I think it's better to be a farm animal but of course \"it depends.\" ",
  "I and my family are vegetarian, except an uncle. we have not consumed meat of any animal since birth not even egg. But my family have two cows since we are farmers and have been keeping cows as pet for long before my grandpa's times. \nWe consume milk and milk based products. \nThe thing is that we let the calf drink the milk first, and once calf is done and leaves the udder we milk out the rest milk, hardly we get 2.5litres and sometimes 3 litres only. Does that kind of produced products align veganism or is that ethical as per the principles veganism is based on.",
  "In ideal vegan world, where there are no animals raised for meat and dairy, what would be \"acceptable\" to feed our omnivore/carnivore pets (especially cats) with?",
  "When I did eat meat, I was so disconnected with the actual process because all I saw was nicely packaged parcels of protein when I shopped. \n\nI would have quit cold turkey (pun) if I were given knife and told to slit a chicken's throat/gut it. I just couldn't take the life of another living creature and when I realized that, I gave meat up. Then when I was surprise educated about the egg/dairy industry, I gave that up too. \n\nCould/would you do it? (Dig deep - honest answers please.)",
  "Serious question for vegan folks who have dogs and/or cats (carnivorous since forever). How do (you) feel about buying their food? Should true vegans choose to not have pets in order to stay true to their beliefs? No sarcasm intended, I am truly curious.",
  "Hello all, I am on the road to becoming a vegan. I am not here to argue; I just want others opinions. I have researched and watched youtube videos, but I still would like to here what you guys have to say.  First off, I am anemic, so I do take an Iron supplement. Eventually, I hope to get off my supplements through a vegan diet. However, I have a concern with the lack of vitamin B12 in the vegan diet. I think taking a B12 supplement defeats the purpose. You take supplements when your diet is insufficient. So where do you get B12? This brings me to the whole \u201cVeggan\u201d thing that I have seen causing heated debates. A \u201cVeggan\u201d is a person who follows a vegan diet but also incorporates cruelty free eggs. Eggs are rich in iron and B12, but are not that great for you (but hey neither are oreos). So health aside for a minute, what are the ethical problems you have with eating cruelty free eggs? I see huge backlash on these \u201cVeggans.\u201d Yet, by buying cruelty free eggs, they are supporting animal sanctuaries that save and take care of ex-commercial animals. Either way, I do not understand the bitterness towards Veggans. I am all ears and open minded to anything you guys have to say.  \n\n\nBasically, I want to know: where vegans get B12 naturally and how you feel about \u201cVeggans.\u201d",
  "I often feel alienated by the rethorics many vegans use. One common thing to say is that omnis are \"murderers\". I can't help but feel like this is a double standard where humans are seen as inherently evil when they do the same things as any other species, while animals just do things instinctively and are not held responsible. How the same act can be condemned as very evil when done by one being but \"just natural\" when done by another?\n\nI want to note that I'm not now talking about the ethics of modern farming industry, which I do not support. But the pure act of killing an animal for food, while it had as good/bad life as the wild animals killed by other animals. \n\nAnd also, that I also think there's several reasons why people should not eat animals but rather be vegan. So this is not me trying to justify anything, I'm just curious about the reasoning behind this.\n\nAnd yet one more thing, I don't think \"you don't have to\" is an answer that explains why it's _evil_ when done by one but _not evil_ when done by another being.",
  "**Lab-meat**\n \nIt's a long time coming and, while it's still not here, it's becoming more and more a reality. It has many nicknames (cultured, lab-grown, clean, suffering-free), but the essence and process is the same: meat that's made in labs/factories from a batch of cells, or even just *one single cell*, rather than meat that's cut-off from dead animals.\n \nIt has the potential to be much 'greener' (both in terms of greenhouse gasses and uses of: energy, water, and resources), cheaper, healthier (no antibiotics to grow species-jumping 'superbugs' during slaughter and no E. coli to contaminate the meat), and all without the need for slaughter and suffering. All you'd need is a base set of cells. And therein lies the problem I'd like to discuss.\n \n**Veganism (and vegetarianism)**\n \nVegans could have a couple of reasons to have the diet they have, these could also be complementary. Some have utilitarian reasons (preventing suffering), others Kantian concerns (respecting autonomy/rights), yet others are in it for health-reason, and some even do it for religious reasons (like Jains), I have even met someone who chose a plant-based diet for only culinary reasons (though they didn't strictly call themselves vegan), and there may well be more.\n\n**Religions**\n \nWhile there are also many religions with dietary laws (most well known are: Jainism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity (to some extent as well), and Islam) that are affected by these new meat products, I think they'd best be discussed in their own right and not become a point of distraction for this topic.\n \n**Considerations**\n \nIt stands to reason that a consuming single cell will not prevent the meal to be rightly judged as carnist (or non-vegan/non-vegetarian) - but this is my debatable question. For example: 4 of my friends will come over for dinner, we all eat the same meal, but each with our own plate. I prepare the meal by using two pans. During this, I used a knife to cut all the things. Unbeknownst to me, however, the knife still had one mere meat-cell on it, from a previous meal, that managed to stick to it. Despite the thorough washing I did. During the preparation of this meal, this single cell was transferred to a piece of courgette that ended up on one of the pans.\n \nSo, my questions would be: could it still be considered vegan/vegetarian? This could be answered on several levels: the entire meal, that one pan, just the courgette, merely the bite that contained that one single cell.\n \nOne objection would be: you tried, sincerely. Besides, cells can travel through the sky as well. All-in-all, the *intent* to make a vegan/vegetarian meal was there.\n \nAnother objection could be: you were *under the very reasonable impression* that it was in fact vegan/vegetarian, so, therefore, we could deem it as such anyway.\n \nYet another objection would be: you're not dealing with the *fuzzy logic* that the world is made of, these laws are the same. One single grain of sand does not make or break a heap of sand, the same goes for one single cell. You cannot simply draw the line at an arbitrary number. It's the wrong question to ask.\n \nAre there other possible objections?\n \nWhat would these objections and counter-arguments mean for the tons of meat produced from one single cell? Could they be completely adopted without change, would they require minor or major adaptations, would they be completely rejected? Would other yet objections and counter-arguments be able to succeed?\n \n**Final thoughts**\n \nI understand that this depends a lot on your ethical outlook. Consequentialists could have a radically different view than Kantians, while the health reasons would be completely unaffected (unless they were of the antibiotics and E. coli kind), and the religious reasons could be very much up to discussion.\n \nA principled vs pragmatic outlook also plays into this heavily. I don't think it's easy to solve on the principles side, so I expect there to be the most debate. Since I'm a pragmatist, that would be fine in calling this \"vegan\", I'd be looking most forward to those responses. (Even more radically, I think this could be a nice opportunity for those German (auto)cannibals to do what they like without being ethically bad - wins all around!)",
  "Hey y'all my girlfriend and I were debating the morality of egg and dairy production. She is very against me giving up eggs and dairy. These were some of her arguments. Please help me refute them. \n\n1) Cows produce x amount of milk. Even if we let the calf get first dibs, we should still milk the cow for what's left. My friend claims that it is painful to the cow to have extra milk in her udders. So she made it sound like we were doing them a service by relieving the cow of that pain. And that milk is just a by-product of helping the cows. She realizes this is not how it is done in industrial scale milk production, but she said it could work on a \"small, local farm\" and be moral. \n\n2) Because animal production is so integrated into our society and economy, an entire halt on egg, dairy, and meat production would destroy the economy and human lives would be lost due to it. \n\n3) People that live in certain places with limited resources (she gave the example of Haiti), would starve if they stopped producing and consuming animal products. \n\n4) If you stop producing warm clothes from animals--wool, fur, down--people would not be able to survive in all the places that they currently live, and it would not be financially possible for all those people to just up and leave their jobs and move to a warmer place. \n\nThat's all I can remember right now. I might come back with more later. Thanks! \n\n\nEDIT: I appreciate all the thorough replies! I'm only a couple weeks into veganism, but this community has been nothing but helpful so far. ",
  "I just found this sub and am commenting a bit, so this overlaps a little with some things I've said.  Believe me, I don't understand people who eat what they want just because they want it, with no regard to sourcing.  \n\nBut how is it actually possible to call oneself vegan, and act as if one is not implicit in the suffering of living things?  Why do we make that the ethical or moral bar?  Shouldn't we be working for something bigger and not focusing on just what we do to animals?  ",
  "I don't really see the pros of veganism. Convince me why veganism is better than other diets, and why I should go vegan.",
  "If someone were to describe someone strong and courageous what comes to mind? Somebody who stands up for what is morally right? Somebody who protects the helpless victims that they encounter? Somebody that is willing to sacrifice their time energy and effort to bring justice in an unjust world?\n\nWhat does it mean to be weak? To victimize those who cannot defend themselves? To exploit those who we deem less valuable? To cause unnecessary harm to sentient beings capable of feeling and expressing pain? To oppress the under privileged  just because it\u2019s the status quo?\n\nThroughout all of human history we have looked back with reverence to those who have stood up in defiance of social norms when it comes to unjust causes. We quote them and use their words to give us something to strive for because we know how much opposition they faced when stepping up to such daunting challenges.\n\nDo non vegans believe that living a vegan lifestyle is easier? Do you believe that vegans willingly choose to oppose the norm in order to gain something beyond the scope of animal liberation? Do they ever stop to question why this movement is so important to us? Or do you just not care because you don\u2019t have to, no different than slave owners when slavery was still legal and it wasn\u2019t mandated to care for these issues.\n\nSo my argument has two parts, the first is what exactly is your perception of strength/weakness and how does it apply to your current lifestyle.\nThe second being why do you believe that vegans would endure so much adversity for something that you believe to be trivial in nature?",
  "This is a bit of an open question but basically I've just watched [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMqmEGUWsLE&ab_channel=Veganut) and couldn't help but think that the guy filming, although he may well have had the best intentions, was a bit of an arsehole. The people in this video are eating at a vegan restaurant (which may be the reason for him getting agitated) but if they're there it shows they're at least making steps towards cutting down their animal product consumption.\n\nBasically, what do you think is the 'line in the sand' for trying to convert others to veganism? There seems to be a trend of people videoing themselves approaching fur wearer and I think that would just discourage a lot of people from adopting veganism, but keen to hear what others think.\n\nP.S: this applies the same to issues such as honey, where some people call themselves vegan and eat it whereas others don't. Don't want this thread to get hung up on certain issues, more the tactics used to engage people with veganism.",
  "https://np.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/7ua9us/this_made_me_laugh/dtj9300/?context=3\n\nI feel like the most recent comment from me is really solid. I also feel like this person might not be fully capable of having this argument, but I'm not sure yet.",
  "A little backstory on me-\nI love animals, and I love eating meat\n\nSo my question is, since many animals on a farm would have never existed without the intention to slaughter/harvest them, is getting rid of animal farming really a good thing for the animal? It's one thing if the conditions are inhumane, but if they had a decent life prior to being killed, is a lack of life really better? This is why I could never get into the vegan/vegetarian thing, even though I do feel bad about the pain of other creatures. I just think it's an ethical question I could ever begin to answer.",
  "I feel like, in general, far too many vegans focus on not eating *meat*, simply because it's *meat*.\n\nSame goes for dairy products.\n\nI hunt my own food. I catch my fish by diving in the ocean for them. I keep chickens happy and healthy, they give me eggs.\ufeff\n\nNo, eating fish is not needed (Most things we own/take a part in is needless. We all pick and choose.). I eat fish because I want to eat fish. I freedive anywhere between 25 - 35 meters with nothing but my breath, and a spear. I enter their world, without any advantages, and risk my life to hunt them. I like doing it, I like the process of hunting and eating. Nothing is wasted. Most of the fish I hunt are invasive species, some are actually harming the ocean and need to be controlled (red lionfish for example). I take no part in the cruelty that occurs in factory farms/slaughterhouses.\n\nI don't eat pork or beef, because I cannot hunt cows and pigs. In my opinion, what I do is fair. I care for animals deeply.\n\nWhat is the logic behind simply not eating meat or dairy, just because its meat or dairy?\n\nYou can't just look at an egg, as an egg. You look at where it came from. My chickens are very happy, they have a lot of open land and live in nature. They even hunt on the occasional wild mouse, which they love to do. They are friendly, and very sociable with me, too. There is nothing wrong with consuming the eggs they produce.\n\nNow, if one of my pet chickens die from natural causes, after living a full and healthy life, is it okay to eat it then?\n\nAnd lastly, by refusing to eat meat, how are you helping these animals? last I checked, they are still being tortured and killed. I think maybe, instead of not eating meat just because its needless, we should do something that makes a real impact. And no, awareness doesn't count.\ufeff\n\nI'd appreciate any arguments, thanks.",
  "To preface my post this is not something I'm personally supporting, I am just playing the devil's advocate\n\n\nPer the definition posted on vegansociety, which many vegans tend to cite in vegan debates\n\n\n\"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude\u2014as far as is possible and practicable\u2014all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.\"\n\n\nI have been largely convinced by the vegan argument but I have some qualms with it after realising a cruelty-free diet is practically impossible since we are still responsible of the deaths of millions of animals from different species from agriculture alone. Of course this is when one would argue that feeding animals requires growing more crops thus causing more suffering than a simple plant based diet, and I would agree with that for the most part. But here is an alternative: hunting. Hunting causes the death of only one animal compared to the multiple animals one would have caused by other forms of feeding, including plant based diets. Wouldn't it be in this instance, according to the definition most vegans follow-at least the first half of it-, the best ethical action one could take? I realize this is unsustainable on a large population scale, but I am talking about the individual now not the practicality of everyone going out and hunting their own food.",
  "No one take offense or anything. I am sincerely wondering what the opinion on this is.... Personally I feel like humans ARE superior and must care for the planet. Looking for answers from both the religious and non religious perspectives",
  "I posted something similar to this as a comment, but figured it could be its own post. I am not a vegan, but my understanding of veganism is that it basically consists of two prerequisites:\n\n1. The ethical position that it is wrong to kill, harm, exploit, or otherwise use animals for human convenience.\n2. The act of not using, and not condoning the use of, animal products to the greatest extent possible.\n\nSo here\u2019s my nitpick. I think we can agree that human ourselves are naturally occurring animals. Now, nobody would argue in nature that predators have an ethical duty to respect the lives of their prey, or that they are doing something wrong by consuming prey. For example, a lion isn\u2019t committing a crime by killing a zebra. So, why are humans different? Does our mere capacity for compassion obligate us to behave differently than every other animal? And if so, what is your reasoning?",
  "How do people feel about transplants from pigs and cows?",
  "Edit: every comment I'm making is getting downvoted to oblivion so I'm going to stop commenting. I think I've been very civil and open minded so I'm not sure why you guys want to make me feel so unwelcome here.\n\nI have great respect for vegans and concern for animal welfare (I'm gametarian/freegan). I hope someday the vegans who care more about masturbatory righteous indignation will be outnumbered by those who genuinely care about animals. When that happens I genuinely believe the vegan movement will grow massively and it really needs to. Factory farming is disgusting and embarrassing.",
  "I was discussing the idea of \"fixing\" my dog with my boyfriend and he told me that \"wasn't very vegan of me\" because it is treating the dog like a machine and probably not giving any value to her wants/desires. I know it sounds ridiculous, but is it inhumane/non-vegan to remove my dog's reproductive abilities?",
  "I stopped eating meat 10 months ago. I cut dairy and eggs about 9 months ago. My motivation is bog standard ethical veganism, in particular the suffering argument made by CosmicSkeptic. I buy my honey from a local beekeeper who does not use a fogger. I have an old dog that I treat well who I like to think is happy with me, though there is no way to know for sure.\n\nEdit: I got the dog when he was 3 from some people who couldn't take care of him. He is now 12.",
  "I understand that fur has long ties with cruelty but I do not see how it\u2019s unethical to purchase second hand fur, since it\u2019s not driving demand for new fur. A vegan friend found my fur coat upsetting despite being second hand, and I\u2019m guessing that it\u2019s an emotional response, but if anyone has a rational explanation for why it\u2019s wrong I would love to hear it. I want to clarify that I never would buy new fur, and that I hope to be fully plantbased asap (in social situations I\u2019m still a vegetarian). I also don\u2019t want to invalidate my friend\u2019s emotions, I just want to understand!",
  "Long post, skip this paragraph if you don't care about backstory. I'm going to lay out my basic framework for why I think eating meat is okay and I want you guys to try and refute my arguments. I have a lot of people I respect in my life who are vegan, and they've talked to me about it, and I didn't really have a reason I could give them. I thought about it, and have come to some conclusions, and I just want someone to check my thinking. I will also say I'm completely against factory farming and the suffering of animals, and think meat consumption should be drastically reduced due to the environmental impacts, but this discussion here will be fully philosophical in nature.\n\nThe main arguments I've heard for veganism is the name the trait argument, and some implications from that argument, Rawl's thought experiment concerning justice, and the animal suffering argument.\n\nName the trait, for those unfamiliar, is when a vegan asks a meat eater to name the trait that makes humans different from non-humans, and they argue that there isn't a trait that explains the difference. Intelligence, for example, exists on a spectrum, with some humans being completely braindead. Just because a human is braindead obviously doesn't make it justifiable to kill them. When it comes to species though, I've never heard a good argument other than people saying it's arbitrary, and is the same argument for racism and sexism. But really, I think the species argument is the opposite. I think you shouldn't eat humans because they're humans, and they have more value to me than animals because I'm a human and everyone around me is a human. That's the main thing that eliminates racism. Why should I treat women the same when they're physically weaker on average? Why should I treat cannibalistic tribes the same when they commit such barbaric acts? Why should I treat a severely mentally disabled person the same when they can't do anything for themselves? Because they're all human.\n\nRawl's thought experiment (heavily simplified by me) is essentially asking if you would be okay with humans eating meat if you were born a chicken? Would you want to risk being born one, given you may end up being killed for food? My answer is no, I wouldn't want to be a chicken that's killed for food, but I don't see how that makes the human culpable. In making this comparison, your assuming humans and chickens have the same moral value, but as I established, I don't think they do. And I don't really see how this argument holds water if you accept that humans are more morally valuable than other creatures. The only complicating factor is that just because they have less moral value than humans doesn't mean they have no moral value, it doesn't necessarily mean you can do whatever you want to them. So how do you know where to draw that line? Why not just eat monkeys? They aren't human, after all, so what makes them different? Well, I draw that line in the next paragraph.\n\nThe last argument is the argument of animal suffering. Going back to the previous one, I certainly wouldn't want to be born as a factory farmed chicken, and I think that animal suffering is wrong, but I don't think death is the same thing as suffering. Death is just a lack of life, and you have to be alive in order to suffer. If a chicken is raised on a small farm and lives a good life, but is slaughtered at a younger age, why is that considered suffering, but a chicken living in the wild and getting eaten by a wolf isn't? The reason I've always been given is that the chicken has autonomy to live how it wants, and the suffering is caused by taking that autonomy away. And I'm sorry, but I just disagree. By that logic, owning pets is immoral because the pet is similarly being subjugated by you, the only difference is that your not killing it. I think that controlling the life of a lesser animal is not inherently bad, but only bad if the life you are making them lead is a bad one. This is also the reason why I don't think it's moral to eat higher intelligence creatures, like octopi, dolphins, elephants, monkeys, etc. They're intelligent enough that taking away their autonomy would actually negatively impact their life and cause them to suffer.\n(Just so we're clear, this is not the same name the trait argument as before. The main name the trait I discussed was comparing humans to other animals, and as already discussed, the distinguishing factor is the fact that they're not human. This trait is what separates the animals from each other.)\n\nSorry for the long post, and thanks if you read the whole thing. I hope you'll have some interesting things for me to consider :)",
  "Does it really exist ? And is it sustainable in the long term ?",
  "Most of the arguments against bivalve-consumption tend to be based on misconceptions (bivalves are animals and therefore sentient), a misunderstanding or ignorance of what the literature says (that bivalves are sentient), or that bivalves are particularly unhealthy or pose significant environmental concerns.\n\nThe issue with the first two is that they're just not supported by scientific evidence. The issue with the last two is that they're just based on a double standard for bivalves that vegans wouldn't hold for plant products.\n\nFor example, vegans don't argue that we shouldn't drink alcohol because of health concerns or that we shouldn't eat almonds or avocados because of environmental concerns. It's only bivalves that these concerns apply to because they're \"animals.\"\n\nVegans should be honest about what their real concern is. Their real concern is that bivalves MIGHT BE sentient. The problem: there is little to no scientific support for this hypothesis.\n\nDo any vegans who oppose bivalve-consumption have any models of consciousness that have been published in the literature that suggest bivalve sentience? Panpsychist theories, such as Integrated Information Theory (IIT), don't help the argument, because these suggest that *everything* is sentient, including calculators and plants.\n\nI know of multiple models that either completely rule out bivalve consciousness or at the very least fail to rule it in. These include Neurobiological Naturalism, Unlimited Associative Learning, and Complex Active Bodies leading to Basic Cognitive Embodiment.\n\nLinks available upon request.",
  "obviously, wool is considered unethical from a vegan perspective, due to the harm that befalls the sheep during sheering.\n\nhowever, it's no mystery that acrylic clothing is incredibly environmentally damaging (and health damaging!). when washed in a washing machine, microfibres from these artificial clothings are released into the water system, which then make their way into the sea and river. this later goes directly into the bodies of humans and animals, and infact, human babies are now being born with microplastics INSIDE of their placentas.\n\nmany warmer clothings that are 'vegan' (think knitted jumpers) are made with acrylic wool.\n\nwould vegans say it's more ethical to buy secondhand wool jumpers, or acrylic jumpers?\n\npersonally, I believe in the long run, using wool over acrylic for clothing is the least harmful and impactful. wool can definitely be harvested in an ethical manner where sheep don't have to suffer or die, but acrylic clothing and the sheer amount of plastic in today's world can never be not harmful",
  "Pretty self explanatory. If someone cuts meat by 50%, then they haven't made any philosophical progress. Their reasoning for cutting meat consumption may vary, from health reasons to environmental reasons or maybe just to try and fit in with their vegan friends.\n\nBut being vegan is a black or white philosophy not a grayscale. You either believe that animals are commodities that we have an inherent right to exploit, or you don't. Someone who cuts meat consumption by 50%, or still eats dairy, or still eats fish, or still eats honey, or still wears leather or wool, or still buys non-vegan pet food, or feels \"naughty\" every once in a while and eats a chicken nugget, has not made any philosophical progress. They still believe that animals are commodities that we have an inherent right to exploit.\n\nEdit: Change the terminalogy from \"moral\" to \"philosophical,\" as u/NazKer points out\n\n> I\u2019m not sure I\u2019d call it \u201cmoral progress\u201d, instead maybe \u201cphilosophical progress\u201d.\n\n> You either believe animals are commodities or you don\u2019t, which would be a philosophy.\n\n> Morality is more so consisting of either moral, neutral, or immoral actions. I do believe there\u2019s a measure here with morality. You can definitely gauge a greater or lesser evil, for example.\n\n> I wouldn\u2019t call someone who abstains from all animal products except a single steak every year **morally equal** to someone who gobbles down all animals products 3-5x a day.. One\u2019s the lesser evil, *but* philosophically, they still view animal products as commodities, so they may be level on the philosophical plane.",
  "I am thinking about buying a coffee shop, but I do not think a vegan coffee shop would necessarily thrive in the area I\u2019m in. So, I am considering compromising here and still offering regular milk for coffee drinks, and just having my food menu be vegan. \n\nTerrible idea? Is it more terrible than starting a vegan coffee shop and having it fail? Should I just completely scrap this whole idea because I\u2019m vegan?\n\n\nEdit: Just to add, technically if do this and make our food menu vegan I would be reducing the current amount of animal products being bought because right now the coffee shop\u2019s menu is very meat and cheese based. Obviously that doesn\u2019t make it actually moral though.\n\nLil update: All of these comments have been very helpful, I am kind of leaning towards being fully vegan quietly. Or maybe publicly and possibly go bankrupt. \ud83d\ude02 \n\nNo, but it could maybe work if I did it like that and then word of mouth would get out so vegans would be aware, but also I\u2019d still get that potential traffic from non-vegans trying us out not realizing we\u2019re vegan. And I mean, I guess if someone\u2019s pissed and leaves a review saying \u201cThey\u2019re all vegan and didn\u2019t say so, false advertising!\u201d, it hopefully wouldn\u2019t turn too many people off? \ud83e\udd37\u200d\u2640\ufe0f\n\nI suppose I\u2019d just have to have a sign by the register stating our default is oat milk or something like that. Definitely an option. A scary one, but life is scary. Not totally sold on buying at all yet anyway, but hopefully it all works out. Appreciate everyone\u2019s opinions!",
  "Meat only diet needs way more supplements than just b12 and d3 which vegans take, while majority humans globally are deficient in both even after eating meat. People who follow meat only diet literally starve. Then why is a whole food plant based diet called a starvation and nutrient deficient diet?",
  "Vermicompost is essentially composting with worms. The worms eat and breakdown the material and in turn produce a compost created from their manure. From the people Ik that do it the worms live their whole natural lifespan. Would you consider growing vegetables in such a compost vegan? \n\nOn a similar note if you compost in your back yard and throw dog poop in with it. Would this break your definition of veganism? \n\nFrom my understanding being vegan is not using / eating products that came about by the exploitation of animals. In these cases would you be exploiting these animals?",
  "Hello,\n\nThis would be more of an open question than a debate topic. I myself am not vegan, but have cut my meat consumption down to a couple meals a week; mainly due to the fact that I\u2019m reaching an age where I need to start being a little more heart healthy, and partly to cut back on my consumerism and my impact on the environment.\n\nI know there is a large spectrum when it comes to being vegan, and there isn\u2019t quite a dogma that can be referred to that would deter blanket statements. So this question is more aimed to people who believe there is a moral or ethical high ground to being vegan.\n\nWhat are your thoughts on the cultural barriers that keep entire populations from becoming ethical eaters? One of the reasons I know I could never commit to being a real vegan is a racial one. My mother is Korean, and though it would be easy to be a vegetarian in Korea, I really don\u2019t think that it would be possible to be vegan.\n\nAlmost all food in Korea is prepared with some kind of animal by-product, even the blogs I\u2019ve read of people trying to be vegan fail to realize that the marinades and sauces that they are applying to their once vegan dishes have shrimp and oyster in them.\n\nI think there is very little chance of veganism to spread into the east, mainly due to cultural biases. If you were to tell a Korean chef to cook something without animal by-products he would probably just give you a vegetarian meal, not understanding that dried shrimp flakes to be not okay.\n\nHow does a person judge an entire race and culture that holds a non-vegan food as inseparable to their very cultural fabric?",
  "I am a dairy farmer, but I have no issue with veganism. Anybody who eats still supports agriculture and that's good enough in my book. But I see lies posted constantly about what livestock farming actually entails. \"Rape racks\" aren't a thing, milk isn't full of blood and pus then bleached, cows and calves don't cry for each other for days or weeks (or at all actually) after immediate separation, cows don't \"collapse from exhaustion after they stop producing milk at 5 years old\", down animals cannot be slaughtered, farm protection laws weren't made to hide animal abuse (just the opposite), livestock are not leading cause of climate change, just to name a few.\n\n Agriculture is a huge field of science with millions of dollars being put toward research annually. Animal welfare and reducing rates of disease, injury, premature culling, and on farm death are at the forefront. I subscribe to several cattle magazines and every other article is about improving cattle health, comfort, and farm management. The way I understand it, veganism is a stance against killing and it's undeniable the livestock industry results in death. There's no reason then to make up lies about what's actually going on because death IS going on. So why the misinformation?",
  "The leading authority on nutrition \n( the academy of nutrition and dietetics )\nStates that a well planned vegan lifestyle fits all the dietary nutritional needs from infancy to death. \n\nhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20position%20of,and%20treatment%20of%20certain%20diseases.\n\nThis is contrary to the famous food pyramid developed and paid for by the U.S. department of agriculture which is well known to have vested interest in the meat and dairy industry. Whole generations have been deceived into believing that in order to achieve optimal health we must enslave a cow, artificially inseminate it, wait for it to start lactating so that we can drink it\u2019s interspecies breast milk that was meant for it\u2019s offspring.\n\nSo my argument is this, if somebody exposed how you have been indoctrinated into a belief system that has vast negative repercussions on your health/the environment/the life of a sentient being, why wouldn\u2019t you feel obligated to question that institution and your own belief systems in order to make positive changes accordingly?\n\nYou can say that you don\u2019t care but at the end of the day humans are a social based species who are genetically hardwired to care, so dismissing this notion is counter intuitive to flourishing as an individual and as a member of our society.",
  "I think the author of [this article](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html) makes some strong arguments for why vegans can and should eat oysters. I'd love to hear arguments against. ",
  "If a vampire only drinks blood from people who give them consent to drink their blood, does that mean they are vegan?",
  "My SO and I will adopt a dog this year and we\u2019re both pretty excited. It\u2019s been a dream of ours since before going vegan.\n\nNow, as I just said, we\u2019re both living on a plant based diet. I have been for about one year and a couple months, for him it\u2019s about one year. We went vegan for the animals, the planet and he additionally for his health. But since ethical reasons were the major factor for me, I started to research about vegan dog food, and now I\u2019m even more confused than before. \n\nA lot of sources claimed that it is completely healthy to put your dog on a *vegetarian* diet. Which isn\u2019t much of a help for me, since I don\u2019t really care whether alive or dead animals were used for it. The vegan diet however seems to be a very hot topic. Vegan dog food brands claim to fulfill all a dog needs (of course). Then there\u2019s vegan vets saying it\u2019s okay and non vegan vets saying it\u2019s not okay. There\u2019s studies saying it\u2019s okay and other saying it isn\u2019t. There\u2019s posts about dogs living happily to a high age on a vegan diet, and posts about dogs dying because of it. I\u2019m very torn.\n\nI know that dogs don\u2019t need taurine from an animal source like cats do, but I\u2019m sure their bodies process food differently than ours. I would like to know if there\u2019s anything vegan dog food has to contain for it to be an option. My family has cattle and chickens, my uncle is hunter and has leftovers a lot of times as well, I would try and get a hand on those if there\u2019s the chance. But it would be nowhere close to being part of the regular diet. Do dogs stop producing the enzyme that can digest meat like our human bodies do? I wouldn\u2019t want him to get belly aches if that\u2019s the case. \n\nGenerally, if your dog is or was vegan, please tell me about your experience. Thank you :)",
  "Do Vegans who believe humans should not eat animals dislike carnivores? Or animals which are omnivores? Because if you think about it it's pretty similar to say a hunter shooting their dinner.",
  "I've been on and off vegan. Cows and pigs seem intelligent enough.\nAnd I do think the value of a life correlates with intelligence. \nI'm unsure of chickens, so would side with \"not ok to eat\" to be safe.\n\n\nBefore someone inevitably brings it up, I do think mentally challenged people are an obvious burden on society. And if autism and most forms of mental retardation could be completely prevented I see zero reason on why that would be a bad thing.\n\n\nBut at the same time protecting your own species should be #1 on your priority list. So outright murdering your own species seems like a huge grievance. \nI have this gross suspicion that some vegans literally value a human child's life and a cockroaches or stray cat's life as equal. \nAnd I just can't accept that. \n\n\nI know bees are endangered, I know overfishing is contributing to pollution. But why not eat crabs? Or lobsters? Or oysters? \n\n\nHave you seen them swarm in millions of numbers at the bottom of the ocean? Or that they eat each other when food is scarce?\n\n\nWhy on earth is a bug's life valuable? \nI saw a post on vegan about how salmon can get depressed and just rolled my eyes. They may be able to feel physical pain but they can't suffer existentially. Suffer psychologically. I only care about animals up to a certain point, not really in a black or white way. \n\n\nI had an extremely intelligent eel, there are intelligent marine creatures I wouldn't eat like octopuses, but most are not.. and the only reason I would avoid eating bass or trout is the overfishing problem. But there are charts to show which fish are \"safe to eat\" currently. And farmed fish may cause pollution. But if I can't stick to being vegan completely and keep breaking, isn't eating only some sea creatures better than eating all food animals?",
  "https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs#:~:text=How%20much%20food%20waste%20is,percent%20of%20the%20food%20supply.\n\n\nWe talk about a lot of stuff regarding environmental impacts. \n\nHow is this not recognized as the number 1 factor of environmental damage, food inefficiency. \n\nOmnivorous animals, chickens and pigs, have historically been used to decrease food waste. \n\nI would argue the fact that between 1/3 and 1/2 of all food, plants and animals, are thrown away is the greatest environmental concern our food industry faces. The primary solution to this is animals. \n\nWhat say you, vegginauts?",
  "I've read through some of the more recent and most upvoted thread and this is something that kind of rubbed me the wrong way.\n\nI am not vegan, though I am fairly convinced that there are a lot of decent arguments for veganism. I also think the only argument for not being vegan is comfort and personal pleasure.\n\nFor some this may outweigh the other arguments, for some it doesn't. Some try eating only those animal products, that minimize animal suffering.\n\nThe main things that often \"cripple\" a case being made for veganism are:\n\n\n(This is obviously my personal opinion, I'm fairly sure others look at these in a very similar way, though)\n\n* \"This is not a personal choice, because the negative consequences are not limited to you.\"\n\nI don't see the reasoning behind trying to tell people that this is not their choice.\nIt very evidently is. By debating whether it *should* be a personal choice, I always get condescending and patronizing vibes.\nIs this necessary?\n\n\n\n\n* \"There has to be a reason to eat animal products, not one to refrain from it\"\n\nWho decides that? I like the idea of \"think about what you do, before blindly following others\" but realistically, you won't need good reasons to maintain status quo, the opposite is the case.\n\nThis also often gives me the feeling that some people think I need to justify my decisions in from of them, for some reason.\n\nWho are you to decide what I need to justify and what not? It's a very personal decision, I don't think anyone other than the individual themselves has a say in what kind of reasons they need.\n\n\n\nThat's gonna be all.\n\nI also *kind of* dislike the \"Veganism is healthy\" argument.\nI'm fairly sure it's not wrong and can be at least as healthy as a normal diet, but very few non-vegans pay much attention to their diet anyway. \nTo be a perfectly healthy vegan, you have to put at least some effort into thinking about what you eat and where you get which nutrients from.\n\nIt simply requires more effort to be healthy than a normal diet does.\n",
  "Hi\n\nI might be off topic but I'm not here to debate as much as I'm here to hear your opinion on the subject. Some scientific paper are arguing that plant and trees are actually able to feel pain and even have a kind of social life.\n\nMy question is simple, what would you do if it was proven that plant can react in a simmilar way as the animals you refuse to eat?\n\nThanks in advance for your answers. ",
  "Hello! \nI\u2019m vegan and I googled if Steve Irwin was vegan too. Turns out, he was not. He gives the following quote: \n\n\u201cLet's say this represents one cow, which will keep me in food for, let's say, a month. Now that cow needs this much land and food. Well, you can imagine, that cow needs x by x amount of land, and you can grow trees in it. Around that cow, you can have goannas, kangaroos, wallabies. You can have every other single Australian animal in and around that cow,\" Steve told The Scientific American. \"If I was a vegetarian, to feed me for that month, I need this much land, and nothing else can grow there. Herein lies our problem. If we level that much land to grow rice and whatever, then no other animal could live there except for some insect pest species. Which is very unfortunate.\"\n\nDo you think we\u2019re taking animals\u2019 homes if we grew enough food for all humans to be vegan? I\u2019d love to know everyone\u2019s thoughts on this because this is a perspective I wasn\u2019t aware of and never considered.",
  "I'm speciesist. I value the life and all that entails of certain species (plural) over other animals. I'd wager that you are also speciesist. If you are not speciesist, and you value the life of a human the same as an earthworm and a rat, then you're a sociopath and mentally ill. \n\nSo why should I care if cattle suffers? I mean, everybody is biased in favor of certain animals to begin with. Why should we care about the ones we eat?\n\nBecause they suffer? But I'm speciesist. And so are you, so you can empathize with me. Why care about animals we're biased against? You wouldn't call speciesism ethically wrong, now would you? Because that makes you a sociopath. \n\nWhat are your arguments?",
  "I've heard a few different reasons; from simply enjoying meat to the 'appeal to nature' argument whereby it's claimed we 'need' meat to survive.\n\nIn short, what would make you go vegan?",
  "Firts of all, I respect veganism and its philosophy. I'm not trying to troll or disrespect.\n\nGelatin is a known issue among vegans and some religious groups since it is extracted from animal skin, bones and other parts. While its use in food can be avoided or replaced, there are also industrial uses - (not limited to) glues, matches, photographic films and LCD. \n\nI'm especially interested in LCD, since gelatin is widely used as colour filter in it. There are other technologies, but dyed gelatin is the most popular (as far as I know, maybe it has changed recently).\n\nAre there any indicators like 'this device is gelatin-free' or 'vegan' signs on electronic devices with LCD? Are there any electronic manufacturers which care about being vegan? If not, how can vegans consciously choose between devices with displays? \n\nMaybe there is a wider issue with the electronics industry and being vegan? Or is there no issue at all?",
  "The crux of the vegan argument is that we as individuals should be vegan because by purchasing animal products we're funding animal cruelty/exploitation.  However, I'm not convinced the onus of blame is on the consumer here.  Shouldn't the blame and responsibility be on the companies producing the products?  If the consumer is responsible for the world's horrors, why not use the same logic across the board:  whenever you buy clothing, you're funding child sweatshop labor; whenever you buy a smartphone or anything from Amazon, you're funding adult sweatshop labor, etc.  Basically, anything we buy equates to some degree of us funding immorality.  Also, the average person has an extremely busy life and can't be expected to do mounds of research on every product they buy, let alone be able to afford the most ethical version of each.  So this argument seems weak.  Am I missing something?",
  "Just want to hear people's opinion on the matter. Is it ok to force your children to be vegan? Like lets say they really want to eat foods from the cafeteria like the other kids or some other similar situation in which they want to consume a non vegan food. If you believe that eating animals is a terribly wrong act you should stop them right? I do not have a position nor do I have children.\n\nedit\nSome people are not getting my point and I apologize for not making it clear. My point is that this is not the same as giving your child the choice to do drugs, consume unhealthy foods, as those decisions mainly impact them whereas choosing to consume animal product more importantly impacts the animal that was murdered for it. I hope that makes sense, I'm not the best with explanations.",
  "I just came across this link and thought it would be worth a discussion:\n\nhttps://www.bonappetit.com/story/social-omnivore-vegetarian-meat\n\nThe basic premise is that there are some people who will eat \"veg\" when they are in control over their food, but will eat more omnivorous when in situations where food is offered to them in social circumstances.  The main reasons I see being given are:\n\n* To show respect for the food giver. For instance: my mom put a lot of work into this lasagna, I should show appreciation for it.\n\n* Convenience\n\n* To properly experience human culture, such as sampling local food while traveling.\n\nI note that there are some similar positions out there. For instance, this isn't too different from \"freeganism\". Especially in social circumstances where food is prepared for a group event and will probably become waste afterwards.  Also note that Peter Singer has discussed a \"Paris Exception\" in his otherwise vegan ethics when it comes to traveling in areas where vegan food may be difficult to find or there are sufficient cultural pressures against this sort of eating:\n\nhttps://www.iamgoingvegan.com/paris-exception/\n\nWhat are your thoughts on this?  From my perspective, I don't think this sort of thing comes close to proper veganism.  But I can understand how some people who rely on social connections and social capital with non-vegans may find this to be an acceptable compromise to them.  Perhaps it's best to encourage people who don't want to disrespect their mom's casserole to identify as such as a baby step to a more plant-based existence?",
  "It's literally natural for animals to do it, same with us. Now you could say that we are more than other animals (which sounds terrible on its own) and we control ourselves, but then the same argument is used against homosexuality and masturbation (even if it's natural, we shall control ourselves). \n\nI do think making them live in terrible enviroment and torturing them before killing is terrible, but now is act of eating meat evil? Animals eat other animals, including humans. Why should we act like we aren't animals? Like we are something bigger and better than them?",
  "# So let me first layout the ways I can conceive that could convince me to go vegan, then I will lay out why I believe these to not be the case in a structured manner for you to pick apart any individual point you want to argue for. If any one of these are met, I will go vegan:\n\n1. Not being vegan would be unethical under my ethical system.\n2. Veganism is the ideal way to life for my individual wellbeing due to better social engagement,  sufficiently decreased chance of negative health outcomes etc.\n3. Going vegan is the only way to prevent significant negative outcomes to persons through climate change from my individual contribution through diet and general consumption.\n4. There is an objective form of morality that exists I'm not aware of that entails veganism.\n\n​\n\n1. Here's a current summary of my ethical system. I'm a consequentialist who cares about wellbeing of persons to a reasonable degree considering my personal self-interest. So for example, I wouldn't kill myself to prevent all other persons in the world from coughing once even if on the net it would be better for overall well-being. Persons are defined as any sentient being who has the intelligence to pass a 1st grade curriculum within the US within that being's natural lifespan when given the physical abilities(A body that could hold a pencil and write, vocal chords for speech, and potentially other things I am not considering) to accomplish that. Anyone who is not included in persons does not get moral consideration unless the decision does not affect persons. So if we had a decision that would not affect persons, sentient non-persons wellbeing would be relevant. That's a rare instance if it ever comes up at all in the real world though. If a non-human animal fits within the definition of persons, they would immediately be given the same moral consideration as other persons. Let me give you a hypothetical that was a big part in leading me to this current stance. You have one world that has infinite amounts of say cows living in absolute bliss living the happiest possible lives you could for cows. You have another world where there is one moderately happy immortal 75 IQ human being or a system that breeds humans such that there would only ever be one moderately happy 75 IQ human on the planet. The second world seems better to me when I imagine it, leading me to believe my ethical intuitions points towards beings of a certain intelligence being of a different kind morally than beings who don't meet that criteria. My current belief if it isn't clear is that morals come purely from emotional intuitions(Emotivism for the philosophically well-read). So when you say something is wrong, to me you're saying \"that's icky\". Now this is all tentative, it's possible there are things I'm not considering and I could be moved off any of these points. I can not think of a way that veganism would be morally obligatory under this system.\n2. Now let's move to the second point. I get better social engagement through eating animal-products due to it being the default, so I'm able to socially relate to the food that people eat at restaurants or cook at home more easily. Also from reading vegan subreddits, it seems as if being vegan causes social strife within their life which is clearly not ideal for social engagement. Now I'll lay out my diet for you to pick apart. Though I imagine you couldn't convince someone to go purely vegan on health grounds as there's surely some amount of animal-products that would be negligible to health, but I digress. I eat a pound of chicken breast about three times a week, a pound of fish(salmon, tilapia, cod) about four times a week, and then whey/casein protein daily to shore about any extra protein needs to 160 grams of protein daily. I mostly abstain from lamb and beef due to the health and climate outcomes, but probably have it a few times a year. When eating with my Italian family, I'll typically have something with cheese anywhere from every two weeks to once a month. I eat out approximately once a week and that varies depending on what I'm craving. It will occasionally be something with a fatty meat, but 3/4ths of time it's something like sushi or a relatively lean meat. I don't imagine the rest of my diet is relevant as they are non-animal products, but if it is I'll edit it in(This post will already be long enough after all). I'll just say I get in the daily recommended amount of vegetables and fruit which I'm guessing is the main driver in people becoming healthier through veganism, but correct me if I'm wrong. Now my understanding is the main driver in animal products being unhealthy is the saturated fat that comes along with it. My diet minimizes saturated fat, gets enough protein, gets in required veggies and fruit, and gets in sufficient amounts of healthy fat. I'm perfectly healthy other than asthma at 29. If there's anything I'm missing that would affect my personal well-being in regards to eating animal products vs veganism, don't hesitate to let me know.\n3. This fits under ethics, but figured I'd clarify climate change is something I care about minimizing to a reasonable degree. So I'll lay out my limited knowledge of climate change having to do with diet. Beef and lamb release way more greenhouse gases than other animal products due to being ruminant animals that release methane through their gas. Poultry and farmed fish produces much less than lamb and beef, but still produce much more than non-animal products on the net. I don't have the knowledge to know the effect an individual has when eating animal products daily vs a vegan diet, I just do my best to minimize the worst of the worst climate change wise. For clarification if you're only focusing on this section and didn't read the diet section, I mainly eat fish, chicken, and whey protein and nearly completely avoid(will have it a few times a year) beef and lamb in terms of animal products. As for animal products that are non-diet related, I'm unsure if this has a significant effect on net contribution. Anyone with the knowledge to speak on this, do tell me the consequences to the world of my diet vs a vegan diet or the contribution non-diet related animal products have ideally with citations.\n4. If you figured out all of morality, do impart your wisdom onto us mere mortals.\n\nI did my best to be comprehensive in my post, but feel free to ask clarifying questions you believe to be relevant. Also do bring up any points I didn't touch on that you think will be convincing.\n\nEdit: Upon further reflection, my definition of persons should say average lifespan rather than natural.\n\nEdit 2: Back to the original definition of persons.",
  "like the title says; how do you justify your anthropocentrism as a vegan when you believe that humans > animals? Do you think that we need to pay lip service to not-yet-vegans to show we aren't looney vegans. Don't you think that, by making exceptions in the moral arguments for veganism we are allowing to be attacked by meat eaters and justify them to just keep doing what they do? Let's discuss! ",
  "So just a thought I was thinking. The idea is that killing an animal for any reason is bad (unless maybe euthanasia) and that we shouldn't exploit an animal in anyway.\n\nBut if the animal is already dead from natural causes, why would you be opposed to eating it? Died of old age, starvation, killed and left by another animal. Whatever the reason may be. It's already dead, humans had nothing to do with it, why let it decompose when you can use it for sustenance? \n\nEdit: Wikipedia's Roadkill Cuisine is a pretty interesting read",
  "A few examples:\n\n1. Smartphones are essential to their basic functionality which stops at a dozen dollars, so getting a new second-hand phone while the old is functional is not vegan.\n2. If you get a second-hand car, you're still driving up the demand of new cars as people who would have bought the second-hand car now get a new one. In overwhelming amounts of places you do not need a car and imposing such lifestyle on oneself is their own decision.\n3. If you get a second-hand pet, you're still driving up the breeding of these pets through decreased availability of said pets ready to be adopted, making people choose from breeders. You do not need a pet and it's extremely not vegan both in breeding, exploitation & contributing towards deaths of animals through farming or hunting thanks to one mouth more needing food.\n\nFurther more:\n\n1. A popular feminist quote: \"Personal is political\".  \nEvery action and behavior which you take part of reinforces this very thing which you're taking part of as a normative act in the society. If you use a car, more people will get cars, that includes new ones. If you get a pet cat, more people will get one and also through breeding. If you get a new second-hand phone every year, more people will get new phones. If you eat meat, more people will think that eating meat is fine.\n2. If second-hand usage would be sound logic, then using left-over meat should be vegan and wearing left-over animal fur or leather should be okay - everything which is left over or could be reused would be vegan.\n\nA quick predictable counterargument: \"People who buy brand new products, don't buy second hand\" is absolutely not true in any sense, if you think like that then we axiomatically disagree and there's nothing to discuss as my personal experience alone shows complete contrary.\n\nAs far as possible and reasonable is not an argument either because these aren't necessary products. You do not need 4 cameras instead of one, you do not need to drive a car instead of a bus, you do not need to kill indirectly 1,000 more animals just so you could pet one, you do not need to eat meat.",
  "Birds lay eggs, regardless if humans collect them or not. Bees make honey regardless if it is collected by humans. \n\nAssuming that the birds are free-range and the honey is not industrial, what's the argument against eggs and honey?\n\nYou don't kill the animals. You don't have to artificially stimulate production, as is the case with milk production. You should control how much you take and not to take too much.\n\nBut I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with these two animal products. Animals form symbiotic relationships for food all the time like ants and aphids.\n\nFor animals who have lived with humans for thousands of generations and who would not survive on their own in the wild, what arguments would you present against symbiotic food harvest by humans for animal products that do not require killing (meat industry) or artificial impregnation (dairy industry) for items that the animals naturally produce, factory farming not withstanding?",
  "Here is the short blog post: [The imperfect veganism of Ezra Klein](http://veganstrategist.org/2016/12/30/the-imperfect-veganism-of-ezra-klein/)\n\nI think that vegan recidivism is a major and unspoken problem in the community. For a variety of reasons, 84% of vegans and vegetarians eventually quit.[link](http://jacknorrisrd.com/vegetarian-recidivism-survey/) I think that the mindset that Ezra Klein describes could be a useful way to convince new potential vegans to stick with it for the long haul.\n\nSome questions:\n\n- Do you consider this to be vegan?\n- Is this an effective approach for promoting veganism and preventing recidivism?\n- Do you ever personally think or act this way?\n\n",
  "I\u2019ve been selected for the opportunity to work at the Halley VI research station for 3 months starting March 2023. I am beyond excited to get first hand experience on the field, but I\u2019m worried about food selection. Will I have much difficulty being vegan during my stay? Do you think there will be other vegans?",
  "How do you guys feel about trapping? Where I live in northern Alberta trapping is a way of life for many people, and I wholeheartedly support it. I'm actually wearing a pair of rabbit skin moccasins right now lol. I haven't heard of anyone who doesn't support it so I'm just curious to hear what some of you have to say. ",
  "I eat meat and I understand it is wrong in the sense I know I couldn't justify it if someone asked me. But I also don't feel bad even knowing how the animal died or any other information, I just know I couldn't use a sound argument to defend it. \n\nBut also lots of my life is like that as is yours. For example, I get into plenty of fights, many of which I can't justify but that doesn't stop me from doing them because I'm a slave to my passions. I just can't defend them. You also have many parts of your life in which you are behaving unethically and even when presented with arguments that refute your position, you likely won't change unless you genuinely FEEL that they are wrong not just that you understand they are wrong.",
  "Hope this isn't a dupe, but I didn't find an up-to-date thread for this...\n\nSo I've been in a discussion, and there seems to be a lot ex vegans/vegetarians.  See [this article](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201412/84-vegetarians-and-vegans-return-meat-why) and also [its source](https://faunalytics.org/how-many-former-vegetarians-and-vegans-are-there/).\n\nGuy told me that's because all people are only doing it for virtue signalling (lol), but seriously, why is it?\n\nWhy do you think people go back? I see multiple reasons here:  \n- They did it because it's \"in\", or for a SO  \n- Health issues (Aka failed to get the right nutrients and blamed it on veganism/vegetarianism)  \n- Peer pressure (Omnis can be pricks, we all know that)  \n- Cravings (aka weak willed)  \n- Social isolation (Like not knowing any real life vegans)  \n\nOr maybe the data is simply flawed and there's not that many ex vegans/vegetarians?\n\n\n\nIf someone is in for the ethics, I couldn't possible imagine how he/she could go back. You don't just start abusing animals again, or do you?",
  "Hi, I've asked this question in /r/vegan too, but found out this group exists and though it might be a better place. \n\nI guess I could call myself a flexitarian. I do eat meat weekly, but in very little amounts. This didn't happen as an overnight choice, just gradually developed like this with the development of my knowledge about environment, health and ethics issues. There's still a lot of things I'm not sure about (mostly the lack of transparency about food frustrates me), but I feel good about my diet and I end up buying mostly seasonal veggies and the little animal products I buy at least say they're biological. \nMy philosophy is that pleasure is important, and it's good to indulge occasionally and it's bad to be too strict to yourself. I think any good change in your life has to become a habit, but doesn't need to be a strict rule.\nSo it's obvious that a lot of people have a negative view of vegans being too pushy in their convictions. They get biased and it becomes harder to convince them of the benefits of eating vegan. A lot of people I know preach that they just love meat and all their vegan friends should just keep their veganism to themselves and let them do what they want. \nSo isn't it better to approach people in more subtle way. I've never seen anyone talking about being/converting to vegan subtly..\nSo there's omnivores and carnivores and picky eaters. I don't think carnivores could ever become vegan and I don't think a picky eater can be convinced to eat anything else than they do, it's always a personal jurney to liking new food for them. So you could maybe convince carnivores to eat more veggies and not as much meat, but probably to a limited extent. Omnivores are then the interesting target group.\nWouldn't it be easier to convince people to eat less animal products than to stop entirely. Maybe they would gradually convert to vegan over time. If not, if every person on earth ate half of the meat they do now, it would still be as if half the world is vegan. No one needs to forbid themselves anything and it would already be so much better for the world and for their health. \nThere is a TED talk about being flexetarian (weekday vegetarian) that I mostly agree with.\ntl;dr: Why do I rarely see vegans trying to convince people to eat less meat or, even better, encourage them and help them to eat more vegan dishes rather than go completely vegan? Doesn't preaching too much add to a negative bias towards vegan people and food and make it harder to convince people? Isn't it easier to convince more people to eat less meat than to become vegan and wouldn't that already help with a lot of issues that animal products cause?",
  "I am not trying to be provocative or anything, just generally curious. Lately I\u2019m thinking of becoming vegan due to ethical reasons. This question however has always bugged me. \n\nIn my research, I\u2019ve always come across one central argument: \u201cplants have no central nervous system and therefore do not feel anything\u201d.  \n\nWouldn\u2019t that imply that anesthetizing an animal to the point where it doesn\u2019t feel the pain (or anything for that matter) anymore would make it morally right? At the end of the day we eat a living being. Wouldn\u2019t it be unethical to make arbitrary decisions on what we eat because we find that other animals are more like us humans than plants which can\u2019t express feelings? Wouldn\u2019t we place animal lives above non thinking plant life? \n\nI apologize if this is a stupid question and hope you can help me.",
  "If someone put food in front of you and told you there was a 50% chance it's not vegan, and you declined it based purely on ethical reasons, then you are inconsistent with your morals, and the very fact that you're reading this is most likely the proof.",
  "Disclaimer: I am vegan for environmental and ethical reasons.\n\nAs someone working in academia, it would be pretty easy for me to google up many scientific papers supporting the idea that veganism has health benefits. However, it could be equally easy to find papers supporting other types of diets as better-balanced. When browsing more popular information sources, it would be even worse as you can find info supporting almost any kind of crazy diet. \n\nNot being a nutritional expert I am unable to critically evaluate this large amount of info sources, so I can only rely on authorities and there is also lots of disagreement. I feel that in this sense lots of vegans succumb to confirmation bias. \n\nI conclude that arguing for veganism based on health benefits is pretty unconvincing.",
  "Without using ethical arguments, why vegan over vegetarian?",
  "First off - I am a vegan and in an ideal world, everyone should be vegan. Veganism has done so much good for the world and the animals and there's absolutely no need for the insane amount of meat consumed in the world.\n\nThis may be a very unpopular opinion but here goes...\n\nNot everyone in the world can be vegan, and demonising all meat eaters as evil is WRONG. Some people may still live with their parents and can't buy vegan food, others may live in a third world county where food is scarce and meat is available. There are WAY too many extreme vegans that absolutely turn meat eaters away from being vegan. I see videos on YouTube of vegans demonising and judging non vegans as evil scum for the food they eat, my issue with this is that the more you demonise them, the less likely they are to go vegan. Imagine if someone tried to push a 100% fruit diet on you, and demonised you for eating plants as they feel pain - are you more likely to listen to them while their shouting at you? No. I know its not a perfect example but hopefully you get my point. When I was eating meat in 2020 the thing that put me off veganism was the insanity of many vegans. Yes by all means talk to people about being vegan, tell them why its good, but for the love of god if they decide to eat meat, ACCEPT IT. You're doing your part - your helping animals and fueling this great vegan movement, now let others make their own choice...eventually they will see eating animals isn't good, but they need to come to that conclusion on their own. Speaking to vegans can help them along the way only if you respect their point of view. Most humans have been conditioned to eat meat - pushing veganism on them in an aggressive way just fuels their motivation to eat meat as you're now their enemy and they have a bad perception of vegans. \n\nIt also appears a lot of vegans want to boycott places like mcdonalds, burger king, KFC etc because they focus so heavily on meat, but by boycotting them you also boycott the vegan options, therefore lowering the demand for vegan choices at fast food restaurants. If vegans aren't going to buy the mcplant then mcdonalds will just abandon it and focus more on their meat range.\n\nI'm a vegan and I care about the animals but this extreme vegan movement needs to stop.",
  "Why do so many pro-vegan arguments compare animal agriculture to the holocaust/human slavery, or just human-on-human killing?  It's pretty clear that most humans value human life more than non-human life.\n\nDo vegans really value human life and non-human life equally? If so, why?\n\nIf you DON'T value human life and non-human life equally, as a vegan, why not?",
  "When I think of what my perfect dream life would be, I fantasize about hanging out by the pond with my kids all day, surrounded by family and friends, surrounded by my favorite food with access to eat all day if I wish... knowing that at the end of my life I will not grow old and feeble to be a burden to my family, and that my death will be quick and without suffering or prolonged illness and might even serve a greater good. \n\nI drive by the pastures full of cattle and I am honestly jealous. \n\nWhy are you vegans trying to ruin their sweet deal? ",
  "I am currently a vegetarian. I am 100% on board with veganism on ethical, environmental, and sustainability grounds. I would not consider buying factory-farmed eggs and I avoid buying dairy products but am flexible about consuming them when served to me.\n\nHowever:\n\nI keep backyard chickens. I believe that I provide them a good life. They started living with me after some acquaintances moved house and were no longer able to care for them. They provide excellent manure for my garden, and lots of delicious and nutritious eggs, which I eat. They eat a lot of my kitchen scraps, which effectively reduces food waste in my house. They are funny friends and I cherish my interactions with them.\n\nI'm interested to hear any ethical/philosophical arguments against this arrangement.",
  "What's the difference between the two diets?\n\nWhy should the Vegan diet be appropriated while incarcerated?\n\nWhy shouldn't the Vegan diet be appropriated while incarcerated?\n\nWhy shouldn't the Carnivore diet be appropriated while incarcerated?",
  "Hello everybody,\n\nI stumbled upon an article describing the possibility to grow human organs for organ transportation in animals, to be specific, pigs. \n\nUnder the assumption, we already have this technology, what is your opinion about this? If you want to differentiate, in one case, one organ per pig and in another multiple organs per pig.\n\nI dont voice my opinion for now, i want to hear yours without mine influencing yours.",
  "So first asking as a vegan.\n\nMy friend the other day said would you eat a burger if I gave you 10k. I said sure.\n\nNow the questioning\n\n1) would you have refused that and are you sure that you're not just doubling down because it's hypothetical and makes you look better?\n\n2) if not is there a limit when you would accept the meat? (50 trillion could allow you to buy all the democracies and outlaw animal consumption)\n\n3) if the question is flipped to if you ate a burger they would never again eat meat so you would actually be causing less harm?\n\nBasically do you have a monetary / value ratio or a input / output value",
  "I am vegan myself, but this thread will address both meat eaters and vegans.\nBoth parties are free to debate me on this.\n\nConsider this thought experiment:\nDog is locked up in the basement near you and you know its there suffering, all you have to do to save it from starvation is open the basement doors and set it free. Since it is in your awareness, its your responsibility to save the dog. If you didn't know about it, and it dies, it wouldn't be your fault.\nIf you are aware of dog being trapped would it be considered a murder if you let the dog die?\nNow instead of dog it's starving child. It's even worse then right? \n\nBecause you know that you can save this child easy.\nThe reason being, as with all human caused suffering, you are too attached to your experience.\nYou can argue and say you didn't know about this, but now its right in your face. \n\nYou are all aware of this happening, every day in the world, but you are not opening the door.\n\nInaction = People dying.\n\n\n",
  "I'm vegan but am looking to learn some of the best arguments against veganism. \n\nSo, what are the most philosophically or logically strong arguments against veganism?",
  "This annoying know-it-all guy just told me that vegan food can make you sick the first few times you eat it because your body isn't used to it. I said that can't be true because most of the ingredients in vegan food is stuff that meat eaters eat normally. He didn't seem to get it. Do you guys have any arguments for this? ",
  "I tried to have as inclusive but short a title as possible.\n\n * Yes, a vegan diet can be tasty.\n\n * Yes, it can be the cheapest diet you've ever tried.\n\n * Yes, it can be varied.\n\n * Yes, it can be high in protein with moderate kcal.\n\nPlease prove to me that it can be all 4 at the same time.\n\nSome info to preface this:\n\nI am an omni, but trying to transition one step at a time and I lift. \n\nI need about 2700 kcal/day to maintain my weight and definitely more than 100 g protein per day (probably closer to 150g) to \"feel good\" in the gym or make any progress at all. This is not something I have read online, it didn't come from a youtube fitness \"expert\", it's my own experience. Please don't start shooting videos of Brian Turner or John Venus at me, because I am neither of them.\n\nEating a standard vegan diet won't help me currently because eating 2700 kcal in oats, nuts, seeds, legumes and the like nets me 70-80 g protein at the absolute best (**boring and bland taste, very cheap, low variety, low protein**).\n\nIf I eat some of the 2700 kcal in fruits and veggies, rice, pasta or potatoes and the rest in the foods posted above, protein goes to 50g or less (**higher variety, better taste, still kinda cheap, very low protein**). Without even touching junk food (or alcohol :P), which I need to shut down my cravings.\n\nIf I eat with the goal of reaching 100-150g protein in vegan food, I will have to eat 4000+ kcal. I don't want to get fat, so no. Also I would have to cut out anything green because there is a limit to how much I can eat and those foods are very low in kcal.\n\nIf I eat protein isolates, tofu, tempeh or seitan as well as mock meats and non dairy milks: Well, we definitely solve some of the taste, variety and protein content issues but the problem is that I haven't seen these products anywhere, and buying online costs an arm and a leg. Keep in mind that I live in Greece. Stuff I also haven't found include nutritional yeast, gluten to make my own seitan and many condiments.\n\nBTW, I bought some soy \"minced beef\" the other day and it was delicious, for my dog. Don't remember the brand but I got it at Masoutis. I think Fytro? Could be wrong. And it was like 2-3x the price of actual minced beef too.\n\nInb4 excuses, please try to prove me wrong and keep in mind that I do want to be convinced eventually.\n\n**TLDR please help a curious omni transition in a healthy, cheap, tasty, varied, high protein vegan diet**\n\nBonus: Throw recipes at me. Just googling \"vegan recipes\" is a shot in the dark and pinterest is full of crap. I keep seeing \"vegan gluten free soy free gmo free oil free salt free\" and I cringe. Plus I don't like how everyone there presents themself as some special snowflake cooking genius, only for me to find out that the recipes (usually the ones that involve baking) don't live up to the expectations created by the author at all. EDIT: I am a fan of Arab, Greek, Spanish, Italian cuisines.\n\nBonus 2: What do you do for D, B12 and DHA?\n",
  "A note about language: please stop calling animals \"it\"",
  "Vegans will often argue something along the lines of \"any sentient creature should have some degree of rights.  \"Sentience\" is typically defined as the possession of a subjective experience.  I find it problematic to inherently value sentience for a few reasons\n\n1. Sentience is impossible to detect in others.  Ultimately, all we have is our own subjective experience.  Sure, I could argue that because I am sentient, and because other humans possess similar brains to me, most other humans are sentient as well, but that is impossible to know for certain.  For all I know, everyone around me could be a P-zombie, that is a living thing that simply has the appearance of a sentient creature.  Even if we agree that all humans are sentient, things become problematic when we go to other creatures, since they are different from humans.  Is a cow sentient?  A chicken?  A frog?  A worm?  A sponge?  a tree?  a human fetus?  One may argue that anything with a brain is sentient, but this presents its own challenges for vegan ethics.  No computer has a brain - does this mean that no machine can ever be described as sentient?  What about alien life that is very different from life on Earth?   This may sound pedantic, but I think it is worth considering\n2. I disagree that Sentience is necessary to grant an entity rights.  If you somehow found out beyond the shadow of a doubt that your best friend was a P-zombie, would you be ok if I shot them to death for no reason?  I doubt most people honestly would.  I (and I would argue most people) dont truly value people around them because they are sentient, they value them because of the interactions that they are able to have with them, and because of the role that they play in society.\n3. I disagree that Sentience is sufficient to grant an entity rights.  Suppose we create a sentient \"vision machine.\"  The machine is able to have a subjective experience, however only to the extent that it is able to see the world around it.  It is unable to have thoughts, feel pain, communicate, move, etc. Should such a machine be afforded the same rights as a human simply because it has some level of subjective experience?  I would argue not, because simply being able to sense the world around you has no real meaning in and of itself.\n\nEssentially we have no way to know what is sentient, and even if we did, it is not clear why sentience is relevant to grant something rights.   Therefore I believe that to make a compelling case for veganism, vegans must offer a different criteria that grants animals and humans rights.\n\n​\n\nEdit:  Changed point 1 from \"sentience is impossible to detect\" to \"sentience is impossible to detect in others\" which is more accurate.    ",
  "Vegans don't eat any animal products. Vegans don't wear any animal products. Vegans don't use animal tested products. Vegans don't ride animals or participate in any form of entertainment on animals. Each of these end in the killing of animals.So how does veganism kill more animals than a non-vegan?",
  "I'm not a vegan but I am an athiest. I genuinely believe that religion creates an incredible amount of suffering and that the joy and comfort of religion can be found through other forms of community and exploration of life's actual mysteries which in fact could provide *more* joy and comfort than religion does. The analogy there of course being the vegan view that a vegan diet can be more satisfying and nutritious than a non-vegan diet without any of the suffering.\n\nBut the issue I have with veganism is the same issue I have with athiesm - it's when the adherents don't understand what they are asking (or worse, demanding) of people when they tell them they should change.  We shouldn't take it at face value when people say they eat meat because \"they like it\" or \"it's essential for proper nutrition\" the same way we shouldn't take it at face value when a religious person says they adhere to their faith because it \"makes sense to them\" or is a \"moral necessity\".\n\nPeople do these things because they grew up doing it and their friends and family do it. I find it frustratingly obtuse to berate people for making bad \"choices\" when it comes to diet or religion. Both inform someone's identity in deep neurological ways.  Browse r/vegan or r/atheism around the holidays.  You can see how hard it is for many people in these subs to feel securily attached to the people around them that don't identify as vegan or atheism the way they do.\n\nThat's my main point, but I'll add that vegan and atheism are also simillar because of the black and white thinking.  It's clear to me that veganism and athiesm are probably at least *mostly* right, but I can also see the wiggle room aronud the edges. Is it ok to eat clams because they're a good fit for your local economy? They might suffer a little when harvested, does that comprise a moral duty not to do it?  Chickens and fish can feel pain and stress, but are they conscious? Do they suffer the way pigs and cows and people do? Vegans and atheists both come to their own conclusions about the nature of consciousness, which remains perhaps life's biggest mystery.\n\nMaybe more of a rant than a debate, but I've been needing to get this off my chest. Thanks for reading. I hope you'll be nice and I'm curious what you think.",
  "The stronger rules over the weaker, why should I care about animals?",
  "Would you eat wild deer you shot yourself that came from an area of deer overpopulation?",
  "White vegans need to understand that BIPOC vegans usually don't have the privilege necessary to give up meat",
  "Dear Vegans,\n\nOmnivore in Perpetuity here. Don't eat a lot of red meat, even local, because it's bad for the air and soil, and it's a very inefficient use of resources. Also cows are pretty great animals. I also eat crickets when I can; they are a very efficient source of protein. Lots of return for not much carbon investment, at least for now it looks what way.\n\nI have problems with most vegans, but I come in peace. Most notably, I find that vegans have an unfortunate lack of respect for plant life, which has indeed been shown to have pain responses and things very similar to nervous systems. So when vegans post videos of stabbing apples joking about lack of pain, I think about how old that apple tree was. Where its roots came from. How far back that seed system went. And the growth time it took to bring life and water to the apple. Stabbing plants and consuming them without mindfulness or gratitude is an immature mindset, and one that I repudiate. No matter what I'm eating, it's life. We must consume life to sustain life. Plants are life. As far as we know, nothing like them exists outside of our atmosphere anywhere else in the universe. So show plants a little respect. The next time you eat a vegetable, if you haven't, thank it, and be grateful for its lifespan. Be thankful for the billions of years of planetary evolution and progress that led to the existence of that sprig of broccoli. It's amazing. \n\nI've come to feel more strongly about this the more I've kept a garden and houseplants. If you think pruning a tree down to keep it producing citrus isn't exploitative, or that a succulent in the panicky throes of water deprivation isn't scared and fighting for its life, I urge you to reconsider. Of course, if veganism is truly about respect for life and not exploiting it, vegans wouldn't eat anything at all. They'd starve, and I'd hear a lot less bad science.\n\nI respect the rights of people to choose to eat what they can ethically bear. I especially respect those vegans who understand they aren't martyrs or saints, and who realize that going vegan, while it may reduce the carbon footprint of your diet somewhat, isn't going to save the planet. (For those of you who can't accept this, sorry. You aren't and it's not.) Emissions is now too complex a problem to have one solution (just get rid of meat!)-- and while every little bit helps, it is very, very important to cut through the pseudoscience BS and get the facts of the situation however and whenever we can.\n\nWhen discussing diet and CO2 emissions with anyone, not just those of the don't-eat-stuff-with-nervous-systems variety, but *anyone*, I must point at the [Green Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution). It fed about a billion people. It won Norman Borlaug a Nobel Prize. It also represents the largest irreversible new plateau of CO2 emissions in history. Scientists now recognize that it [opened up new problems](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/green-revolution-brings-greater-co2-swings-18354). The greatest source of CO2 emissions is fossil fuel consumption, and what no vegan wants to hear is that your soy and your corn and your wheat, unless you know a local farmer, is probably contributing to deforestation and CO2 emissions more than you know or like to admit. In other words, there's a problem, and you're still part of it. Pointing at someone who's eating an egg, which by the way is an incredibly efficient source of nutrients for humans, or demonizing them for eating meat, doesn't work if you yourself are just a slightly less bad contributing factor.\n\nSo if you know the green revolution, you know that agriculture has a carbon footprint no matter what. When you save a billion people from starvation using an infrastructure that generates GHG, it doesn't really matter what you grow because you're not talking about what you grow, but how you grow it. Mass production. Mass production leads to GHG, and feeding people- anything- in the billions is going to create vast amounts of CO2. \n\nYes, modern farming has plants being grown for meat products, but what do you think will happen to those crops if the meat industry disappeared tomorrow? The farms would still grow crops for human consumption. Or biofuels. Or some other industry. \n\nFactory farmed meat is disgusting and should be replaced by something like locally-sourced sustainable farming, notably rotation farming or mixed farming. [More](http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y0501E/y0501e03.htm) and more studies show that sustainable farms- farms that keep some small animals on the land, like pigs to root and churn soil, chickens to trim grass and produce fertilizer, or goats to trim grass and produce milk, cheese, and (if you want) meat- are better for the soil itself than ramming nitrogen fertilizer in the soil year after year in order to mass produce. Of course the studies vary depending on the metrics of what is considered \"good,\" but the consensus from a few of these brief studies that it's not only less damaging than factory farming meat, but also better than mass producing vegetables. The thing about farming sustainably, it turns out, is that it limits the size of your crops. So you can do it, but not with a big corporation or conglomerate in charge. It needs to be done locally- and right now, it's available, but only in limited areas- not to mention it's expensive compared to some Hormel or Tyson mistreated, antibiotic infused, mass produced \"solution.\" And Norman Borlaug's hypothesis [that farming is actually saving the world](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100615/full/465853a.html) seems to be creating its own set of economic and efficiency [dilemmas](https://wle.cgiar.org/thrive/2012/10/02/borlaug-dilemma), ones that need careful consideration and study. More farming leading to more CO2 is, as it turns out, not actually great for the world. Despite the Nobel Prize.\n\nSo, let's say vegans conquer. The era of meat eating is over. The Earth is free of omnis and carnivores. Excepting of course predation in the natural world. You still have massive amounts of pesticides and fertilizers and runoff polluting rivers and groundwater. You still have deforestation for Soy (yes, deforestation for food and oil, not just cattle, and getting rid of the cattle does not get rid of the farmer) and Palm. You still have rice, a large contributor to GHG. And you still have in place the largest contributor to GHG emissions in the world: fossil fuel consumption. In other words, you still have Agriculture, and more. You still have Shipping and Industry. You don't eliminate the whole problem by eliminating meat- in fact it ignores the whole of the problem for a smaller one. It's an important one! But it's smaller. And I know the efficiency of crops, no longer used for feed, would increase (only if you are willing to continue to include them in the Agriculture contribution percentage of emission as well, the emissions for production and harvesting don't disappear,) and the US CO2 emissions would decrease by 5-6% removing cattle farming. It would also do away with the largest global contributor of methane, though not the largest in the United States (Industry and Natural Gas top Agriculture.) Sadly, after all this reduction, it's not as much as vegans often quote. Between 13-15% of United States CO2 emissions is from Agriculture. Not meat production. *All Agriculture.* About 5-6% of that is Meat production, meaning if you want to get rid of the full 14% contribution of agriculture, you can't grow plants. Any of them. And before you try to rope me into numbers about that, please know that I understand there's fossil fuel emissions related to meat production. And I'll hope and trust you understand that the Green Revolution shows plant-producing agriculture contributes to fossil fuels as well. A lot. And there's lots of conflicting info now about how much to increase farming of any kind-- because deforestation contributes to GHG as it removes our planet's most effective and natural CO2 scrubbers: trees. \n\nDeforestation needs to stop. Everyone can agree on that, I think, except the people earning money off of it. To me, this is more important than \"please don't eat things that feel pain,\" or even to reduce the 9-10% GHG CH4 contribution. Methane is increasing, but it's nothing compared to the CO2, which is a bigger problem both in scope and effects. It's estimated that 90% of the world's total CO2 emissions- meaning if CO2 is 88% of all emissions, so 90% of that 88% number, is from fossil fuels. Industry. Transportation. Electricity. Charging the fucking iphone, driving down the street, popping open the cardboard sleeve to the frozen yogurt and throwing it away (drive it to the dump, 17.7% of all methane in America comes from landfills,) or recycling it (drive it to the factory, process it, ship it to post-consumer processing, deliver it to consumer) when you're done. Either way. That's all killing the planet. Vegans use cells phones. Vegans throw shit away and recycle things. Vegans use plastic (plastic is made from oil/petrol.) If you exist on this planet right now, you are killing it. You are guilty. End of fucking story. Not eating meat isn't reducing your carbon footprint by half- it's reducing your *dietary* footprint. You still use electricity. You still use gasoline and consume items delivered by truck, train, or ship. You still eat food, and that food, unless you grow it yourself on your own land, is fertilized, grown, processed, and shipped.\n\nSo hey, we all do our best. You eat morally and ethically and work to reduce your diet footprint. Don't let that delude you into thinking you're more efficient than most. Don't let that cloud you to the other resources you consume. Because a blind spot like that can actually do more harm than you think you're saving everyone from.\n\nTo me, the question is not how to ethically or morally feed people without harming things with nervous systems. The question is how do we feed billions of people without harming the whole environment? No one has been able to answer this. 7 Billion Vegans is still 7 Billion humans. Plant matter for 7 Billion people is a huge, huge, huge amount of GHG emissions. Meat isn't the problem. Food isn't even the problem. The problem is mass production. Population.\n\nThe Green Revolution thought it was using science to save people. It did that, but it also became one of the main contributors to GHG emissions. So as it solved one problem, it created another. This is what a vegan world would be. Replace one problem with another.\n\nI don't envy your task. The region I live in and the culture around me is very meat-eating. Very, let's say, Trump country. I don't envy you fighting that cultural battle. Culture is hard to solve. I have some of my own battles to fight and sometimes they coincide with vegans. Sometimes they don't. Regardless, you are fighting a good fight. Good luck. Inform yourselves, eat responsibly, and change minds. Keep fighting factory farms and major corporations who harm animals and people while amassing great fortunes. I am with you on that fight, and am looking into how I can help.\n\nBut please, for the love of all that's holy and dear to you, stop spouting bullshit numbers and non-peer reviewed science. Don't find numbers you agree with. Find real numbers from real studies, even if you don't like them. The good thing about real science is it doesn't care about you. It just is. We don't need more misinformation in the world. Especially now.\n\nSincerely,\nOmnivore.",
  "I asked this question in a few forums and basically every freaked the fuck out, but I don't know if I'm asking it wrong or coming across as uneducated? I'm curious to know if some vegans also refrain from eating vegan meat as well because they don't like the idea of eating animal meat or anything like it, from a compassion stand-point.\n\nEdit: I just want to thank everyone who responded! It took me a few posts on a few different forums for anyone to acknowledge this question and I'm really satisfied with the answers I've been getting :)",
  "There is a stance in veganism that says you are not vegan if you own a carnivorous pet or even have a non-vegan significant other. This is because you are supporting the animal industry if you pay for their non-vegan food. \n\nAt what point do you draw the line? Would a vegan business owner who employs non-vegans fall under this category? Taking non-vegan clients out for dinner? ",
  "What are vegans thoughts on brugsmania",
  "Generally this sub has been pretty good with this, but I've seen a few cases of it happening.\n\nI totally get downvoting off-topic argumentative posts in /r/vegan, but here it's crucial for this sub to serve it's purpose that we always give the benefit of the doubt, even when some commenters come across as needlessly combative. \n\nI'm not a mod or anything, so have no power to make or enforce any rules, but I believe it's in line with the sub policy and thought this was worth emphasizing.",
  "People like to claim that veganism is more than just a diet, because vegans also don't buy leather (which usually lasts for many years or a lifetime) and some other ingredients, that have a marginal effect on animal well-being.\n\n### It is all about ingredients!\n\nMaybe you don't eat all ingredients, but they are still just ingredients! Metaphorically, if you can eat it as a vegan (because it is not from animals), it is vegan. Any exceptions (like the reason palm oil is not considered vegan by some vegans) only prove my point, that veganism is a pseudo-lifestyle/philosophy.\n\nLet's see one example:\n\nhttps://www.vegansociety.com/resources/environment/water-requirements\n\n> Vegans use less water globally\n\n> The world will only have 60% of the water it needs by 2030 without significant global policy change, according to a recent report from the U.N.\n> This situation is predicted to worsen as our population expands and consumption per capita increases with more and more people adopting resource-intensive Western meat eating habits.\n\nIs golf vegan, considering it's overall ecological impact? Pesticides and mowing is the worst animals cruelty I could imagine. Think about all the insects and rodents and birds.\n\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/14/thecaseagainstgolf\n\nOr are swimming pools vegan? After all, water is vegan.\n\nAnimals are being exploited and killed \"vegan-friendly\", mainly by polluting the habitat of animals with cars, electronics, entertainment in general and by following egoistic/selfish goals.\n\n### Vegans often claim, that veganism is not environmentalism.\n\nOne more reason, why veganism is a pseudo-lifestyle/philosophy. It just fakes that it is \"so much more\" than just a diet (\"because I also don't like zoos\"), it doesn't dare to make the realization, that environmentalism is a prerequisite of being vegan. You can't be a vegan, and not be an environmentalist, since your ecological footprint is in a direct relationship with the well-being of animals. And if this is the case, all vegans have to be r/ZeroWaste, there is no other way. \n\nOne response to this is, that veganism has to appeal to people, and if golf wasn't vegan, it would make vegans look stupid (maybe to late for that?) and more and more activities similar to golf would have to be boycotted.\n\nAnd that is all veganism is, a pseudo-lifestyle/philosophy devoid of integrity, consistency, in constant fear of not appealing to the masses, with all its denial about how cars and electronic devices are \"necessary for survival\", and all its clever rhetoric.\n\n### Some clever vegan rhetoric:\n\n#### If everything else (other than diet) is held equal, I am still reducing suffering more than non-vegans\n\nYou can't defend why you aren't consistent with your own beliefs, so you go on the offensive. Got it!\n\nIt is also an implicit admission, that veganism is a diet: Everything else is held equal usually, because nothing else really matters when discussing veganism (except zoos and leather shoes).\n\n#### Vegans are not perfect\n\nA great way of implying that vegans are at least \"close to perfect\", even if \"100%\" is impossible. Great marketing! \n\nBut not a good excuse, why you aren't consistent with your beliefs to a huge extent. Huge...\n\nMaybe try to run a mile instead of a marathon, if you just stated exercising, and quit talking about the marathon and how others should go for it, if you don't even know the distance?\n\n#### Nirvana fallacy\n\nI am not making an argument against a plant-based diet, in fact, I would be inclined to make an argument for it.\n\n#### I remember once hitting a bug with my car and I accidentally ate a spider in my sleep\n\nVegans often trivialize the harm they cause to animals by making up idiotic concerns as a response to real concerns (like the effects of the various forms of pollutants from cars, electronics, entertainment in general etc.). \n\nThe harm/suffering/death you are causing is no longer an accident, if you know it is an inevitable consequence of your actions.",
  "Sorry...I couldn't really come up with a good title for this one.\n\nAnyway, what I mean is that vegan principles less to conclusions that are almost impossible to follow. Take this example\n\n>It's wrong to harm animals when you don't have to\n\nThis is commonly employed against carnists to highlight their immorality. No vegan is actually consistent with this principle though. Your existence alone harms animals. I'm sure you're aware of this. I'm sure you're also aware that your existence is in no way necessary. You don't NEED to live. You could just commit suicide, which enables you to avoid all possible harm you would inflict if you were to keep on living. But you won't. Why? Because you want to live. You just want to experience the pleasure of living. You value convenience above acting ethically. (I am NOT encouraging suicide, I'm just making a point) It's the exact same shit when you tell meat eaters that they're making animals suffering merely for taste pleasure.\n\nI value logical consistency above all else, and if I find that I don't have it in me to properly follow a moral system, I abandon it. This is why I'm not vegan. I believe in reciprocal morality. I don't harm humans not because I value them, but because they might harm me if I did. Animals aren't in a position to lend such reciprocation, therefore they are worthless to me.",
  "Well my last thread didn't go down so well, but that's okay.  I've been thinking more about it and I realized that it's true, I agree with vegans in the sense that I don't believe in mindlessly killing/torturing living things, or at least, things that can at least feel some pain.  However, I still think eating meat falls well outside this, given that the purpose of eating meat/using animal products is for some kind of utility.\n\n​\n\nMeat, for me, anyway, represents an extremely cheap, convenient, and enjoyable source of food everyday.  Vegans argue that one could go without meat, and I'd say that's true insofar as it's technically true that most people could probably walk 2-3 hours to work everyday instead of polluting the environment with their cars.  Will we do that?  Doubtful.  The convenience/enjoy-ability/utility is too high even if we'd prefer not to cause harm to the environment.\n\nSo I'd say the trait that differentiates animals in this case is the aforementioned factors regarding their utility and enjoyability as food products and other uses.  The case is commonly made that there's nothing morally different between marginal case humans like mental retards or babies, however, those individuals wouldn't serve as good alternatives to meat.  Again I disagree with just sadistically killing anything, so that rules out murdering babies/retards just for fun.  And while it could be argued that some people might enjoy eating people, there's nowhere near the utility provided to those tiny numbers of people to justify the harm to society/human rights permitting such behaviour would cause, especially when animals themselves are readily available.\n\n​\n\nSo hypothetically if alternatives to animal products that were as convenient and enjoyable were available then I'd say vegans would have a very strong argument.  But, as it currently stands I don't think the moral value of very low intelligent beings outweighs the extreme usefulness of the products we make from them.",
  "I\u2019m starting out from the assumption here that any barriers between the natural world and the human world don\u2019t really exist, and it\u2019s all the natural world. A consequence of this is that a farm is a natural ecosystem like any other (and not even the most recently developed one - cities would qualify too). \n\nI\u2019m also starting from the assumption that factory farms are very bad and getting rid of them isn\u2019t a bad thing at all. \n\nOk, with those two out of the way\u2026it seems to me that all or most of the animal inhabitants of the farm ecosystem (sheep, cows, chickens, etc. [many of the plants too]) are only able to survive because of our relationship with them. This relationship is so ancient that their bodies have changed in ways that make them fully dependent on us, and make us fully responsible for then. On their own, in the wild, they would die really fast, and we\u2019ve seen this happen (Shrek the sheep is a good example with a happy ending). \n\nThe only reason that we usually keep a tool around is because we use it - there aren\u2019t many flint-knappers left, yunno? These animals evolved to be tools for producing certain things, just like honeydew aphids evolved to be more effectively farmed by ants. In a universally vegan world, these animals would go the way of flint tools - without a purpose or a reason to be around, I have a hard time imagining that they would do anything but go extinct. I don\u2019t think that it\u2019s very likely that people would have the resources to keep a stable population of them as hobbies or pets, especially not over centuries or millennia. \n\nSeeing as we\u2019ve evolved in tandem with these species, and the entire reason that they can\u2019t survive in the wild is because of us, it seems like we have a certain amount of responsibility for them both as individuals and as a species - just letting them die out seems wrong. But in a world where they have no purpose, I don\u2019t see any future where they don\u2019t either go extinct or reduce down to the most endangered of endangered species, on par with something like a snow leopard if they\u2019re lucky. \n\nWhat\u2019s the ideal vegan plan for these kinds of animals in a universally vegan world, and realistically (assuming a universally vegan world) how close do you think we\u2019d get to that ideal? Is the faunal component of the farm ecosystem worthy of any sort of protection, or is it uniquely terrible amongst the rest of Earth\u2019s ecosystems and in need of phasing out?\n\nEDIT: I\u2019m out for the day, but thanks for the answers and discussion! Much appreciated.",
  "A well planned vegan diet can be healthy, no one can argue that. Affording such, both financially and time wise is something that not everyone can do. You have to supplement, you have have to know what to supplement and why. You have to be able to routinely afford these, or your health is at risk. Can lower income people afford the health care? Can they risk giving a diet change a shot? Basic education is lacking in poor areas. A vegan diet requires a certain amount of knowhow and resources that a lot of people can't adapt to if forced upon them. \n\nIf animal products are available, it is easier and more efficient to get what your body needs, in a way it was designed to process it. Even if by accident. People on both sides of the fence agree, in a survival situation eating animals is okay. Well, despite how things look on the outside, there are people with and without jobs, homes, internet access or families  who are living in that survival mode right now. How can you justify saving animals, while pretty much forcing people who can't live a vegan lifestyle to suffer slowly their whole lives?",
  "How we call vegan meals is something I'd like to talk with you. \n\nMeat is the base of alimentation in the imagination of a lot of people. As an example you can hear \"I eat beef with veggies\" and not the contrary. \"What ? You don't eat meat so what do you eat ?\". Majority will consider meat as the base and all the others regimes  as a sub-ensemble contained in it. \n\nBut I understand, I learn that I should eat meat at each meal at elementary school. We can improve this way of seeing food by labeling receipts differently. Since the beginning of my vegan life I can't stand this shortcut, for instance, between *no meat lasagnas* into *vegetarian lasagnas*. \n\nIf, and only if you really take the traditional receipt\u200b of lasagna and ignore instructions related to meat, no problem call it *meat-less lasagnas*. But if you put extra vegetables/seeds/substitute to cream/... This is a whole new dish you create.\n\nThis deserves a new name. And vegetarian cause need a *no meat* referencial (you have the right to call it no meat haha). This dish you just cooked isn't lasagnas, not even *meat less* lasagnas. And you know how powerful a vocabulary is, right ?\n\n I know it's handy, shorter and everybody understand. But as an example ask to your Mexican friend who much food they have label for what we call fajitas/tapas in western world. If they are cooked slightly differently, if they have been friend, in which oil, in different size : they'll have different names.\n\nIn short: words are powerful enough to make look vegetarian lasagnas as a poor sister of lasagnas. But who ever tried //complete with your own receipt\u200b name// ?",
  "I won't disclose whether I'm a vegan or not for now. I'm trying to see how you would respond if you were in the following debates:\n\nFirst argument:\n\nV: \"How do you justify eating animals?\"\n\nC: \"Exactly the same way you justify eating cakes or buying other unnecessary things when the money could have been given to charity to save African children. If you donate \u00a3X to African charities, how do you justify not donating \u00a3(X+5), when that extra \u00a35 could save a child's life?\"\n\n​\n\nSecond argument:\n\nC: \"Why don't you move to somewhere like New Zealand which does not subsidize farming at all? Currently part of your taxes are going to the meat and dairy industries.\"\n\n​\n\nThird argument:\n\nC: \"Suppose I adopted a vegan diet. Suppose I adopted your exact diet, except with one difference. I'm going to have an empty bowl on the counter and every time I prepare a meal with beans or rice in it, I'm going to put a bean or a kernel of rice in the bowl. When the bowl is full, I'll eat it instead of dinner. By following this routine, I am decreasing demand to the arable farming industry at virtually no cost to myself. Over my lifetime, I might even save ten or so voles. How do you justify not cutting down your eating just a teensy amount when you could save someone's life?\"\n\n​\n\nFourth argument:\n\nC: \"Not being vegan is more like \"voting for death\" rather than \"killing\", is it not? Wouldn't it be understandable to vote for a party that already had a 98% approval rating if doing otherwise would decrease your gustatory experience, even in a proportional voting system?\"\n\n​\n\nEDIT: I've responded to as many of you as I can for now, but I'm moving about for a while so I will hopefully respond to the rest of you over the next couple of days but with a different account since I'm using a different account.\n\n​",
  "Salmon are predatory fish and cause suffering to other fish throughout their lives. If you kill a Salmon before its average lifespan, you are preventing the suffering of other fish that that Salmon would have killed. Those fish can instead continue to live their lives for some number of days, months or years before they are killed. This is a net positive and it\u2019s therefore ethical to eat wild caught Salmon.\n\nA Salmon asphyxiating on the deck of a ship causes the same amount of suffering as its natural death would cause on average.\n\nAt scale, as long as the fishing is sustainable there will be no negative ecological consequences. Price will just increase if demand increases.\n\nThe same reasoning applies to other predatory species but I focused on Salmon because I think it\u2019s one of the clearer cases.",
  "The meat industry, if only ethical farming practices are used, essentially allows for more happy animals to live than would be possible without a demand for meat. More happiness in the world, I would consider a good. What response would you have to a person that only eats meat that comes from sustainable ethical farming practices?\n\n I don't see a good way out of answering yes to the question in the title and not saying eating meat in this way is ethical.",
  "If I\u2019m correct the prevention of unnecessary harm is the utilitarian argument for veganism. This is what has been convincing me, but is this standard for action not too demanding. \n\nIm thinking this because if I was to extend this line of reasoning to other actions I would be required to ride my bike most of the time avoiding travel when unnecessary, not over-eat, avoid excessive parties, buy a cheap phone when mine breaks, play my console less etc etc and basically live a very prudent lifestyle.\n\nReading this all back sounds ethical but too demanding for a person to constantly consider and adhere to. I support society going vegan and think it\u2019s something we should all do but too tough of a standard for individuals to maintain when spread to all of life not just diet. \n\nI\u2019ve been vegan for the last month, convinced by ethical reasons but mainly because my mum is religiously fasting (I\u2019m atheist) so I had support to do it. Fast is going to break soon and I\u2019m not sure if I can adhere to veganism strictly after.\n\nAm I just coping to eat meat or is there some validity to the argument that it\u2019s too demanding of a framework",
  "Not seen it discussed here before but what\u2019s your opinion on wool? ",
  "I saw a meme on r/vegan that to me seemed like it was saying \"veganuary is b/s\".\n\nAs someone who did veganuary on the way to being vegan, I was surprised to see this and felt it did more damage than \"good\" activism.\n\nI'd like to understand the other side of the debate here if anyone is willing.",
  "Depending where you live for example i live in Nz and it is important for hunting to happen as new zealand has no natural predators. Europeans introduced animals like possums and stoats which eat our native birds and eggs making them near extinct. Deer destroy native forests and fauna that is found only in NZ making them extinct. Of course the Europeans introduced more animals like goats and rabbits which also need hunted. NZ's ecosystem is fragile and these animals destroy it hence why hunting is a necessity in NZ.\n\nDisclaimer: hunting for trophys is bad dont support that",
  "When you shoot a deer with a big rifle, that's not impressive. You probably don't even know how to make one.\n\nBut when you shoot it with something like a bow and arrow, or sling, or spear, or anything else you can make for yourself in less than a year, you are simply cutting down the herd and doing what nature does, and becoming part of the food chain as a predator.",
  "/u/IlII4 requested user flairs, so I've enabled those. Please let me know if you think we need more options.\n\nI have also disabled link posts. Looking at the submission history, it appears these posts tend to be off-topic and generally do not generate a lot of discussion. Linking to external content is of course still allowed, but you're now expected to wrap them in a self post and to describe what it is that you would like to discuss.\n\nFinally, comment scores are now hidden for 20 hours to reduce bandwagon effects. \n\nOther suggestions and feedback are welcome.",
  "On the basis of environmentalism, eating fewer plants also reduces Nutrient loading on the earth. No agriculture lands, no grain silos, no deforestation. If environmental engineering and biotech. advances to the point of recycling all carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and micronutrients from waste to food, by creating primary photosynthates, which would then provide energy for bacteria and yeasts to (re)create food products, *would some vegans then  extend their ideologies to not eating virgin plant products?*  The greater nateure's food-web would become completely independent of human food webs. Everyone just eats, basically yeast and algae, but none of its nutrients except for sunlight will come from a non-recycled source, such as the agro-industrial Haber process, or phosphorus mining.",
  "First, some backstory: I'm two months vegan, and recently I've convinced both of my parents to try a vegan diet for 6 months (they love it so far). \nLast night, my dad made a joke about getting chickens (my mom would never agree to this, vegan or not). He asked if it \"would be okay (moral/ethical) to get some chickens just to have fresh eggs\", nothing else. I admitted I thought it would be fine, besides the obvious health reasons. \n\nSo is that wrong? Assuming the chickens were fed a healthy plant-based diet, had a nice place to live, were taken care of, and not slaughtered unless they were deathly ill or something. Chickens lay unfertalized eggs naturally, so the consumption of eggs, rather than just letting them spoil, would cause no harm to anyone (aside from the consumer). I'm again just wondering from a moral and ethical (and possibly enviormental?) standpoint, both me and my family are aware of the health issues. \n\nTLDR; Is eating chicken eggs moral/ethical if the chickens are otherwise treated as pets?",
  "Excluding humans.",
  "Say a meat eater is against slaughtering animals what if he just eats roadkill or animals that have died naturally. What if he acts like a vulture waiting for the animal to die then he eats it. Dosent that reduce suffering. Some people really do eat dead animals they find on the road or in the wild.",
  "Humans are above animals in terms of ethics and self-awareness/sentience; they can and choose not to kill animals, because it's right, unlike animals could (?). We are all animals/persons, but humans are something more.\n \n*-*\n\n(Please bear in mind I am very open minded and this is not an opinion I hold very strongly.)",
  "Its known that some areas have very thin and low quality soil, are arid, and people in these areas generally herd goats, sheep and other types of animals because humans can't eat the grass there. As we know, grains and root vegetables don't grow everywhere. \n\nWhat do vegans think about those kinds of situations? I mean it's not difficult to eat vegetarian in damp tropical climates but most people don't live in those areas. ",
  "Wow. Sorry for the long post. I thought of ways to shorten the argument but I felt like I would be doing so at the expense of readability... Honestly, I'd be delighted if anyone even takes their time to fully read it let alone spend more time to come up with interesting arguments against it.\n\n​\n\nI see two very similar statements (but definitely different) used a lot without any justification. Honestly, I'm not so sure if these statements can be taken at face value. For the sake of reducing my typing, I will stick to \"meat\" for \"animal product\" and \"cruelty\" for \"torture, slaughter, forced impregnation, etc.\" Nevertheless, I don't think I'll make any assumptions about the specific words that prevents any generalizations.\n\n1. Purchasing meat is supporting animal cruelty\n2. Purchasing meat contributes to animal cruelty\n\nFirst, I want to claim that there's a distinction between 1 and 2 in that 1 takes into account motives whereas 2 is a mere observation of the outcome.\n\nFor example, I believe many can agree that I would not be supporting homicide if I were to kill someone under a clearly reasonable instance of self-defense, whereas it is undeniably a fact that me practicing self-defense in that situation had contributed to an instance of homicide.\n\nNevertheless, after looking up various interpretations of \"support,\" I've concluded that it's not very clear whether there really is a distinction between 1 and 2 from a semantics stand point, thus I leave this claim as an unjustified premise. In particular, I'm claiming that 1 has both result elements and motive elements whereas 2 is entirely result-based. If you don't agree with the premise that 1 and 2 are distinct and that 1 is a mix of result and motive, I'm not so sure that constructive discussions can occur, but I'd be happy to see any good objections to this interpretation. Otherwise, we will assume this as a premise because the term support is way too vague for everyone to agree on some meaningful and consistent definition.\n\n​\n\n\\-------\n\n​\n\nThe outline of this post is to talk about the motive-based implications of the first statement and then talk about the second statement. Any result-based implications in the first statement can be interpolated from the second statement, and thus the first statement can be thought of as some weighted sum between the two with some unclear but hopefully reasonable weights.\n\nThe goal is to first attempt to establish that on a pure motive-basis, one is not supporting animal cruelty by purchasing meat. Finally, I leave a slightly blanket and less interesting argument (?) that from an individual standpoint, purchasing meat does not contribute to animal cruelty meaningfully compared to various actions that a vegan may also perform. Thus, I leave the conclusion as \"it **probably** is pretty negligible\" and therefore shift the burden of proof on whether it's negligible or not on others.\n\nThe argument will unfortunately be casuistry, although I take caution not to cheat with different premises and frameworks. Purely deontological arguments and utilitarian arguments are IMO beaten to death by 20th century philosophers (and I'd be accused of proof by obscurity)\n\n​\n\n\\-------\n\n**\"Purchasing meat is supporting animal cruelty\"**\n\nHere, we are focusing on the **motive/intent aspects of \"to support.\"** Again, the results aspect will be covered in statement 2. Thus for clarity, I will not use \"support\" in this section and rephrase it with err \"advocate?\" Perhaps there's a better replacement though.\n\n**\"Purchasing meat is advocating for animal cruelty\"**\n\nWe will use the notion of ultimate and and instrumental desires. These two notions are very well-studied and developed in the context of psychological egoism and altruism, but I don't mean to do any arguments by obscurity although these existing debates are strong inspirations to this particular argument. **As a side note, of course, we'll assume the falsehood of psychological egoism**, otherwise any discussion of motive in ethics become irrelevant. \n\nIntuitively, ultimate desires are the \"end goals\" whereas instrumental desires are the \"steps.\" For example, a person restricting their calorie intake would most likely consider \"being healthy\" or \"losing weight\" as ultimate desires and \"not eating\" or \"working out\" as instrumental desires; the person most likely does not place any value in \"not eating\" by itself but desires it only because it leads to his/her end goal.\n\n​\n\nFirst, consider this simple example:\n\n**\"Hiring a hitman is advocating murder\"**\n\nThis is certainly true. This is because the death of some target is both the ultimate and instrumental desire. Of course, this example doesn't help my point, but hopefully it helps set the context for future arguments.\n\n​\n\nNext, consider:\n\n**\"Going on a road trip to see friends is advocating the use of gas\"**\n\nIt's true that going on a road trip logically requires the use of a car, and therefore the use of gas. Nevertheless, in this scenario, the ultimate desire is \"to see friends\" whereas \"using gas\" is merely an instrumental desire.\n\n​\n\nFinally, consider:\n\n**\"Purchasing meat (to eat it) is advocating for animal cruelty\"**\n\nSimilar to the road trip example, the purchase of meat logically requires someone to slaughter an animal and thus logically require some form of animal cruelty. Nevertheless, there is a semantic but **very important** disparity in the motive; one buys meat not to perform animal cruelty but merely to **eat meat**, and thus, in this scenario, the ultimate desire is \"to eat meat,\" and \"animal cruelty\" becomes an instrumental desire.\n\n​\n\nNext, I need to establish that the only motive one is held accountable for from a **motive only analysis** is their ultimate desire. Again, this ignores the consequential aspect, which I guess most \"animal rights\" people place weight in.\n\n​\n\nThe argument is simply an absurdum style argument. In that case, me purchasing most electronics indicates me advocating for child labor, almost slavery-level employment conditions, etc. Me joining the military is me advocating for murder. and so on. With a less awkward phrasing, \"I'm going to see my friends (driving a car) because **I want to use gas**,\" or \"I buy my phone because **I wanted to pay companies with unethical oversea workers practices**.\" I mean they sound really ridiculous. Similarly, \"I buy meat (to eat it) because I want to support animal cruelty\" is just absurd. No. I buy meat to eat it. For more extensive arguments, see the back and forth in psychological egoism.\n\n​\n\n**Unfortunately, this is not a conclusive argument just like the psychological egoism arguments**. Nevertheless, from an aesthetics and productivity standpoint, it makes sense that we ought to separate these types of desires. It also helps (but of course does not prove) that philosophers tend to unanimously agree that they ought to be separable.\n\n​\n\n\\--------------------\n\nThis concludes what I consider is the interesting argument. If there are no issues with the above argument, we can agree that a meat eater is relieved from the motive aspect of the blanket phrase: \"Purchasing meat is supporting animal cruelty.\"\n\n​\n\nHowever, meat eaters are not relieved of the consequential aspect to this phrase yet. For clarity, I will focus on this phrase: \"Purchasing meat contributes to animal cruelty,\" which according to our premise and the previous argument is logically equivalent to the first statement.  I leave the following unrefined arguments for completeness sake. My main goal was to establish the impossibility of any motive related blame assignment, and I don't really find the results of the consequential aspects interesting anyway but definitely am eager to hear of any interesting arguments (for either side).\n\n​\n\n​\n\nFirst, there's a very obvious nitpick argument, which can be a bit annoying but certainly is valid, that one can make:\n\n\"**but it's impossible to NOT contribute to animal cruelty**\". Of course, to truly \"not\" contribute to animal cruelty, one ought to cut off social ties with meat eaters, refuse service from any companies that employ meat eaters, etc, which is definitely impractical, ridiculous, yet not **logically impossible** (and hence does remain as a very important roadblock that animal right activists ought to address to get around any sorites paradox-like arguments). The idea is to then press the vegan on the location of the threshold one ought to draw and then forcibly wiggle that around. Of course, I can make this argument, but this is a bit boring; I believe that attacking reasonability in these threshold based topics leads to unproductivity. Nevertheless, I want to mention it here because I don't see anyway one can escape from this reasoning at a purely logical level, and I see people often take this as granted; I think it's very non-trivial and thus such a conclusion cannot be assumed.\n\n​\n\n\\-------\n\n​\n\nThe following is also a common argument, but I hope I can word it in a more compelling manner.\n\nIt's undeniably true that purchasing of meat does not **immediately** make the supplier kill another animal. Furthermore, I believe (**this is a claim**, but intuition tells me that the burden of proof lies on the opposing claim) that a few fewer purchasing of meat over a week or so does not really make any meaningful difference. This is a very common argument, and the naive retaliation to this claim is to say something along the lines of \"but if everyone/lots of people does it, it does make a difference.\" Yes, this is true. However, the context of this topic, as picky as it sounds, is the idea of blame assignment to a single individual, and in that context, you really can't assign any non-trivial blame to the individual when it's the collective responsibility of billions of people. Again, this argument only works when dealing with an individual scope. In a more familiar context, a single voter cannot be logically blamed for the collective lack of voting. Yes, this does mean that the amount of \"responsibility\" while being a bystander witnessing a murder is an inverse function of the number of equally capable witnesses in a utilitarian framework. This conclusion is controversial, but I'd be happy to defend this position with a simple \"conservation of utils\" argument :)\n\n​\n\nThere are many ways to establish this pretty obvious claim; a stats approach is to consider the distribution of voting outcomes when other n players vote with some fixed distribution. It turns out that analyzing the worst case is what matters, so consider a 0 mean distribution. Finally, drop some of the voters with some unknown distribution, and we see that the probability of the voting being split is a negligible function of n. A crypto motivated approach is to do the same thing as the math example but consider the set of all possible voting outcomes in the case when a vote is added vs not. The two sets will turn out to be computationally indistinguishable and hence the probability of the \"vote mattering\" is a negligible function of n.",
  "If you\u2019re going to the grocery store and a non vegan family member asks you for a non vegan item, can you still be considered a vegan if you buy it but you yourself don\u2019t consume it?",
  "Hello, I see many people upset about putting a label of \u201cplant-based\u201d on products that contain dairy, eggs, etc. What alternative label makes more sense?  \n\n\nScenario: We have three sandwiches:\n\n1. Cheeseburger\n2. Plant-based cheeseburger (contains dairy)\n3. Vegan cheeseburger\n\nHow do you want the second one labeled?",
  "This is a conversation I came across recently. Is this really an argument? Can we even compare drinking dairy milk with using vaccines or computers? How would you answer to this?\nEdit: This is an observation, as I said in the title, not an argument.",
  "So I have sheep (living on a farm) where we take care of them and we care about the animals so why should I not shave my sheep (by hand not through a big machine) when my sheep feel bad if I don\u2019t shave them?\n\nJust kind of want to hear a reason as I have never heard a good answer.",
  "I've seen many vegans refer to the position paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics on vegetarian diets, whenever health concerns about veganism are raised. In their paper, they write:\n\n'It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.' \\[1\\]\n\nThis position paper has been criticized for being incomplete \\[2\\]. I've summarized the main points from this reference here. Some of the points are targeted towards vegetarians specifically, but many also apply to veganism. For more details, refer to the source.\n\n1) Pregnancy outcomes: In most populations, the male/female sex ratio of newborns is around 105:100. In a British study, the male/female sex ratio was 81.5:100 in vegetarians vs. 106:100 in omnivores. The 23% reduction in births of boys might be due to malnutrition.\n\n2) Meat vs Milk: In an intervention trial of roughly 500 Kenyan school children, researches supplemented an otherwise plant-based meal with either 60g of beef, 200 ml of milk, or 3 g of oil. After 2 years, the meat group scored 10 IQ points higher than the milk group, and the meat group had 100 (50) % more muscle than the control (milk) group. The improved cognitive performance might be due to increased B12 consumption as well as better bioavailability of iron and zinc.\n\n3) Substituting meat for dairy increases the risk of acne.\n\n4) Phytoestrogens in soy: males born to vegetarian mothers in England were more than 3.5 times as likely to have malformed genitalia. which was statistically linked to the consumption of high-phytoestrogen legumes\n\n5) Iron and zinc absorption: vegetarians tend to have similar or higher iron intake than omnivores, but lower serum ferritin levels. Similarly for zinc. This is due to phytates in plants lowering the absorption of those minerals.\n\n6) Creatine: Lack of creatine intake among vegetarians lowers fluid intelligence and working memory by approximately 1 standard deviation, corresponding to about 15 IQ points (from a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study). Higher creatinine levels are also associated with higher earnings 20 years later.\n\n7) Taurine: low taurine intake may put infants at risk for impaired neurodevelopment. Low plasma neonatal taurine was associated with lower scores on the Bayley mental development index at 18 months and the WISC-R arithmetic subtest at 7 years.\n\n8) Long-Chain n\u22123 PUFAs: vegetarians and vegans have lower plasma concentrations of EPA and DHA. The AND writes 'The clinical relevance of reduced EPA and DHA status among vegetarians and vegans is unknown.' If it's unknown, where do they take the confidence to claim vegetarian diets are healthful and nutritionally adequate?\n\n9) Vegetarian and vegan diets necessarily have high n\u22126/n\u22123 PUFA ratios. Some evidence seems to connect a high ratio with chronic systemic inflammation that can potentially lead to autoimmune diseases.\n\nThis is not proof that vegetarian diets are unhealthy in childhood, but it raises some concerns. The author of the paper concludes: 'Parents ought to be informed that the debate about the health effects of vegetarianism in children is not settled one way or the other.'\n\nSources:\n\n\\[1\\] Position of AND: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/\n\n\\[2\\] Criticism of AND paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29405739/",
  "I thought it would be good to hear some vegan opinions and discussion about raising children vegan, vegan pregnancy, supplements babies would need, any good resources, etc. Anything slightly relevant would be great to discuss. I am interested in all of it. Even if we\u2019re talking about whether or not babies should be vegan at all. \n\nSome context / me ranting if you are interested:\n \nMy partner and I would like to have a child in the next few years, and that got me curious about vegan diets for children. I had questions like: Is it really safe?, Can I do it without messing up?, etc. \nI was looking for resources online such as guides, studies, families who create videos or vlogs that feed their children vegan diets with complete nutrition. There are many vlog families out there that do not feed their children all of the nutrients and supplements that they need, and it worries me that we could inadvertently do the same. I know that we should talk to a dietitian, and we definitely will do so closer to when we are ready to try for children, but I am worried because dietitian are people with flaws, too. Some doctors or dietitians might have a bias that suggests that we should not even try to be slightly vegan at all, while others that are too biased toward veganism may encourage us toward a vegan diet without considering other factors. Perhaps I am just too worried, but I do not want us to hurt our future children.",
  "Hey guys, I would like to preface by saying I am not a vegan, but I am sympathetic towards veganism. Even though I am not a vegan, I view it as something positive. This is more of a genuine curiosity than a debate, I am mainly looking for positive opinions and not arguments.\n\nOnto my post. Where do you draw the line with what is considered vegan or not? Previously I thought honey was a vegan product. Even though it is made by animals, I considered it to be more of a plant product that is a by product of animal interaction than an animal product. If honey is not vegan, where is the line drawn? Is any food that is made/harvested with the assistance of animals non-vegan? For a few examples, kopi luwak coffee is made from coffee beans that are harvested from animal poop. Truffles are sniffed out by trained dogs/pigs. Even most organic crops are fertilized by bees, with fertilizer from manure. \n\nPersonally I had thought veganism was not consuming animal genetic material (which honey does not contain afaik), which means I would personally place every example I said as vegan. Thoughts? If you disagree with honey being vegan, why is the work of bees fertilizing veggies considered while the honey is not? Or is this more of a \"no true scottsman\" scenario with no hard and fast rules?\n\nEdit: The general consensus from most people is no food that intentionally harms creatures. That's fair reasoning. Previously I had thought that honey was avoided as an animal by product, not because it harmed bees. This makes everyones reasoning much clearer. Thank you to everyone who replied.",
  "Hemos salido a las calles a preguntar a los ciudadanos qu\u00e9 consumen en estas fechas y, sobre todo, qu\u00e9 saben sobre lo que comen.",
  "How much knowledge did you gather before you went vegan, and still gather as new research is made. Is it important to you to keep up to date?\n\nI am not a vegan but I understand the general view and sometimes struggle with the fine print; not eating honey but wearing a pearl necklace?\n\nI am not in any way criticizing anybodys choices but trying to understand where people draw the line. It is an individual choice of course. What is your bottom line?",
  " \n\nIf your goal is to reduce animal suffering and/or protect animals, then it doesn't make any sense to apply those restrictions only to humans, the same way we don't apply punishment and defence only against humans.\n\nIt's irrelevant wheter another human is being attacked either by an animal or a human, people aim, rightfully so, to protect the human regardless.\n\nThe focus shouldn't be on the subject that is attacking, but on the subject that is being attacked, since the main goal of veganism is to reduce animal exploitation and suffering.\n\nIt's meaningless to claim that you are against animal suffering or death, but then throw them at nature, when they will likely, since we mostly don't eat predators, die the same way. Through consequentialist and utilitarian lens, you are, respectively, presenting the same outcome to the victim and not reducing suffering.\n\nThus, vegans should apply their principles to animals as well, otherwise the goal of the movement is useless.\n\nI will not answer appeals to nature, since they are fallacies in themselves",
  "Despite this topic coming up quite a few times, I wanted to start a discussion on it that relates to the common responses vegans give. I've always found them particularly confusing.\n\nIn moral discussions, we often identify acts which we believe are bad or acts which themselves are not bad, but lead to bad consequences. So, for instance, a vegan may argue that buying meat isn't intrinsically bad, but it leads to demand, which leads to an animal being slaughtered, which is the act identified as being bad. \n\nWhat tends not to be the case is that someone says that an act that *follows* a bad act is therefore bad. So let's say we find out some parent is abusing their kids. We take them away and give them foster homes. We don't say because it *came* from a bad act, that the act of taking the kids away and fostering them is therefore bad. Or if someone broke something of yours out of malicious intent, that fixing it was bad because it's only the result of a bad act. This seems an incredibly confusing move.\n\nHowever, this seems to be the nature of a lot of backyard hen egg-eating counter-arguments.\n\nHere are two I hear a lot:\n\n1) The hen may have come from a farm that kills the roosters.\n\n2) The hen may have been genetically selected over time to have health problems from over-laying.\n\nNow, these facts may seem relevant in the causative sense if we are *purchasing* these hens and thus increasing the demand for them. We can see how the *purchasing* leads to those acts occuring. But how does this really effect *whether or not you eat the eggs*. In most discussions, the purchasing element is removed by supposing a rescue hen. I'm taking it that the vegan position is that it is NOT categorically wrong to rescue a hen. Thus, if we have a hen, and we have it ethically (rescue) then in what way does the decision to eat the eggs relate to the 2 previous points? Eating the eggs doesn't cause extra demand for these hens, thus does not cause 1) or 2). \n\nThe case starts to look like \"Because it came from a bad cause, then eating the eggs is bad\". But, as already discussed, this just generally doesn't make any sense. You have the hen, you rescued it, which is good, and now you have a decision: eat the eggs or don't. The background facts of this hen's existence don't seem relevant to this decision. Unless someone can argue why an act is bad because it follows a bad act, these arguments should stop being made. Or unless someone wants to argue that eating the eggs causes 1) or 2) (and not the act of rescuing) then these arguments should stop being made. They make no sense.\n\nTo which I move on to two of the actual arguments that *do* seem connected with eating of the eggs. I will entertain one more argument in the end. There are two popular ones in this discussion:\n\n1) The chickens eat the eggs to regain calcium/nutrients lost in the egg laying.\n\n2) It's not yours (ownership rights).\n\nThe first one, to me, is bizarre. Vegans often argue that there is no nutrient in animal products that cannot be obtained with plant products. Thus, a properly balanced plant-based diet should make it so that the chicken does not require to eat back its eggs. I don't think vegans want to argue that the chicken needs eggs specifically, as that weakens the vegan position overall significantly. Thus, I find 1) to be a really poor argument.\n\nThe second one is very odd, too. If a chicken has the habit of laying eggs, ignoring them, and letting them rot, we can imagine that they *don't want them*. Imagine if I put out my garbage and someone goes and recycles it. We would not use the defense \"That's not yours\" against the act. I put it out because I didn't want it. (I'm ignoring the fact that our garbage might contain personal information, since there's no analogy of that and the chicken situation). Or if I'm done with a couch and I put it on the curb to get it out of my house, and someone comes along and takes it, we don't say, \"No, let it sit there and rot, that's not yours.\" It seems that if you *don't want something ever again*, you relinquish ownership of it. Unless we take the same attitude towards animal dung, or, picking up a feather preened off by a bird, or a discarded shell of a hermit crab, it just doesn't make sense as an argument.\n\nSo I find these 4 arguments against the eating of backyard rescue hen eggs.. terrible. They don't make any sense to me.\n\nThe last argument I'll entertain is the only one that I think has any plausibility:\n\n1) It normalizes meat eating.\n\nNow this argument I can understand the merits of, but ultimately find unconvincing. Imagine you invite someone over for a meal, who thinks you are vegan, but notices you have egg in the meal. They believe you've given up veganism and perhaps are less persuaded by the position. Or maybe you take a boiled egg to work, and people think less of your convictions, or it signals to them that you believe eating meat is okay or perhaps that you're a hypocrite. Okay, this seems plausible as an argument. However, these don't seem that hard to mitigate:\n\n1) Don't bring eggs outside of your home.\n\n2) Inform people in your home you invite the circumstances of the food, and the conditions required to make it ethical.\n\nUnless I'm missing something about these arguments, the only positions I could understand are:\n\n1) Backyard rescue hen eggs are ethically fine.\n\n2) Putting animal products in your mouth is intrinsically bad.\n\nAnd given that 2) isn't generally the axiom from which vegans argue, it seems 1) should be the default.\n\nWhat do you guys think?",
  "I want to put an open-ended question out there to see if anyone has a realistic idea on how the world could go Vegan and what steps would be necessary. Please see if you can back anything up with sources. Please bear in mind increasing population numbers, how it would work in third world countries, what would be the benefits and how would you overcome the negatives of such a transition? ",
  "Allow me to emphasize: This is a moral question, not an ethical question. I am not asking if it is moral to kill an animal for it's meat. I am not asking if it is immoral to harm an animal for it's meat. I am asking if, in your personal purviews, of course, is it immoral, by the simple fact, to eat meat. \n\nI would assume that it would be considered moral, for example, to eat an unfertilized egg if there was no harm done to the animal. After all, chickens produce excess eggs naturally; they do not need them all. By the same extension, I would assume that it would be considered moral to drink excess milk that a cow (or other mammal, sure) produces, provided that the calves receive the milk they need, and the cow was not artificially inseminated, and so on. If there is no mistreatment of animal life, it should seem moral to eat animal by-products if there was no harm perpetrated onto the animals producing those by-products. If you have a debate for these notions, by all means, present them. I am genuinely curious!\n\nWhat is different about meat? If an animal dies in a way we could not prevent, like accident or incurable malady, would it be immoral to eat the meat leftover? Would it be immoral to use it's bones to produce gelatin or make a broth? Would it be immoral to tan it's skin for leather? If an unweaned calf died, would it be immoral to use it's stomach to produce rennet, and then produce cheese?\nIs simple use of the animal's body after it's death immoral by that fact alone? Is it immoral to just eat meat?\n\nThanks.\n\n(Note: I am not a vegan, but I am looking into it, but it is complicated.)",
  "One of the key arguments for animal rights is the argument from marginal cases, made popular by Peter Singer. The argument goes that for any morally relevant trait there exist non-human animals who possess said trait to a greater extent the some humans thus if we grant the human a right to life then we ought also to grant the non-human animals one as there is no morally relevant trait separating one that can be appealed to. The humans who posses these traits to a lesser degree then many non-human animals are known in the literature as the marginal cases, with the most likely candidates being infants, the severally cognitively impaired and the very senile. James Rachels has convincingly (I think) argued that the theory of evolution leads us to expect the existence of marginal cases, to expect species overlap with regard to morally relevant properties. I believe there are marginal cases but I'm looking for sources (preferably scientific papers) that prove this. Thought this would probably be the best place to ask.\n\nTL,DR: looking for sources to prove that there exist humans with lower cognitive functions than some non-human animals. ",
  "I'm not here to debate in the sense to get you to agree with me nor have you get me to agree with you. (i'm stubborn)\nBut my reasoning for us to eat animal products is because we need vitamin B12. there's no other place to get it. The only place i find is 'fortified' food. which means before technology we would not have the luxury of being vegan, which means our bodies are technically made to be meat eaters, or at least animal product eaters, no?",
  "If meat is murder, and all meat livestock is being murdered, what is a viable murderless solution that can sustain 8 billion and counting humans eating only plants AND several more billion and counting \u201clivestock\u201d species eating only plants?",
  "\n",
  "I was at Dunkin\u2019 Donuts. I ordered two iced lattes for my friends. Neither are vegan or lactose intolerant. One requested an iced latte made with dairy milk and one requested an iced latte made with almond milk. I ordered them correctly however when the employee handed them to me I asked them if they made the one with almond milk and they said no you didn\u2019t ask for almond milk. Even though I did I just took the beverages as it is rather than argue with the employee even if they had remade them they were just threw away the perfectly good beverage. What is your stance here? I should add that I am plant-based and one time I ordered a taco shell salad with beans and salsa, lettuce and no sour cream and it came out with sour cream. They told me that they could throw it out and make me a new one but I just scraped the shower cream off even though a little bit of the shower cream remained on my lettuce and on the fried taco shell.  I figured what is the point of them wasting all that perfectly good food especially when they\u2019re starving people in the world. How would you handle a situation like this or how have you handled a situation like this.?",
  "(This is a throwaway account.) I wanted to post in /r/Vegan but I wasn't sure if it's allowed. I understand why people are vegan, but as much as I want to say I also want to be a vegan \"for the animals,\" I can't find a connection within myself to care?\n\nI've watched so many videos on the meat/dairy/egg industry, and about how animals are slaughtered, and I still can't find an emotional connection to these animals. In my head, I merely think, \"Many societies were able to grow and thrive because of their access to sustenance via meat/dairy/eggs/animal products.\"\n\nAdditionally I had to dissect frogs and other animals in university, and I wasn't creeped out or disgusted by it, it was just purely a scientific exercise. I don't know if this is because I'm crazy, or because I'm trained to remove my emotions when it comes to suffering. I don't know.\n\nI have a plant-based diet, but I feel so detached from \"caring about animals.\" I feel that in order to be truly vegan, I should be just as passionate about animals and life as everyone else, but I'm not, and it makes me feel guilty.\n\nI need someone to talk to. I watch so many people on yt talk about how passionate they are about animals, and I want to say that I care that much too, but it just feels like I'm lying.\n\nEdit:\nThank you everyone for you responses. I guess I never really thought about \"it's ok to just choose this lifestyle,\" even if I don't necessarily have the same reasons as other people. I don't really have any vegan friends to talk to about things, so it was nice to get your input.",
  "As per title. If you are a hated minority, but not only that, but also considered a dreg of society, a subhuman (because of ideas deemed extremely dangerous), then even vegan themselves hate you and wish that you did not exist, contradicting their claims that all life is valuable. All animal lives matters, BUT theirs, because many vegans would cheer on their demise (sadly, it is that normalized). Imagine how that person, considered subhuman by almost everyone, including many life-loving vegans, might feel about veganism, considering that if that person embraces veganism, she/he might be backstabbed by vegans and even die (socially or literally). Examples abound. In 1900 the dregs of society were gay people, yesterday it was trans people. Today? Many kinds of huge fears, relating to people whose mere existence is considered a threat. \n\nRegarding the year 1900, a vegan society back then would value all animal lives, while the gay people were considered subhuman. That had got to hurt for a vegan gay person, and if that person abandoned veganism it would be understoodable. Just 1 example, about the fact that being vegan does not automatically make you into an ethical person.\n\nIn summary, there are people out there justified in eating meat, because society in general would rather, and wishes they did not exist, most people even do not see them as humans anymore, just subhuman. And vegans are no exception, in general, they see them just the same, as I have seen some discourse in vegan communities advocating for violence against the social outcast, even without any proof of crime, just that gratuitious blood-lust and promotion of physical harm. We are all humans, and we are violent, vegans are not immune to the violence.",
  "Hi everyone, I am a vegan and just watched meat the family on 4od, I thought it was a pretty poorly thought out show which glossed over the actual slaughter part and painted the farming community in a positive light. I'm wondering if there are any vegans out there who thought this show was good or has any comments, thanks.",
  "I don\u2019t know if in my lifetime that veganism will ever be the dominant diet without baby steps, but I believe a large portion of the population would consider getting a meal out of eating a less sentient insect than cows or pigs. ",
  "I might be wrong about this, and it might very well not be the case all around the world (most kinds of animal industries are not always the same all around the world, which is an important thing to take into consideration!), but as far as I know, there is no 'horse industry' in my country (Denmark), in the same sense as cow, poultry, pig industry and so on. Meaning, any product made from horses, like horse meat, horse leather and horse hair, all come from horses that has been bred and kept as riding horses. Usually private owned pet horses. In case of a horse needing to be put down for whatever reason, the owner can choose to donate the body to be used for products and meat, for either human consumption and often for zoos (its very popular to donate your deceased horse to be fed to lions or other carnivorous zoo animals. So much so, most zoos have waiting lists).\n\nConsidering if a horse product, such as horse meat or leather, comes from a horse that has lived a happy life as a riding horse but needed to be put down for other reasons, what are your thoughts on the use of these products? Also, brushes and stuff with horse hair. You don't need to kill the horse to use its hair, and they aren't raised for the purpose of their hair. In other words, if you are against horse products in a country that has no industry, wouldn't you in theory just be against the concept of pet horses? Or are you against that concept too?",
  "I just cant grasp that the reason people go vegan is because of empathy to animals as if they are humans (hence why so many holocaust comparisons).\n\nIf that was the case vegans would live in a world of complete panic and fury, just imagine if everyone around you was a mass murderer who ate the victims. Most vegans I met are just chill people.",
  "Hi. Portions of my family are livestock/field farmers who raise, butcher, and sell their livestock.\n\nOther than the butchering which is done in the most quick and painless way, their livestock (pigs/chickens/cows) are well taken care of with either free ranging or very large pens that are cleaned daily.\n\nI hunt small game, deer, coyote, and the occasional goose. Each is fully used as much as possible and none go to waste. I own an arsenal of guns which number in the 20s.\n\nI'm an EMT/Fire Fighter/Reserve Officer and have lived country most of my life. I've also been heavily carnivorous and unabashed by thoughts other than general conservation.\n\nAll that being said, I guess I get where the personal moral implications of veganism come from, but what exactly is the world gaining from vegans?\n\nI see the human population knowingly and concentratively domesticate livestock for the pure use of eating. We've dumbed then down to easily reciprocate livestock life, made them larger for more efficient consumption.\n\nWhat's the end game? Species genocide until only pets remain?",
  "This is my first post as a non vegan. My goal is to have answers from non vegans to my pro vegan arguments. Im open to hearing from vegans as well. My final question though is directed at vegans specifically. \n\nI truly believe MOST (not all) people who can go vegan but don't lack empathy. They believe that physical pleasure from eating meat or the convenience from eating animal products matters more than life. Most anti vegan arguments can not only easily be debunked, but also i doubt that the people saying them would use them elsewhere. For example, if eating meat is human nature, would you also say that SA is human nature? No, most would recognize that we're civilized. Therefore the true reason is lack of empathy. Meaning these would be the same people that wouldn't have stood up when facing things like segregation or slavery. Change my mind\n\nNow for lack of logic. This is the confusing bit. Most non vegans lack empathy, yet would be livid if they knew that someone had sex with an animal. I believe that's because they're blindly following a set of social norms. But how does that make sense? Having non harmful sex with an animal is much better than killing one, no? (I DO NOT SUPPORT ZOOPHILIA, ANIMALS CANNOT CONSENT) My question is, why is killing an animal to please my tongue okay but having sex with a horny animal to please my genitals not okay? Why is the outcome that results in death okay but not the one that results in pleasure for both parties?\n\nAnd finally, now a question for vegans. How would you define morality? And why should i agree with your view of morality? Because i cannot agree with the fact that killing is wrong if i cannot agree with how you view morals.",
  "Of all the issues I have with vegans (mostly social ones) I have a lot of trouble understanding how one goes about reaching the vegan ideology logically in that **nature isn't vegan**.\n\nCarnivores and omnivores have existed longer than humans as a species, so why would humans, an omnivore, go against their nature?\n\nI argue that the vegan ideology is anti nature in concept.\n\n**My View**\nIn my opinion: Nature is the reaction of chemicals which fuel the movement of objects in space and with that:\n1. Nature continues and is run by cycles.\n\n2. The ending of a cycle is due to it being interrupted by another cycle with specific characteristics which undo the former cycle.\n\n3. Cycles that make up nature interact and form larger communities.\n\n4. The end of a cycle is not the end of that part of nature but simply a change in what nature is.\n\n5. Nature will not end until all cycles have ceased without being inherited by a larger cycle.\n\nWhat I take from this:\n\n1. Nature has is from the big bang to the animal world.\n\n2. Changes in nature have insured that life competes for resources.\n\n3. Human follow their cycle as omnivores.\n\n4. By purposefully not following the cycle of consuming animals, a human would go against nature's cycle of humans.",
  "I'm a vegan and was recently asked how I feel about areas like the midwest where deer are often overpopulated and hunting is encouraged. The concept is essentially that having too many deer will lead to more car accidents and other dangers to humans (and the deer) and I assume some sort of food shortage or dangers of disease for the deer in addition to physical accidents.\n\nI've heard of similar situations with certain species of fish.\n\nHow do you feel about people hunting animals to control overpopulation and limit danger to humans?",
  "Title pretty much sums it up.  I see/hear about all this awful stuff online from various, but biased sources: gestation crates, animals not being stunned effectively before slaughter, egg-laying hens in tiny cages, but how do I know it's not just a tiny minority of factory farms?",
  "Have a cousin who works in an anti human trafficking organization and she always tells me how sex trafficking isn't the most exploited type of human trafficking, it's actually labor trafficking where migrant workers are exploited after coming to America. \n\nI don't eat any meat but I still consume eggs and dairy products. I'm having a hard time quitting because while I may save some cows or chickens lives, the means by which my food is brought to my table is still unethical. Not only that but the clothes on my back, the cellphone in my hand, and even the apartment I live in were all made by beings who were taken advantage of. \nSo where do you draw the line in terms of ethical consumption? It seems that everything I own was brought about in some evil or corrupt way ",
  "After looking vegan arguments online I find a lot moral arguments don't explain why death is not suffering, but pain is.\n\nI have seen Vegans argue that we should not eat animals to reduce suffering. That because plants do not have conscience or sentience, they do not suffer. I have to disagree because I think plants do not want to die just like animals, it just that it is much harder to empathize with plants since plants are much more different than us. Both plants and animals want to avoid death, and this can be seen by the different defense mechanisms that they use. For animals, pain is a defense mechanism telling the animal to run, fight, or call for help. Plants don't use pain, but use other defense mechanisms such as being poisonous, difficult to digest, or releasing chemical signals to other organisms. So to me it is obvious that plants do not want to die, and that because you are killing a plant, you are inducing suffering.\n\nI feel like if someone was really serious about reducing suffering through their diet they would be on a fruitarian diet. There seems to be an emotional appeal that killing animals is just wrong, but these emotions are based purely on empathy for animals and not plants, not to mention people's emotions can vary wildly from person to person, which is why I find this argument flawed. Personally I feel just as bad when I see a video of a forest fire and when I see a video inside a slaughter house.\n\nPlease share with me your thoughts.",
  "Did you guys know this subreddit had a Wiki? I didn\u2019t, I was going to suggest building a wiki for some things.\n\nIs anyone interested in trying to work to expand the Wiki? Would the mods be open to a group of people brainstorming to expand the Wiki?",
  "What do people think of the idea that being vegan has a pretty low impact compared to donating to effective animal charities?\n\nI'm afraid most vegans don't donate to effective animal charities, and instead focus more on milk powder in their chips or other very marginal and low impact activities.\n\nWhat is the best way to spread the idea that being vegan is relatively low impact compared to other actions? \n\nIs this an idea that vegans would be open to, or do they have a certain degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to donations?",
  "Vegan btw\n\nIn debates, meat eaters often bring up how more small animals are killed in the production of crops than are killed in the slaughter of cows or pigs or whatever animal. Vegans will usually shut this down by stating how we grow crops specifically to feed animals that we later slaughter, so even if animals die in crop production, less animals are dying in total with the vegan diet. Meat eaters will then respond by saying how most cows eat grass, and that very few animals are killed in grazing. The argument is at an impasse because each side thinks their side kills less animals. Either the vegans are right, or the meat eaters are right.\n\nIf the vegans are right, then they simply win the argument. If both sides care about reducing the total number of animal deaths, and the vegan side minimizes animal deaths, then the meat eater must concede.\n\nHowever, I think the situation is more complex if the meat eater is correct. For a utilitarian vegan that solely cares about reducing animal death and suffering, the meat eater's argument may be convincing. I do not think this is true if a vegan is arguing from an animal rights perspective. In terms of animal rights, a cow, full stop, has the right to life and not be slaughtered for food. To intentionally kill a cow is unjustified. However, there are two arguments this vegan could make to justify the animal deaths involved in crop production.\n\n1: They are an accident. Consider the case with driving cars: we know that every time we drive a car, there are going to be some unavoidable accidents that result in animal death, both human and fauna. However, most people, vegans included, would say that driving a car is morally permissible, even if we know that there will statistically be some deaths as a result. To intentionally hit someone with your car is definitely wrong, but merely driving with the knowledge that you could kill someone is not. Extrapolating this to the farming case, I would argue that most animals dying in crop production are like people killed in car crashes. For a farmer to go out of his way to kill a rodent on hit farm is wrong, but merely operating farm equipment as intended probably is not.\n\n2: They are justified. Imagine the following hypothetical: a person lives by himself on his farm in the middle of nowhere, hundreds of miles away from where any other human lives. He is self-sufficient, and sustains himself by farming various crops in a rotation such that he always has something to eat. Say that one day, he sees another human holding a torch, and this human is clearly going to burn down his farm. The farmer is in no danger from the fire since he can easily escape, but to run is to surrender his property and livelihood. Alternatively, he could shoot the fire-bearer with a rifle, killing him to protect his farm. Would the farmer be justified in killing the fire-bearer? I would argue yes. Even if there were 20 people trying to burn down his farm, he would be justified in killing every single one.\n\nWe could imagine pests as fire-bearers. Is it wrong to kill a pest if they are endangering the crops you are trying to grow? I don't think so. Obviously it would be better to find a non-lethal way of getting the pests to not destroy a farm, but I don't think think the lethal option, if necessary, is wrong. \n\nSlaughtering a cow is unjustified, protecting your crops is justified.\n\nAlso, I am not too knowledgeable on how farmers actually deal with pests in reality. But I would imagine that most methods they use could be explained by arguments 1 and 2. Let me know what you think.",
  "We have a whitetail deer population in the US. There's multiple methods on controlling the population. Just seeing what the vegans thoughts are on the best controlling method?\n\n[Here's an article about different methods including using contraceptives for control](https://www.madetohunt.com/deer-herd-management/)",
  "To preface, I am vegan and have been for a while now, and will be for the rest of my life. This is a discussion that comes up with my partner (also vegan) that I hadn't really thought about before.\n\nI fucking love cats. I would love to have a cat. However, cats need to eat meat. They cannot be put on a vegan diet in any healthy way. If they need to eat meat to live, and we pay to have other animals killed for that purpose, how can we as vegans justify keeping cats as pets/companions?",
  "So, I am vegan for all of the reasons per usual but in this order (although they're all pretty equal)\n1.) Health & philosophy \n2.) Environmental concern\n3.) But definitely not least, animal welfare\n\nI loosely follow a more whole food plant based diet. I am not a fan of excessive substitutes or processed foods. \n\nI regularly eat vegan Quorn products because I love the taste and they're relatively healthy even though I know they don't really fall in the wfpb category. \n\nMy question is what are your thoughts on how it's made, sourced and it's potential health effects?\n\nAfter a juice fast I did, I did notice some irritation reintroducing it back into my diet but I don't notice anything when eating it regularly (I know probs due to desensitization)\n\nI've looked into it's origins and seen a small amount of controversial stuff like allergic reactions. I think like 4 people died or something from eating it. \n\nIt fulfills a good part of my cravings for certain flavor profiles so I doubt I'd exclude it from my diet but just looking for some other opinions/experiences/research that I may not have considered.",
  "One of the most common arguments for veganism is that humans are not natural meat eaters or natural hunters, that we use weapons and machines to kill. It is said that because we could not realistically kill a grown cow with our bear hands that we are not natural meat consumers and hunters.\n\nHowever, us humans are in my eyes the dominant species of Earth, we built a metropolis and turned this planet to our own. We have the most developed and intelligent brains of any animals, because we ate meat during the time when our brains were evolving at the quickest. We use them now to use weapons to kill, and we always have done. Cavemen used spears and slingshots and traps to kill - just because we didnt do it bare handed doesn\u2019t mean we aren\u2019t natural predators. Our brain was our weapon.\n\nSo are humans natural meat eaters?",
  "If people didn't have a demand to eat chicken, then they would never be mass produced, therefore millions of chickens would've never even lived their lives for a moment. Why would people raise chickens if they didn't want to eat them, besides the small percentage that would want them as a pet? Since the demand is so high, more chickens are being produced, therefore more get to live a life that they otherwise wouldn't have even had, even if it ends with getting killed.",
  "If we define veganism as the rejection of the commodification of sentient life, then an important part of understanding the definition is understanding what we mean by \"sentient\".\n\nA straight-forward definition of \"sentient\" is \"able to perceive or feel things\". A simple interpretation of this definition would mean that any life which responds to stimuli is sentient (as reaction requires some ability to sense its surroundings).\n\nWe can say that animals (and other life) exist on a scale of sentience, with some species displaying greater sentience than others (having greater abilities to perceive or feel). But where do we draw the line for what constitutes sentience? That is, for what level of sentience does it become acceptable to commodify life? \n\nFor example, [plants can distinguish when touch starts and stops](https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2023/05/31/plants-can-distinguish-when-touch-starts-and-stops/). By the definition of sentience provided above, this would imply that plants are sentient. However, if we accept plants as sentient, then there is no ethical way to sustain humanity while adhering to the definition of veganism given above.\n\nI see three ways of solving this conundrum:\n\n1. Assert that plants are not sentient life.\n2. Modify the definition of veganism to be the *minimization* of the commodification of sentient life subject to certain constraints (such as the preservation of human life).\n3. Accept that humanity should depend purely on fruits for nourishment while allowing plants to grow undirected, as this avoids commodifying plants given that fruits are evolutionarily intended for animal consumption.\n\nI would assume that most vegans would subscribe to the first option. If not, let me know what other solution to this conundrum you might hold, and why.\n\nIf we take that plants are not sentient life, then we need to justify why plants are different from animal life. For example, we could assert that a nervous system is required for sentience. This requires that we justify why a nervous system deserves to be the distinguishing factor. What makes sensing through nerves so different from sensing through other means as plants do? Or, if we choose a different distinguishing factor, why that one?\n\nIf I missed something or made an unsubstantiated argument, I would greatly appreciate if you would point to where I have made a mistake. I hope this post did not come across as combative as that is not my intention. I am simply seeking to better understand veganism. Thank you.",
  "Asking here because I suspect the answer might be debatable. Sorry if this has been asked before, I did search before posting and did not see it.\n\nScenario: a person of sound mind decides they would like to be made into leather after their death. They view it similarly to being an organ donor, and they think it would be hilarious if people were walking around with a person leather wallet, belt, handbag, etc. They have drafted a will instructing that such items be made from themselves and bequeathed to various people. They have made this known for decades prior to their passing, so there is zero question that they fully consent to this.",
  "Okay just hear me out\n\nMany vegans feed their pets (dogs, cats, etc) kibble and meat...that's fair as they need it to live.\n\nHow do you guys feel about a vegan who rescues chicken and other farm animals but then slaughters them for pet food (their own pets)?assuming the cats and dogs are rescued too....isnt this more humane then buying kibble?\n\nEdit:\n\nI'm noticing alot of comments from omnivores \n\nThis is a question for vegans",
  "To phrase the title/thesis with more clarity:\n\nThe concepts \"perfection isn't possible but you should still be vegan to reduce suffering as much as possible/practicable\" and \"veganism is all-or-nothing, any steps towards reducing suffering are useless unless you take all of them\" are almost 100% mutually exclusive. If veganism is black or white, if ANY consumption of animal products means you've made zero progress vs someone who consumes more (e.g. vegetarian/reducetarian) the only \"true\" vegans would have to live like the 13% of the world that does NOT own a smartphone (gelatin in batteries). If veganism is removing all animal products from your life, then smartphones are one of them. If 13% of the world can do it, so can you; it's demonstrably \"possible and practicable.\" Otherwise you're saying an animal should die so you don't have to live like over 1/10th of the world does (some even by choice).\n\nYes it would be a ***much*** bigger quality of life change than just not-eating animals. It's harder to live the life you're *used* to living without electronics than it would be to just live without eating animals. But comparing the difficulty of removing one form of exploitation from your life to another is not a valid way to justify continuing exploitation of animals *if* veganism is black or white. A similar comparison could be made between vegetarianism and veganism. Thus any unnecessary consumption would disqualify you as a vegan, you'd be \"reducetarian.\"\n\nFor example: If you own a personal car, travel unnecessarily, etc. you're already guilty of killing animals unnecessarily. Chances are many of you may think you \"need\" a car to survive, but you don't. It's possible and practicable to live without a car for MOST people. Fewer than 1/7th of the world owns a car. The idea that you cannot live without a car is about as true as saying you cannot live without eating meat. If 6/7 people can get by without a car, you can too, right? Isn't this a more compelling argument than the argument that meat-eaters can get by without their meat because vegans (approx. 1% of the world) do?\n\nI mean, some vegans are proud to hold on their electronics longer than normal or to drive a used, fuel-efficient car, or to \"try\" being zero-waste. But that's all just \"reducetarian\" ethics if veganism is all-or-nothing. The same applies to many other unnecessary products that we vegans are unwilling to part with, despite the fact that it harms animals directly (gelatin in batteries require animals to die). Either it's \"Zero animal product consumption or you're supporting rape/murder\" or \"a little support for rape/murder is okay as long as it's a smartphone\"; Neither sound very good to me. Thus vegans cannot sit on both sides of \"perfection/eliminating suffering completely isn't possible, but you should still be vegan\" and \"vegan is black or white\" since no one is truly doing everything practicable/possible to reduce harm simply by being on reddit right now and using animal products.\n\nDisclaimer: I'd be considered vegan under all standards. I don't consume any animal foods or animal-derived clothing and do a good job reducing everywhere else. I just don't think it's a binary \"with us or against us\" when it comes to reducing suffering on this planet. I hope people choose vegetarianism if they're not willing to try veganism. I hope people choose to reduce meat intake and try meatless Mondays. I don't expect the world to be vegan any more than I expect the world to stop smoking cigarettes or going to war. I'll be glad for the progress wherever it comes, and try to advocate for progress in the most effective ways possible.",
  "I don't want to assume this is a tenet of veganism, but it seems to have been implied in a couple of the discussions I've had with family.   ",
  "No indigenous population anywhere in the world is known to rely solely on plants for nutrition. \n\nWithout supplementing on a vegan diet you can become deficient in a multitude of essential nutrients which can have extremely serious implications, including making you infertile.\n\nThe term \"vegan\" was coined in 1944 years ago by Donald Watson, the founder of the Vegan Society, as a statement against vegetarians who ate dairy products. He took the first and last letters of the word vegetarian to create his orthodox version of vegetarianism\n\nBabies are dying from either being fed breast milk from a vegan mother who is not supplementing or fed a vegan diet without supplementation.\n\nVeganism appears to be the least nutritious diet, excluding crazy fad diets such as 'potato only diet'\n\nAren't vegans contributing to globalism as many of them have to rely on imported plants in the winter and many of these companies have unfair practices; profit greatly; have shady practices such as monsanto; use fossil fuels in every stage of the production and distribution of these plants; destroy the environment with things such as pesticides, fertilizers, monocrops causing top-soil erosion, GM crops, etc (discussion to this should happen in a separate thread as it is a very interesting topic as to whether veganism is actually good for the environment). \n\nWhy do vegans believe it is healthy in such a limited way? If you have to rely on supplements and drugs to not be deficient on this diet is that an optimal and healthy thing?\n\nIf it really was optimal, why did our ancestors begin and continue eating meat? Why do people thrive more on a supplement-free meat and are deficiency-free (especially raw) only diet than a supplement-free plant only diet?\n\nWhy do deficiencies in nutrients only found in meat have such a devastating effect on our health if we are not meant to consume animal products after childhood?\n\nI have been directed to this sub after posting in r/vegan because people were talking about raising babies vegan and it kinda shocked me because it seemed misinformed. I hope you guys here can help answer some of my questions\n",
  "I created a post the other day about owning pets and how it is partially equivalent to slavery (it's not equivalent because animals cannot enter into a social contract with humans). However, quite a few people did not quite understand the moral implication of owning pet's (or partnerships as some put it) as potentially harmful from a human being's moral standpoint, if we are to use vegan ethics as moral guidelines. Instead, many turned to consequentialism(as one user pointed out), some arbitrary form of utilitarianism in favour of owning pets and some would argue that animals have no concept of human values therefore imposing freedom (a value we hold highly, does not matter as much as happiness or these values hold no value whatsoever). This is extremely problematic for the Vegan ethos, and I'll explain why, but instead I'll use one analogy to simplify the argument, and show why utilitarianism and consequentialism, and various forms or other arguments do not work when it comes to the vegan ethos.  It'll also demonstrate the irrationality of veganism when it comes to owning pets.\n\nHere is the analogy: imagine a hypothetical world where every livestock animal appears happy, and is treated extremely well. They receive the food they require, they have lots of space to explore and live in natural environments (as much as reasonably possible). Livestock appears happy. One day, the farmer comes out and humanely stuns the animal (without it realising) and sells the meat.  Livestock live a good, happy life.\n\n(1) The animal is happy, and (2) the animal is not suffering.\n\nWhy then, in this scenario, is it wrong to eat meat? If one were to argue against this by using inalienable rights for animals (e.g. freedom) then why does the argument not passover into pet ownership?\n\nThis hypothetical analogy unfortunately destroys the vegan ethos unless vegans give intrinsic and inalienable rights to animals (and pets) regardless of a utilitarian or consequentialist approach. If an animal lives a good life and is treated well, whether as livestock or a pet, the primary concern becomes the minimisation of suffering and maximization of well-being. If one does not give intrinsic and inalienable rights to animals, then there appears to be no difference between a meat eater and a non-meat eater. Therefore, without implementing principles of intrinsic and inalienable rights for animals, the moral distinction between consuming animal products and owning pets becomes unclear. Both actions can be seen as ethically permissible if they ensure the well-being of the animals involved (e.g. why should I not eat meat if the animal is happy?).",
  "Just discovered that the root of the discussion was work by Steve Davis whos calculations show pasture fed cows to produce 2x the calories/protein per death as beans and other crops. Then Gaverick Methany rebutted- Then this guy: https://farmingtruth.weebly.com/blog/responding-to-vegan-debunks-of-the-davis-study rebutted him  and I wanted to know, from those of you either better readers than I or more familiar with this work than I am, all your thoughts on this.\nSo- no \u201cmost crops are used to feed animals\u201d bc thats not relevant.",
  "Just an FYI\n\nSo that's not really a talking point anymore \n\n\nhttp://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-cow-farting-1.3856202",
  "First off, I'm not a vegan, but I do boycott the meat and dairy industries, because of their animal rights violations, carbon emissions, water consumption, etc. Which means that I don't have a problem with eating meat and dairy, just purchasing them. However, if I go to a party and somebody else offers me meat that they already purchased, I'll eat it no problem. At that point, the animal has already been killed, and the meat has already been payed for, so eating the meat doesn't really harm anything at that point.\n\nBut I am curious. From an ethical perspective, why is it wrong to eat the meat once the damage has already been done? Eating the meat can't hurt the animal, since it's already dead, and it can't support the meat industry, since somebody else already paid for it.",
  "Supposedly people are coming closer to being able to produce cheap, lab grown meat, according to this post in r/futurology: https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/companies/lab-meat-to-transform-meat-industry-in-2021-12750778\n\nWhat's y'all's opinion about this? Personally, I see it as an option for decreased green house gases, decreased suffering, and possibly healthier meat options as we will be able to control the fat content much easier.\n\nEdit: really love the responses, y'all are so welcoming and I really appreciate the logical discussion. Obviously, this isn't meant to change vegans back to meat and such, but hopefully be a replacement for slaughter houses and be an ethical, environmentaly considerate solution for the masses. ",
  "I'll preface this with the fact that I'm in between a vegetarian and vegan for ethical reasons, with some more extremist views but some other very conservative views on animal rights/welfare issues. \n\nI've been pursuing /r/vegan for a while and I keep seeing lots of anti-honey views. I'm not 100% sure on exactly why bees are dying out but wouldn't supporting honey help save the bees by at least keeping the demand for them up? \n\nObviously it's not an ideal way to save the bees but even zoos have programs to save endangered/extinct species with the potential to releasee them and save the species in the wild. So worst case scenario we could keep bees in captivity and release them when conditions are favorable for their success. \n\nEDIT: Thanks for all the replies! Definitely helpful, I obviously understand the harm in taking honey away from bees and I understand most bees don't make honey. I think my point was that if we lose bees we lose their pollinating ability and captive honey bees could aid in that regard. But like others said even without supporting honey it's unlikely we'll ever lose honey bees. \n\n",
  "Because in the long range, 30-50 plus years, factory farming will be become automated, robotic.  Few people will directly be involved in the mistreatment and slaughter killing. \n\nAnd the treatment of factory animal can be negotiated to improve. It will be a long haul, but it can be done.  Government regulated. *(The goal of getting people to stop eating meat will never come about.  Vegans, etc. will gradually accept this, and put their energies into improving factory conditions.)*\n\nBut hunting by hunting families?  Which always involves transmission hunting practices and ethics to new generations?  *Quote from NY Times article:*\n\n>When the Algonquin chef Cezin Nottaway was 5 years old, her mother taught her how to kill and skin a beaver with her bare hands. The little girl also learned how to snare a rabbit and to draw a moose out of the forest by emulating its haunting grunt.\n\n*(This indigenous practice is a little different from American hunting families, where boys usually don't learn to kill and cut apart  their first deer until age 8-10.  But both share the same ethics.)*\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/dining/canada-indigenous-cooks.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news\n\nVegans and animals rights people abhor this.  Nothing worse,  in their minds, than teaching young children to kill and then cut apart animals.\n\nBecause the goal of spreading vegan and animals rights ideology requires the opposite:  \"educating\" *(indoctrinating)* as many people as possible, particularly children *(formative years)* that the above practices are immoral.  (aka *Be kind to animals*)\n\n50 years from now:  Factory farming automated.  All *invasive species culling and eradication* conducted by drone and bot.  No people involved.  \n\nBut hunting as we have it today--alive and well.  Children learning the animal killing trade at ages 8-10. Abhorrent.\n\n- - - -\nMore excerpts:\n\n>Protesters have organized petition drives against some indigenous restaurants, including the newly popular Ku-kum Kitchen, which offers seared seal loin and seal tartare...\n\n>Late last year a petition calling on Ku-kum to remove seal from its menu gathered more than 6,500 signatures. \u201cThe seal slaughters are very violent, cruel, horrific, traumatizing and unnecessary,\u201d the petition said\n\n*Is there any animal killing which is not violent and cruel?*",
  "This is another \"wool\" topic. Right now I am trying to figure this ethical dilemma that I have faced.\n\nIs it ethically better to 1) exploit the bred sheep and shear their wool in order to prevent them from dying and suffering from mites OR 2) not exploit them by cutting wool and let them die themselves due to mites and other stuff?\n\nAlso would be grateful for your opinion on wool",
  "I\u2019m a vegan and i constantly hear arguments against veganism, but so far i have found a way to debunk all of them.\nDo you have any arguments against veganism that are valid ? I\u2019m just curious.",
  "ethical honey doesn't exist. beekeepers get their bees from factory farms. the bees are shipped to them. these bees are diseased because they're farmed in close quarters. then these bees spread their diseases to wildflowers and that's why wild bees are dying and the ecosystems around them die off. on top of that, beekeepers kill their bees off for winter and perpetually keep them weak by taking all their honey and leaving sugar water. beekeepers aren't environmentalists. they're profit seekers. There are certainly bee keepers that help wildbees flourish, but that's a very very small minority\n\nsources:\n\n* [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/are-commercial-honeybees-making-wild-bees-sick](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/are-commercial-honeybees-making-wild-bees-sick)\n* [https://www.thesciencebreaker.org/breaks/evolution-behaviour/viruses-are-spilling-over-from-managed-honey-bees-to-wild-bumble-bees](https://www.thesciencebreaker.org/breaks/evolution-behaviour/viruses-are-spilling-over-from-managed-honey-bees-to-wild-bumble-bees)\n* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8400633/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8400633/)\n* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9901307/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9901307/)   \n",
  "If raw fish incorporated into your current plant based diet made you feel completely reborn and amazing, would you keep eating fish? Reason being is because this is most likely what almost all vegans should feel after a few days on raw or cooked fish.",
  "Hi this is my first time posting.\n\nSo vegans, what do you suggest for people who cannot be vegan or even plant based for medical reasons.\n\nI myself cannot even be pescatarian for medical reasons which I'm not comfortable sharing online but I will say I did try to be vegan I ended up in hospital because my body couldn't support it I also tried to be vegetarian and pescatarian all of which my body cannot support I literally have no choice but to eat meat, one of the reasons for this is my body physically cannot process or digest B12 so injects and tablets won't work either (this has been confirmed by multiple doctors)\n\nYou can't force these people to go vegan because you would literally be killing them.\n\nAnd what about people who cannot afford to eat vegan food?\n\nMy family used to be so poor we couldn't even afford free range eggs, I lived off of MacDonalds burgers we had stocked in the fridge because it was cheaper then buying vegetables that will go off in a week because we couldn't afford to go shopping every week. (We are in a better situation now but still even if I could we can't afford to go vegan)\n\nHow are people like this suppose to live or are they just supposed to be severely lacking in a lot of vitamins.\n\nI understand I absolutely understand why vegans are vegan but you can't expect the world to follow you when there are 1000s probably more people who physically can't.",
  "As much as cooking for yourself may not be a problem, how do you guys deal with travelling? Isn't exploring new tastes a great part of it? I just can't imagine what you'd eat in a \"regular\" or \"traditional\" restaurant in a new country, you'd have to just find some veg*n ones instead? I got to think about this topic recently because I live in the second biggest city in my country of ~40 million people and all the vegan places I've seen offer fast food, burgers, sushi, pizza, Indian food or other basic/worldly food of the sort that you can probably eat anywhere. No alternatives to our own country's cuisine. And the regular places rarely have anything vegan in them besides sides. So I got to think - if the vegans that visit my big-ish, arguably first world country cannot get any vegan variations of the traditional food, then that takes away from their experiences. And as much as I am open to the idea of veganism, I don't think I'd be content with visiting a new country and eating, I don't know, fries and salad instead of exploring the local cuisine. I'd love to get to know your thoughts on the topic, especially from foodies/folks who travel a lot.",
  "One day, my family was at a diner. My brother ordered a burger bit didn't finish it. My dad, vegan, decides to finish the burger because you can't unorder it. Was that ethical?",
  "If I buy 20 chicks and put them in a large enclosure with a coop, food and water and treat them well then there is nothing unethical about that.\n\n​\n\nCommon arguments:\n\n\\> It\u2019s an intrinsically exploitative relationship and they were bred to lay more eggs than what\u2019s natural and as a result live a life of misery.\n\nThe only way this would be legitimate is if the chicken would prefer otherwise. It would be a mutually beneficial relationship. We can be reasonably certain that chickens would prefer to live free of illness, starvation, predation and insecurity which they would face in the wild or in a battery cage but not in a backyard chicken coop, or at least not nearly to the same degree. This would be close to the best life a chicken could possibly have.\n\n\\> They are stressed when their eggs are missing.\n\nChicken eggs could be swapped with replica eggs.\n\n\\> Male chick are ground up.\n\nBuy both sexes.",
  "I'm interested in the health aspect of veganism. However, all health studies I have looked at classify a vegan diet as consuming x amount/times of animal products per week/month, but this x is greater than 0. Do you know any study which looks at strict vegans?",
  "There are a lot of testimonies there of people who\u2019s (especially mental) health increased drastically. Did they just do something wrong or is it possible the science is missing something essential?\n\nEdit: typo in title; it\u2019s r/exvegans of course\u2026",
  "There is a boatload of evidence, research, and studies pointing out that meat consumption is linked to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity, etc. A lot of meat eaters will claim that it\u2019s because vegans don\u2019t smoke or drink, but most of the studies factor out this and compare meat eaters who don\u2019t smoke or drink with vegans who don\u2019t smoke or drink. All of the research points to meat being very bad for human health. Most people who eat meat will eat meat for every single meal they eat and they don\u2019t realize the plaque that\u2019s building up in their arteries. The World Health Organization even classified Processed Meats as a Class one Carcinogen and Red Meat as a Class Two Carcinogen.\n\nDespite all of this evidence and research, most meat eaters are in such denial about this. They believe that they need meat for protein and to be healthy when all of the evidence points to meat being detrimental to our health. I believe that Big Pharma and the Meat Industry are working together to keep people ignorant about nutrition and the food system so they can both profit. \n\nThe meat industry is happy because they can continue to exploit animals for government subsidies while the pharmaceutical industry is happy because they can continue to prescribe medication for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, cancer. They want to keep people sick by making sure they can still feel good about eating meat. The meat industry spends a ton of money promoting meat and funding studies to try to make meat seem like a necessity. It all becomes clear the more digging you do that these industries are profiting off of the failing health of others.",
  "Title pretty much says it all. A lot of people like to say that meat comes from animals who have been slaughtered, which is obviously one of the main reasons why they don't eat it. But think about this: is there a difference if the animal died of natural causes such as old age, and WASN'T killed? Because if you think about it, the animal's life wasn't ended prematurely by humans, and it most likely wouldn't have felt any pain. Plus at that point it would've more than likely lived a full life anyway, and the animal is already dead, so it's not going to feel pain at that point.\n\nOpen to responses from both sides, and a respectful discussion. I'd love to hear what you guys think of this.",
  "To vegans. If your argument that we should all be vegans because 'humans are not designed to be meat eaters' (I have heard this in my personal circle, though whether this is reflective of the majority of vegans, I don't know) But if you do use that argument, I would like to point out the flaw in this argument. (The obvious would be an atheist perspective that a designer does not exist)\nHowever, even from an evolutionary perspective, we are not designed. Evolution does not design anything. Evolution does not have a purpose. It is whatever works. In the past our ancestors may have survived longer by eating vegetables and non animal products. We can eat meat now because some of our ancestors may have ate meat and survived long enough just to pass on the meat eating genes.\nNow, in present society, let us operate under the premise that vegetable eating is healthier or not, if it is healthier, it wouldn't matter. Meat eaters can survive long enough while eating meat and still pass on their genes. ",
  "The Vegan Societies' definition has served as a decent tool but at some point we're going to need clarity, accuracy and consistency. We should evolve the definition into something that conveys true Vegan values and is more philosophically defendable.\n\nIssue 1: Many food crops rely on bee pollination for successful pollination (Apples, Cherries, Coffee in some cases, etc.) Vegans still seem to consider these foods Vegan to buy, yet it's not Vegan on that definition if they or others buy them. (Abstaining from practicably avoidable exploitation of animals)\n\nIssue 2: The definition places 'animals' as the object of value, rather than 'sentient beings', this causes tension with Vegans who eat discarded animal products or eat non-sentient animals (This could be against a respect norm, but not Veganism or ethics itself unless you bite a bullet), and hilariously makes it Vegan to slaughter any non-animal sentient being.\n\nIssue 3: The definition can be interpreted too leniently by ill-informed users, causing avoidable animal rights violations, specifically with regards to \"possible and practicable\".\n\nIssue 4: People tend to say things like \"Veganism is about reducing animal suffering\"/\"avoiding exploitation\"/\"rejecting commodity status of animals\". Each of these has hilarious consequences that vegans wouldn't sign off on such as it being Vegan to slaughter animals without suffering for example, so these are all incorrect. \n\nIssue 5: Someone who couldn't eat plant-based would still be considered Vegan, like Mikhaila Peterson for example, if hypothetically she truly was unable to be healthy on a plant based diet. \n\nA better definition? If adopted, it solves all 5 issues, and even lets us address wild animal suffering if we wish to: \n\n**Veganism is an applied ethical position that advocates for the equal trait-adjusted application of commonplace human rights to non-human sentient beings.**\n\nThank you for reading.",
  "I know being a vegan is an ethical choice not to want to hurt animals anymore, or at least as less as possible. But what's the overall opinion about the environment? Is a vegan diet overall being better for the environment just an extra of being vegan? \n\nI can find myself in the ethical and health part of a vegan. And I also try to do my best when it comes to the environment. However, I can't drop my car (and do maximum effort for the environment) and be dependant of public transport as it is much less practical in my daily life (commuting would raise with one hour and a half a day and when I return from my hobby there isn't public transport anymore). ",
  "Animal rights is inherently opposed to many important conservation strategies. Namely the killing of invasive species, captive breeding, and sustainable use. The killing of invasive species via trapping, trapping and poisoning causes pain to animals, and many animal rights activists oppose it for this reason. They tend to deny that invasive species even exist, and/or say that the extinction of some unique native species should be accepted as inevitable. This is obviously incompatible with conservation of endangered native species in places like Australia and New Zealand. And before anyone brings up TNR for feral cats, that has been demonstrated not to work.\nCaptive breeding and reintroduction efforts by zoos, specialized breeding facilities and sometimes private keepers are another important part of conservation. Animal rights activists tend to deny or downplay its importance, or rarely and more honestly, admit to believing that an animal species is better off extinct than having to live in captivity. Here is a list I compiled of animal species which have been saved or heavily assisted by captive breeding and (often) reintroduction efforts.\n\n- [Golden lion tamarin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_lion_tamarin)\n\n- [Vancouver Island marmot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Island_marmot)\n\n- [Red wolf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wolf)\n\n- [Black-footed ferret](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-footed_ferret)\n\n- [Scimitar oryx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar_oryx)\n\n- [Arabian oryx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_oryx_reintroduction)\n\n- [Pere David's deer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A8re_David%27s_deer)\n\n- [Wisent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_bison)\n\n- [Bontebok](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bontebok)\n\n- [Przewalski's horse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przewalski%27s_horse)\n\n- [California condor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_condor)\n\n- [Mauritius kestrel](https://www.zsl.org/conservation/species/birds/mauritius-kestrel-recovery-program)\n\n- [Hawaiian crow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_crow)\n\n- [Guam rail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam_rail)\n\n- [Pink pigeon](https://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/news/how-did-pink-pigeon-bounce-back-just-nine-birds)\n\n- [Guam kingfisher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam_kingfisher)\n\n- [Saint Lucia amazon](https://www.durrell.org/wildlife/species-index/saint-lucia-amazon/)\n\n- [Cuban crocodile](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/future-castros-crocodiles-180969417/)\n\n- [Siamese crocodile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamese_crocodile)\n\n- [Chinese alligator](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714124949.htm)\n\n- [Black softshell turtle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_softshell_turtle)\n\n- [Western swamp turtle](https://perthzoo.wa.gov.au/animal/western-swamp-tortoise?fbclid=IwAR1yedztD5AxGFZ8oBB7NpAHhPXNTV0Zv-uqqefKs8PPu_289plI1DwLsz0)\n\n- [Espanola giant tortoise](https://www.islandconservation.org/espanola-giant-tortoise-saved-species/)\n\n- [Round Island boa](https://www.durrell.org/wildlife/species-index/round-island-boa/)\n\n- [Grand Cayman blue iguana](http://www.blueiguana.ky/recovery/programme/captive-breeding/)\n\n- [Cobble skink](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2017/jun/01/new-species-discovered-behind-a-pub-then-saved-from-extinction)\n\n- [Chesterfield skink](https://www.aucklandzoo.co.nz/news/captive-population-of-rare-skink-established)\n\n- [Wyoming toad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_toad)\n\n- [Kihansi spray toad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kihansi_spray_toad)\n\n- [Golden skiffia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_skiffia)\n\n- [Butterfly splitfin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_splitfin)\n\n- [Potosi pupfish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potosi_pupfish)\n\n- [Extinct cave roach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simandoa_conserfariam)\n\n- [Lord Howe island stick insect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryococelus_australis)\n\n- [Metallic tarantula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poecilotheria_metallica)\n\nWould you want to live in a world where these species went extinct due to animal rights? Or many other vulnerable and endangered species that could become extinct in the wild in the future? I'm not going to assume a uniform opinion from Reddit, but for me, the answer is \"hell no!\".\n\nThird and final main conservation strategy that animal rights activists oppose is sustainable use. There is a saying that the best way to keep an animal species from becoming extinct is to monetize (commodify) it. And it rings true. Project Piaba is an organization that works with and researches the trade in wild-caught Amazonian fish for the aquarium trade to ensure the trade is environmentally sustainable and profitable to poor locals. If it weren't for the fish trade, the local villagers would instead turn to more destructive businesses like cattle ranching, gold mining and timber. A similar project has been proposed for mantella frogs in Madagascar and could potentially work with many other exotic pet species. \n\nThe trade in insect specimens for the collector's trade works in a similar way, as does butterfly farming and South African game ranching. Another example is crocodile farming for the leather trade, which helped crocodile populations recover by reducing poaching of wild crocodiles. Since crocodile farming is so well established, there is no point in poaching wild crocodiles for skin.\n\nIn the world envisioned by abolitionist vegans and animal rights activists, all three of these conservation strategies would be outlawed, thus eliminating important conservation tools and leading to the plight if not extinction of countless species. But to them, that is better than having to violate the \"rights\" and \"liberty\" of individuals animals for the sake of species survival. You cannot support animal rights and conservation at the same time. As for myself? I support conservation.\n\nAnyone think they can contest this?",
  "Hey guys, recently picked up a vegan lifestyle and had a question. If you, in the more than likely impossible scenario, were forced to choose between killing a random human or a random cow, would the \"vegan\" answer be a coin toss to see who dies? From what I have understood, veganism is attempting to minimize animal suffering and exploitation, but does that end when you begin to make another human suffer?\n\nWhile obviously the scenario is more or less impossible, I was curious to hear what you guys think.\n\n",
  "I'm not vegan but I love animals and have the utmost respect for those who choose the vegan lifestyle. I'm curious to hear thoughts from those who are vegan/vegetarian on working in fast food or restaurant service. \nWould you work for a restaurant/food joint that's main courses are meat? Would a hostess job be lesser of the two over a cook? How would that feel to serve people the animals you love for a living? Is it against your morals/veganism to work for a company that exploits and profits off of animals? If not, would you consider it if it were the only employment option in your area? \nThis is an ethical dilemma that I've been thinking about when considering going to a vegan lifestyle and I would love hear the pros and cons, thank you!",
  "For background, I'm currently an aspiring vegan (I 100% agree with the philosophy but have failed purely due to my lack of self control). \n\nI often hear first or second hand about people who tried a vegan diet and it either made them feel worse or supposedly caused some type of illness. How do you respond to these claims? Do you assert that these people could have surely found a plant based diet that suited their nutritional needs or do you acknowledge that veganism just doesn't work for some people? I'm very interested to know if there's any kind of objective data on the subject because I never know what to say to those people.",
  "First off, let me say a great big thanks to the general population of this subreddit. I've been lurking all day and worked my way through some really interesting threads. \nIt's refreshing to see reasoned, adult debate with considerate language being used by most - unfortunately on both sides of the fence there's people that find some strange joy in immediately jumping down one's throat, but such is life and at the end of the day it takes all sorts.\nAs a non-vegan, reading this page has done more to further the idea of veganism to me personally than anything else so far. \nI am not going to completely overhaul my lifestyle by the end of next week, but this has at least given me an incentive to start making more meaningful changes in the short term with a view to turn things around altogether in the future.\nKeep up the positive messaging!",
  "As a non-vegan, I never understood this. Why do you feel empathy to these animals? They are not humans.",
  "I\u2019m curious to how vegans feel and would respond to someone like MP. A person with a severe autoimmune disorder in there younger years that had a catastrophic affect on her day to day life. After consuming a purely carnivore diet all the symptoms went away and had an unprecedented effect on her health and wellbeing. What moral weight does a persons wellbeing in this situation have in contrast to the consumption of meat. \n\nI\u2019m also curious to the good faith response in contrast to the moral grandstanding and degradation in this community to a people in similar situations.\n\n\n\n(Edit)For those who care here are some basic research and studies relating to this subject that @Greyeyedqueen7 has provided: \n\nPodcast and transcript from a medical news website of several researchers discussing how a keto diet (meat-based) benefits patients and some of the current research: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/in-conversation-is-the-ketogenic-diet-right-for-autoimmune-conditions\n\nA study on how a meat-based keto diet changing the gut microbiota has a correlation with lowering inflammation, which is a huge part of the problem in autoimmune conditions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6938789/\n\nA study on the keto diet helping lower inflammation in MS patients and how that might be why the diet helps: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22567104/\n\nA summary of several studies on how a keto diet helps neuro diseases: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9739023/\n",
  "So, I get killing animals and eating meat. I get milk and cow exploitation. But I seriously just don't understand how harvesting honey in a sustainable way is a morally wrong act. Yes, we're \"profiting off the labor of those insects\" but we people profit off the labor of other people too, and nobody seems to care about that?\n\nIn my understanding, you can harvest honey from a hive in a way that maybe sets them back a bit, but the hive is overall fine. They just make more and keep on going.\n\nWhat is the rationale for eating honey being a morally wrong act?\n\nEDIT: So I'm noticing a lack of arguments for why eating honey is immoral. So I'll make an argument why eating honey is not immoral:\n\n1. Bees will make honey as a natural manifestation of their genetics/nature.\n2. It is possible to harvest honey in a way that hives can still survive and maintain themselves\n3. Bees do not have an understanding/consciousness of their honey being taken away (they are not resentful or angry or any other similar reaction, to their honey being taken)\n4. Humans are benefited by honey\nTherefore: it's ok to eat honey.\n\n(Yes, this is very raw and probably not a good argument, but at least it is a defined thought and present reasons)\n\nI've posted here before, I'm very open to opinions and discussion. But I really want to hear the REASONS that eating honey is wrong.",
  "I am plant-based. I was just reading through the r/vegan page links and was reading the link about honey. It more or less says it\u2019s up to the individual vegan to decide where they land on the topic. \n\nSo, vegans, where do you land? Currently I consume honey but I think it would be easy enough to cut out if an argument could be made for the welfare of bees/the planet. I love bees, especially goofy mason bees and big fat bumblers - I even have a bee tattoo! \n\nMy hold up is mostly that I figure if less farmers are interested in keeping them because people have pulled away from honey then that would result in less bees around in general, which is bad. And I wouldn\u2019t want to replace honey with processed sugar as a sweetener because sugar cultivation is a water-suck, isn\u2019t it? I was under the influence that honey had less of a negative environmental impact",
  "Let me preface by saying that I've been a vegetarian for three years, and I've been entirely plant based for a few months now. In terms of health, environmentalism, economics, and politics, I am completely on board with veganism and I think everyone (at least in modern developed areas where it is feasible) should adopt a plant based diet. I'm trying to get there on the morality/ethical angle.\n\nAbsent of other context, I think using animal products is a moral neutral. For example, a person fishing up a fish and eating it has about the same moral weight to me as an otter eating a fish. Sucks for the fish either way, but that's just nature. On the other hand, I think driving to a store to buy a factory farmed slice of steak is morally bad, but that's because I'm opposed to factory farming based on it's poor labor rights and environmental damage. I obviously don't think the cruelty to the animals is *good*, but it's just not what my opposition is rooted in.   \n\nI think it's probably good that people can arrive at veganism from a lot of different approaches. I was just surprised when I started reading about it that for most vegans the morality angle was \"the point,\" rather than any of the other arguments that I personally find more compelling. I would like to call myself a vegan eventually, but for now I guess plant based is the label for me.",
  "Hey everyone, i'm vegan btw and if I have any of my data wrong or you'd like to add anything, please do!\n\nThought i'd share data about the \"But bison tho\" claim that I see every now and then, it often goes like this: \n\n>**But we had billions of bison many years ago and they weren't causing climate change then, so cows aren't causing environmental damage now**\n\nI will refer to everything as biomass and in the form of carbon tonnage rather than individual animals.\n\nAt its peak we had 20 million tonnes of mammals 10,000 years ago and we've been declining ever since. Here is the data [https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline](https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline?fbclid=IwAR2guAOJiU0B46tH5uXP6dOZJ28th3hBF4-8WhwbxsfULltQUtzRJbN9g4A)\n\nThat was our peak mammal biomass (not peak as in ALL TIME, but at least in reference to bison in the last few hundred years and mammals as a whole): 20,000,000 tonnes (20 million tonnes) and thats all the mammals that ever existed at that moment in time put together, which includes bison.\n\nRight now, we have 100,000,000 tonnes (100 million) of livestock alone, that is 5 times more livestock right now than we had at our peak biodiversity of ALL mammals combined on ALL of earth. Data can be seen here [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115](https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fdoi%2F10.1073%2Fpnas.1711842115%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2q8sasEyQJ_4icJEipOT7_BUA3Ux7XsIWJtt_lzqczM3uCSO1tfBi00MA&h=AT0YNTfzXw4aubAdKjOzhWANkVb88a0Wlr4GFjuxDJEGHu1mzNQfVC_218tPjt92iVgUGE1TaW2A7qWVtRzYtGb2UAuMCsPzX2_Z3B1Luxj0FRno8rtbmfrz2_Ax&__tn__=R]-R&c[0]=AT1pcbz-x8j5s_EBfMkg9ZtiAZU3ey7wg94ZCphmhEB8-2jicUjzbghbxw3hC1gUuttRuySUq1UqWZ2SMOZNOb5K9dE8oAVZRDoz6vFr7Eh6hYPDHLeJ56TyTN2w0B_HmDTXXCyre1fvSUWfftGHgYI3dPLGXeRw1Aum-JsecBkyv5pFoZw) Shown as 0.1 giga tonnes.\n\nRight now there are about 62,000,000 (62 million tonnes) of carbon in the form of cows, which is still three times more than all the wild mammals we've had in the past and thats just farmed cows, nothing else.\n\nI thought i'd share this data with you because we can forget BISON, which is what all the anti-vegans use, instead i thought id share BISON and ALL mammals combined to show you that we still had 5 times less wild mammals/animals/ruminants at its peak than we currently have now in comparison to JUST livestock and 3 times more cows.\n\nRight now we have about 7 million tonnes of wild mammals (which include wild bison) [https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass](https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fourworldindata.org%2Fwild-mammals-birds-biomass%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0IKebECgzaFSHJZ-djwxPQ0aFi5dAiMYKvSAZfaCToiKfBgyC8-8pYkSs&h=AT2XWLbm7BOEk0-oTZWBeRtq65hTfCy98I8WlWmAhqqWtegrtdnyPTpfQlZkwG0FVYW5JZCteHXQ2vfP9izGA7w5p2fTJ7CkWA2Ye75yvSUA0WoyPOxWgP7I5B9C&__tn__=R]-R&c[0]=AT1pcbz-x8j5s_EBfMkg9ZtiAZU3ey7wg94ZCphmhEB8-2jicUjzbghbxw3hC1gUuttRuySUq1UqWZ2SMOZNOb5K9dE8oAVZRDoz6vFr7Eh6hYPDHLeJ56TyTN2w0B_HmDTXXCyre1fvSUWfftGHgYI3dPLGXeRw1Aum-JsecBkyv5pFoZw) and this data also shows you what makes up current livestock and living things on earth.\n\nWhich is a drop of 13 million tonnes of wild mammals since 10,000 years ago, whilst livestock has done nothing but increase decade on decade.",
  "Not vegan, but interested in this angle. My wife wasn't able to breastfeed our two daughters and so we used formula. It literally saved their lives. I know in days gone by there would have been wet nurses to turn to, but not these days; we have modern food technology to thank. Anyone else come across this in a vegan household? ",
  "I know this opinion is going to be really controversial but it\u2019s something I strongly believe in. Lab Grown meat is on the rise and once it becomes mainstream they should ban the animal agricultural industry. The meat industry has had too many horrible consequences. It\u2019s the number one contributor to climate change and is responsible for C02 emissions and global warming, meat production also pollutes streams and waterways. Eating meat caused every major pandemic and it wouldn\u2019t happen in a vegan society. Human civilization will end in 2050 unless something radical happens and meat is phased out. Once people stop eating meat or switch to lab grown meat, the governments around the world should permanently outlaw meat. Also, the high ranking employees and CEO\u2019s of Smithfield farms, Tyson Foods, Purdue, Etc. Should be arrested for the abuse they inflicted on the billions of animals they exploited and the immigrant workers they exploited. Hunting should also be banned as it\u2019s destroying our environment and the ocean. People who are caught trophy hunting or hunting for fur should spend at least one year in prison.\n\nHealthy foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and meat alternatives should be subsidized in order to make plant based eating accessible to everyone. I don\u2019t agree with the way lab grown meat is sourced but I acknowledge that it\u2019s the only way to end the mass slaughter of billions of animals. There should also be free nutrition courses on plant based eating, nutrition, and environmental science.",
  "For years I had a genuine question of why it's okay for animals but not human to eat other animals, but I didn't care enough to think it through. From a quick search this issue seems to be resolved or dismissed by the vegan community, in somewhat unanimity.\n\nThe gist of the argument is that animals do many things that aren't accepted in a human society (raping, cannibalism etc), so eating other species is yet another thing that doesn't justify human to do the same. And these animals can't be blamed because they have no equivalent sense of \"moral.\" However, for me this raises more problem than it solves. I started to think why for the most part  people don't kill each other. Instead of the moral case many vegans brought up (which I don't believe), I think it has largely to do with the social contract theory: we want some form of government to keep others in check; we willingly give up some of the powers like murdering to a central institution in exchange for others not do the same things for us. To my knowledge there's little examples of what John Locke describes as humans in \"natural state,\" where they are not to subject to the jurisdiction of any government and are free to kill or do anything \"horrible\" to each other. But I'm okay with the logic with such a natural state, if those people don't want to form a mutual social contract. In short, I don't see humans not killing each other for \"moral\" reasons, and perhaps moral is a manmade construct to make people feel good about not doing a few things, when the reality is they can't do them without being punished.\n\nBack to why I think the reasoning above potentially made a case for killing and eating animals: we don't have and don't need to form a social contract with animals because, in the aforementioned vegans' word, these animals don't have the same mental capability to form such an agreement, nor such agreement is necessary for humans because we can easily stay out of the wild to avoid most beasts etc. So this is why I think there's should be no laws prohibiting the regular consumption of most animals, as long as the species are not endangered or anything (again not that people care about them but to preserve the biodiversity for humans' own good.) You may choose to not eat animals, but those who prefer eating meat should be left alone. You may argue that we have other plant-based alternatives, but the logic is like we still build movie theaters when we have other entertainments, whether the animals suffer or feel pain is irrelevant because it bears very little with damaging the interest of human. Unless it could be proved that eating meat severely damaged the environment to the point where we are threatened (not just a statistic of how many water is consumed when producing a pound of beef patty, we do other far damaging things for enjoyment and they're far from getting any attentions). At this point I feel kinda like debating with a Christian who would use bible to justify things when I don't believe in the book itself in the first place.\n\nTLDR: Since I believe the main reason why humans don't kill each other or behave any differently than animals is for selfish reasons like living in peace rather than moral considerations, eating animals could be okay because there's no such agreement with non-humans.\n\n**EDIT:** I feel like a lot of the comments didn't read my really long (sorry) original argument,  I certainly believe that animals are capable of suffering and actually acknowledged that in the original post. But that's irrelevant imo. I don't believe human beings act based on the perceived right or wrong. I believe humans are motivated to act out of the immediate or predicted, reasonable long-term repercussions. If we eat animals, which give many people pleasure, it's extremely unlikely that say cows are going to have a collective revelation in which they get together and revenge; therefore we cannot form a social contract with them. Any attacks from animals are random, isolated, and situational. I do not support hurting other human beings regardless of race, gender, age etc not mainly because I think it's wrong (again irrelevant), but because I'll get arrested and face immediate repercussions\n\nEdit 2:  I think the fundamental difference between our beliefs is that I think killing anyone (including humans) is a natural right in nature, not something needed to be justified. We only gave up that right under the social contract in a society since other humans can systematically revenge us or even kill us unprovoked. We give up the right to kill humans in exchange for peace and avoiding constant war. We must somehow justify that giving up the same right to kill other animals, not the other way around. I think the institution of slavery in the US proved my point. Black people was once enslaved because there's no repercussions to do so. Once the civil war \"taught\" the masters the otherwise, they are no longer legally slaves but still heavily discriminated against.",
  "no they don't see we got to the top of the food chain fair and square morality is an illusion and if morality does exist it's more moral kill them because you gave them a purpose give humans meat and you fulfilled that purpose by killing them animals have the privilege of being born with a purpose no I'm not a sociopath I'm autistic so at least you get the neurological disorder correct   ",
  "Hey,\n\nI'm considering going pescatarian, maybe as a stepping-stone into vegetarianism.\n\nI would like to know if fish can feel the *emotional* part of pain. Virtually every living thing feels pain in some way, but not all feel the emotional part, as in the distress that comes with being sick or injured.\n\nLike, imagine if you built a robot that recoils and tries to get away from sharp things, fire, etc. That robot has a sort of ability to feel pain, but it doesn't have the emotional part. It doesn't feel any distress.\n\nPlease, *please*, be accurate. I would really like some good sources. Please keep politics out of your answer. You can express opinions, but please make it very clear that they are your opinions, not facts.\n\nI would like to listen to both sides and decide for myself.\n\nThank you.",
  "I understand the health and environmental perspective, and the plain fact that thinking about hurting animals instinctively makes me feel bad. But I want to know if there is an objective benefit to making animals happy. Why are we wired to feel bad for their suffering?",
  "In 1991, the U.S. Navy killed thousands of feral goats in [San Clemente Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Clemente_Island_goat) - one of the Channel Islands off the coast of California - to save three endemic endangered plant species: *Malacothamnus clementinus*, *Castilleja grisea*, *Delphinium kinkiense*. After the failure of initial trapping and hunting efforts, the organization Fund for Animals tried to block the move in court but, since the plants were federally listed and protected by the Endangered Species Act, the goats were ultimately killed. \n\nIn the specific case of the San Clemente Island goats, approximately 2000 sentient individuals were killed over some plants. This is but one example of non-sentient beings treated as more relevant than animals, there are many instances of feral omnivorous and vegetarian animal species that are culled to maintain the equilibrium of biotic communities all over the world. It is also well established within fire ecology that natural fires are beneficial for a range ecosystems and that fire-exclusion policies can have a negative ecological impact even if we account the number of sentient creatures that die as a result of them. \n\nSome questions arise from these facts: Can the moral basis that justified these actions be explained in terms of traditional ethics? Is it possible to reconcile the ethical frameworks by which the welfarist and abolitionist flavors of veganism are supported with those that drive environmental ethics?\n\nLet's see:\n\nThe saving of the plants is not supported by interest utilitarianism because non-sentient living beings do not have subjective experiences, therefore no interests. In general terms, the saving could only be defended based on utilitarianism if there was a way quantify the maximization of pleasure \u2013 in broader terms, the satisfaction of interest, desire, and/or preference \u2013 or the minimizing the overall suffering that resulted from protecting the non-sentient beings and killing the sentient beings. Since plants do not feel happiness or suffering, the evaluation of these criteria would necessarily have to involve other human and non-human animals different from the ones being killed, and only if the these plants had some instrumental value either to other animal species (for example, if they would starve if they couldn't eat those plants) or to humans (if there was, for instance, a chemical compound not yet synthetized present in those plants that cured cancer). I don't believe there's a particularly relevant instrimental value to the three plant species in the case we're discussing. \n\nPlant species as well as other natural occurrences which are the object of moral consideration by environmentalists have no intrinsic value to utilitarians. See for example Singer's position on this issue in his book \"Practical Ethics\". \n\nOn the other hand, since abolitionists reject on principle that even the benefit that humans receive by exploiting non-human animals could outweigh the harm done to them due to their intrinsic value, there wouldn't be much case trying to argue on the well-being of plants over animals. \n\nThe saving of the plants is not supported by arguments based on relevance, because these uphold sentience as the moral relevant criterion that allows beings to be aware of joy and suffering. It is also not supported by arguments based on species overlap - known also as arguments from marginal cases - again because these compare mental capacities of marginal individuals of the human species and those of non-human animals living aside non-sentient beings, for the reasons expressed above. \n\nI contend that you could make an argument stemming from the idea of the human sanctity of life paired with the argument from marginal cases (similar to Singer's argument in \"Animal Liberation\") following his exact same logical train of thought: If we defend the lives of certain humans fetuses that are non-sentient like those suffering from anencephaly - assuming in this case either the meaning of \"sentience\" as \"having subjective experiences\" or the more specific one of \"feeling pain\" - we should extend moral consideration to other living creatures that have equal mental capacities as those, for example plants or other non-sentient living beings. However, I'm positive that many people would not agree with these conclusions because of plants' intrinsic lack of interests would put them in a category apart (not subjects of moral consideration so there's no comparison to be made). \n\nProviding group rights for the plants as a species is complicated too. Many ethicists consider that they do not have the properties that could make them worthy of rights: The interest theory of rights presupposes that individuals within the group have to have interests (plants are excluded once again). Choice theory of rights is even more restrictive because it requires that the groups can exercise their rights as well. Other people reject the notion of group rights altogether. It is not surprising, for example, that somebody like Will Kymlicka works on a liberal framework that protects minority groups on the basis of group rights and, at the same time, defends an abolitionist position towards animal rights. \n\nDeontological ethical systems like Regan's animal rights base their norms on some of the arguments already stated. Sentience is where the line in the sand is drawn, non-sentient beings are not considered subjects of moral consideration. That doesn't mean that other deontological systems cannot use different base lines: Biocentrist systems award value on life itself and ecocentrist systems even include things like rivers and mountains into the sphere of moral consideration. I believe that saving the three plant species in San Clemente Island can perfectly fit within Aldo Leopold's land ethic maxim: \"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.\"\n\nWhich brings us to the initial question: The integrity, stability and beauty of the San Clemente Island biotic community required the killing of thousands of sentient animals. How can you reconcile that with vegan ethics? If this is a defensible moral position then our killing of animals would not be wrong in itself. \n\nBy extension, you can conclude that, if you raised animals for human consumption and exploitation using practices that maintained the integrity, stability and beauty of biotic communities that would be the moral position to assume (notice that I'm deliberately steering away from modern husbandry and farming practices that treat animals and mechanical things and cause them permanent unnecessary suffering). I can think of many instances where this is not only possible but desirable:\n\n1) The use of animal traction for water, soil, and wild-life conservation:\n\nhttp://www.atnesa.org/contil/contil-misika-management-NA.pdf\n\n2) Using captured methane from animal production to cook and heat homes, particularly when \"Around 3 billion people cook and heat their homes using open fires and simple stoves burning biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal\" and \"Over 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels.\"\n\nhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/\n\nhttp://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Bulletins/Clean-Energy-Farming/Text-Version/Capture-Fuel-from-Animal-Manure-and-Plant-Waste\n\n3) Using processed manure (reuse of excreta) to maintain soil fertility, particularly within the scope of small production units which - despite general knowledge - represent 90% of the farms in the world (some 570MM) and produce 80% of the world\u2019s food and specially important in the face of peak phosphorus. \n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuse_of_excreta\n\nhttp://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/industrial-agriculture-and-small-scale-farming.html\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus \n\n4) Controlled grazing for soil conservation.\n\nhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071710004396\n\nhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ldr.2560/full\n\n---\n\nOn a final note, I'd like to add that I believe that agricultural vertebrate pest control (rodents, lagomorphs) fall within the exact same moral discussion that I have presented: We decide that some plants are more important than these animals (just than in the case of crops we give instrumental value to those plants beyond any intrisic value that they may have as living beings). \n\nIf you find pest management tolerable because of the value crops provide us, you're probably more into the welfarist utilitarian side of veganism (with all that this implies, not for nothing the more staunch abolitionists like Gary Francione calls Singer of being speciesist and speaks of the \"[need to 'liberate' animals from the speciesist nonsense of 'animal liberation'](https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/987468621272892).\"\n\nI've read different defenses for killing vertebrate pests: \n\n- From the moral relativist ones \"veganism excludes as far as possible and practicable, all forms of cruelty to, animals, and besides carnism kills more animals because of plants harvested for feeding animals\" (which conveniently leaves out grazing and free-range animals).  \n\n- To the \"self-defense\" action of protecting your food-sources (which hard to sustain when there isn't an inminent danger present). \n\n- To the romanticized idea that plague individuals can be caught and sterilized and then released back to nature (honestly, anyone, how can you do that in situations like the one shown in the next video and how will that stop from whole crops being consumed?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOwinLWrEIw)\n\nWhat's interesting is that assuming that it is permissible to kill plague rodents, like in the previous video, we are acting against the principle of equal consideration of interests because those rats need to eat too. Besides, a big portion of our agricultural lands (even those that would be used in a hypothetical universal vegan scenario) will have been taken away from the animals' natural habitats in the first place... if there was anything to give credence to their interests. \n\nYou don't even have to point to [Mark Saggoff's *reductio* of animal rights position](http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Introduction_to_Philosophy_Fall_09/Sagoff_Animal_Liberation_&_Env_Ethics.pdf) to realize how complicated it is to reconcile animal rights, with human interest and environmental ethics. ",
  "Why must we avoid actions that causes death and suffering to animals?",
  "Twenty studies including 37 134 participants met the inclusion criteria. Compared with omnivores, vegetarians and vegans had lower BMD at the femoral neck and lumbar spine and vegans also had higher fracture rates.",
  "Nothing too big here, just a couple of small questions.\n\nThere are no natural sources of  vitamin B-12 that I can find that do not involve animals, you ether get it from the likes of liver, or you get it from bacteria in the animal body, but you need animals for B-12. Lack of this chemical causes nut-jobs like Youtuber VeganGains who recently caused small controversy by playing around with a guns and knives like they are toys, whilst very clearly threatening people. How do you justify fortified foods if b-12 has to come from animals regardless?\n\nOur dental set-up also shows us having the teeth for meat eating. When people say our ancestors ate meat this isn't an excuse, it's historical evidence we're built to consume meat. You can't make a cat live on vegtables, or a fox for that matter and a fox, like us, is also an omnivore with an omnivorous dental set-up. If we shouldn't eat meat why do we have the teeth for it?\n\nNot causing harm to an animal before slaughter is a benevolent thing and should be good enough shouldn't it? I'm literally seeing no evidence we were not made to eat meat. If it exists can someone point me to it?",
  "Wonderful new video from \"Ask Yourself\":\n\n* https://youtu.be/zuJazFqWgWM",
  "I am originally from Italy, Sardinia (kingdom of Italian Cheese), but I've been living in the US for a while. Getting away from my native place exposed me to the HORRORS of the big scale food industry.   \nI started a journey that brought me back to my homeland, in search of cheese manufacturers that actually cared about animals. Of course, it's made by very small artisans that have no tools for reaching a market besides their own.   \nI am in the process of starting an importing business that only deals with vegetarian products made with good ethics.\n\nMy question is, would you consider going back to consuming cheese if:\n\n\\-It's made in an ethical manner?  \n\\-It's good for your health (being sheep cheese, you get a lot of benefits and avoid all of the cow's milk   \n side effects)?",
  "I'm a hunter, ask me anything",
  "Hello people who are vegan for different reasons :) , i wanted to ask if you think less of people who eat meat? If so, what do you think of them? If not, how come?",
  "One thing I've been thinking about lately is how I see a lot of vegans around my campus who use phones produced from underage labor, even a few who have been wearing shoes from leather from an animal. Some things that are hard to avoid that you wouldn't even think of, maybe something simple like a lamp, lipstick, or laptop that was produced immorally. \n\nSometimes I just feel like I lead a naturally destructive life, its a harsh truth but the biggest favor everyone could do to nature would be to get rid of themselves. It's like being in too deep on this destructive path to even really care about nitpicking certain things, doing research on whether something came from cruelty or not. I probably sound crazy, but I'm just trying to make sense of why everyone tries so hard but in the end there's not really a way to avoid being destructive in some sort of way.\n\n",
  "I know this is not the right sub but not sure where else to post.\n\nI seem to be banned. My posts don't show up when I check and logout, and I thought it was odd to not be getting replies.\n\nI am vegan, was asking for recipes or contributing to discussions, not sure what the issue is.\n\nI messaged the mod team and each mod personally, no response.\n\nWhat in the actual fuck?\n\nedit: So, I never received a ban message, but some mod set it up so any post I make is autoremoved. What a cowardly fucking action to take. /u/sylvan seems to be the only mod recently active, but he/she is deliberately ignoring my messages to him/her.\n\nedit2: So, u/sylvan refused to reply, but [JUST BANNED ME](https://imgur.com/a/3bJII), apparantly for 'harrasment of moderators', simply for trying to understand why I was banned in the first place.\n\nI posted a total of 3 messages as replies to posts he made in other subs simply asking why I was banned in the first place, and he didn't have the decency to reply?\n\n**Really? This is how you encourage new vegans?**\n\nedit3: Made a similar post to this (explaining what happened) in r/vegancirclejerk to ask for more input and feedback. [Instantly got banned](https://imgur.com/a/a38iS). Never posted in that sub before.\n\nThis won't change my decision to be vegan, but I kind of understand why they have a shitty reputation online if this is how they act.\n\nMy only crime was trying to figure out why i was \"banned\" in the first place. People can check my post history in r/vegan. Nothing offensive. Even a recipe request.\n\nedit4: Ended up talking to a mod and getting unbanned. Issue resolved.\n\nHowever. I strongly disagree with the ways they moderate. From sylvan ignoring private messages in his capacity as moderator and then banning instead of responding, to circumventing the mod tools for banning users to silently auto-removing every post they make..\n\nThat's incredibly shitty to me. They believe it is necessary to combat trolls, and I don't buy that at all. I've been on the internet for almost 25 years, moderated large forums in the past as well as a sub or two....I don't see that as a valid excuse at all.\n\nThere is no good excuse to silently auto-remove someones posts instead of just banning them. It's not like it's more effort, and I doubt it is effective. If I noticed, I'm sure trolls would notice.",
  "https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/rxodyk/veganism_is_fake_news_and_as_a_way_of_life_it/\n\nPost below to r/vegan\n\n>Veganism has not changed in the 30 years since I was one and still the same old stories are regurgitated. Veganism works only on one level, animal deaths and then it should be up to people to have the ethics of whose life is more important, theirs or an animals.\n\n>The same stories of we could use the land for other things, all the crops that feed animals could feed humans, we get more calories if we eat the food directly are arguments I used myself and they are not valid.\n\n>We can't re-purpose non arable land, 86% of what animals eat is inedible by humans, 60% of this is grass, 22% is our wastage, there isn't a shortage of calories, we could just grow sugar or corn syrup.\n\n>What r/vegan has to do is prove that it can replace ALL that we get not just the edible for it to be better environmentally and if people want to say that I don't want an animal killed for me while I live then that is their choice but as long as they know it will make the planet worse environmentally and as long as they are philosophically ok with that then that as I say is their choice.\n\n>Feed crops represent 24% of global crop production by mass, we assumed rapeseed meal, as a byproduct of biodiesel production in Europe, was directed to animal feed However since feed crops like maize, soybeans, and oil seed meal are dense in both calories and protein content, feed crops represent 36% of global calorie production\n\n>We find that on a global basis, crops grown for direct human consumption represent 67% of global crop production (by mass), 55% of global calorie production , and 40% of global plant protein production.\n\nhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/pdf\n\n>It's disingenuous to use the word calories when we will never be able to use those calories ourselves as we can't digest them. *86% of this of what animals eat is inedible by humans, 14% is edible. This 14% is not going to replace all that we get.\n\n>It's also deceiving to ourselves if we say only diet needs to be replaced as it ignores all the inedible product we get, something veganism needs to account for and it won't be done from the land that grows 24% by mass that is used for animals, it won't even replace the protein, which is usually classed as meat with the fat trimmed off, all of the other things need to be able to be shown that veganism can replace them otherwise it will be more damaging environmentally.\n \nend of post to r/vegan\n\nVegan's ignore all that we get and somehow think if we just replace diet that they have changed the world, when in my opinion as an ex vegan, they are lying to themselves and others and it should stop. * they also think replacing calories is the same as replacing nutrition, if that were true we could just give people corn syrup and also ignore the inedible that we get, which all needs replacing, not just the edible, chicken feathers boiled for taurine, sinew rendered for the hundreds of thousands of tons for pet food.\n\n>86% of the global livestock feed intake in dry matter consists of feed materials that are not currently edible for humans\n\nhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013\n\nI have had people say to me 25-100 times more land is needed for animal production, which is demonstrably false, that everything can be replaced by being grown on non-arable land, some don't even know what non-arable means..* they also seem to think reducing land area should be our only metric, without replacing the product that comes off it. Who care's if non arable land area get's reduced, especially as nothing else grows there\n\n*\n\n>We find that on a global basis, crops grown for direct human consumption represent 67% of global crop production (by mass), 55% of global calorie production , and 40% of global plant protein production.\n\n>Feed crops represent 24% of global crop production by mass. However since feed crops like maize, soybeans, and oil seed meal are dense in both calories and protein content, feed crops represent 36% of global calorie production\n\n>21% of food\u2019s emissions comes from crop production for direct human consumption, and 6% comes from the production of animal feed\n\nhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/pdf\n\n24% by mass or 36% ( considering some of this is after the human content has been removed it a bit much to say this all of this calorie content is just for animals ) is not going to replace all that we get, the edible and inedible\n\nNobody should take a vegans view of how the world should be if they don't know how to replace all that we get based off an ethic that could make the planet worse environmentally especially has it hasn't been proven once that everything that can be replaced.\n\n*\n\nVeganism is only is possible because such a small percentage adhere to it so they are able take from a wide range of foods that might not be possible to supply the variation needed for good health for the general population.\n\n>The modeled removal of animals from the US agricultural system resulted in predictions of a greater total production of food, increases in deficient essential nutrients and excess of energy in the US population\u2019s diet, a potential increase in foods/nutrients that can be exported to other countries, and a decrease of 2.6 percentage units in US GHG emissions. Overall, the removal of animals resulted in diets that are nonviable in the long or short term to support the nutritional needs of the US population without nutrient supplementation. In the plants-only system, the proportion of grain increased 10-fold and all other food types declined. Despite attempts to meet nutrient needs from foods alone within a daily intake of less than 2 kg of food, certain requirements could not be met from available foods. In all simulated diets, vitamins D, E, and K were deficient. Choline was deficient in all scenarios except the system with animals that used domestic currently consumed and exported production. In the plants-only diets, a greater number of nutrients were deficient, including Ca, vitamins A and B12, and EPA, DHA, and arachidonic acid.\n\n>Although not accounted for in this study, it is also important to consider that animal-to-plant ratio is significantly correlated with bioavailability of many nutrients such as Fe, Zn protein, and vitamin A (31). If bioavailability of minerals and vitamins were considered, it is possible that additional deficiencies of plant-based diets would be identified.\n\nhttps://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/48/E10301.full.pdf\n\nVegans have linked to me the video or given the opinion that says we can grow other foods in the place of the grasses that corn and wheat are, growing other foods in the place of these crops is going to lower the calorie benefit listed above in the 24% by mass, considering there is a protein and calorie loss from this mass, is this wise or even possible\n\nIn the USA, all agriculture is 10% as emissions. All animals are 5% and ruminants are around 65% of that.\n\nhttps://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#agriculture https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane\n\nCows are not all of the ruminants but even leaving them as the whole amount for this, any system that replaces the edible and inedible has to be able to show a lowering of 3.25% of emissions to replace everything we get, not just the edible, considering they are mostly on non arable land around the world, anything that replaces this has to show less inputs are needed to get everything we get now.\n\nIf veganism doesn't know how to replace all that we get or even how, should veganism be taken seriously on an environmental aspect ever?",
  "**I have summarised all this at the end under TL;DR**\n\nThis is such a confusing topic because I\u2019ve never heard of actual evidence to support either side (but correct me if I\u2019m wrong about that). I apologise if I sound ignorant, and for this essay of a post.\n\nHere are some of the points I\u2019ve gathered since going vegan and amid all this debate around KFC\u2014\u2014\n\n**FOR it:**\n\n\u2022 subway in Canada doesn\u2019t have plant based options because the demand wasn\u2019t high enough when they did\n\n\u2022 having plant based options at non vegan places can help carnists realise plant based foods are tasty/affordable etc.\n\n\u2022 if there\u2019s a demand for plant based food, they could add even more (but who\u2019s to say that the carnists will eat it and it\u2019s not just vegans eating it?)\n\n\u2022 supporting it can help plant based food become mainstream (I don\u2019t think I agree, as I explain below)\n\n**AGAINST it:**\n\n\u2022 supporting KFC is worse than buying from supermarkets because they are built on carnism\n\n\u2022 they don\u2019t care about animals, they just want money\n\n\u2022 if there are vegan restaurants/cafes around you, why wouldn\u2019t you support them instead of a carnist company? That also increases demand\n\n\u2022 by supporting all vegan places, vegan food can still become mainstream. How common is it that carnists who eat at KFC etc. will actually get the plant based option? (When I wasn\u2019t vegan, I did do this and it helped me realise plant based food was really good, activists/documentaries made me vegan, not the beyond burger at a carnist burger restaurant)\n\n\nI\u2019ve seen many activists supporting PBC, with some saying they wouldn\u2019t buy from KFC but having a vegan option is good for the animals if carnists choose it. This just makes it more confusing since for the most part vegans are on the same side, especially activists. It\u2019s also concerning to see some activists use carnist arguments in favour of PBC (e.g. Lifting Vegan Logic said something like \u201cif you don\u2019t think it\u2019s ethical why do you shop at a supermarket?\u201d which reminds me of the \u201cphones tho\u201d argument). There is no such thing as a vegan supermarket (I suppose a farmers market works, but are the farmers vegan?), but there IS such thing as vegan restaurants/cafes. At least there, although they would buy food from supermarkets, the profit would go to vegans and not carnists.\n\nI\u2019d love to hear more insight and what everyone\u2019s opinions are. As you can see I\u2019m really torn so I want to learn more about this topic and would appreciate any responses.\n\n**Note:** I wanted to post this on Vegan for Circle Jerkers as an honest question, but thought they might ban me. I\u2019d really appreciate the thoughts of people who use that sub because I agree with pretty much everything on there\n\n**UPDATE:** \nI have researched more and found [this great post](https://www.reddit.com/r/VeganForCircleJerkers/comments/q5hkq2/pbc_plant_based_capitalism_an_explanation/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) on VFCJ that has made me shift my position a little. In a nutshell, some of the best points were:\n\n\u2022 Burger King removed some vegan options because they weren\u2019t selling, and not much changed. The vegan population is so little, so it\u2019s very likely only vegans were buying it \n\n\u2022 Tyson have said that since having plant based products, the rate they kill animals hasn\u2019t decreased\n\n\u2022 all this has led me to believe that most likely, this is just to make money from vegans. It doesn\u2019t lead carnists to buy the vegan option enough to support these companies over 100% vegan ones, and certainly doesn\u2019t make carnists go vegan. It\u2019s mostly about people\u2019s taste and convenience, and not wanting to only buy whole foods from grocery stores even if that is more ethical. \n\nSome of my own new points:\n\n\u2022 when you buy from a cafe/restaurant, not only is the grocery store getting profit, but the restaurant and the company/original producer. If you buy from a carnist restaurant, on top of supporting a grocery store that sells products of abuse, you\u2019re supporting the producer of the item/s AND giving profit to the owner of the restaurant. Buying straight from the grocery store would surely be giving less money to carnists (but correct me if I\u2019m wrong)\n\n\u2022 having one item on a menu that is without cruel products doesn\u2019t mean you should support that brand. It\u2019s like animal testing - vegans don\u2019t support companies that test on animals in China, but with the pro-PBC logic you could if you live outside China because your item isn\u2019t tested on animals. Maybe that\u2019s not a great analogy, but it\u2019s helped me make more sense of this.\n\n\n**TL;DR:**\nI\u2019m don\u2019t think PBC is great for animals. Buying takeaways/mock animal products etc. isn\u2019t a necessity. As I discovered with Burger King and Tyson, the rate of animal deaths has not decreased by adding vegan options. It is a good idea for converting carnists/making them realise plants are delicious, but a vegan who cares about animals should support all vegan companies as much as is possible. It makes no sense when people who live in cities with SO many vegan cafes/restaurants go out of their way to support carnist companies like KFC, when it won\u2019t make carnists vegan and won\u2019t decrease animal murder. I live in a city with very few all vegan restaurants. I would kill to live in a city with even 10 vegan places, and yet vegans in NYC and London are supporting KFC",
  "Video reference: https://youtu.be/Eug1You8SH0\n\nIt seems to me that this conversation is taking place within a much broader, philosophical and theological setting - a setting that makes the topic of veganism almost TOO small or TOO acute to be useful or relevant.\n\nHaving watched a fair amount of Ed's content (and been largely unimpressed), I think that the absence of this realization and the lack of philosophical/theological reverence and competency is where Ed's arguments consistently fall down. His arguments sit upon extremely shaky and precarious moral assumptions and rough calculations. \n\nThat said, I do disagree with his interlocutor in this video, but at least here Ed is coming up against a consistent and considered philosophy as opposed to a good deal of his other content, where his opponents have woefully undeveloped positions. The gentleman in this video raises vital and comprehensive points that it appears Ed has never considered and seems unable to engage with, points that simply HAVE to been confronted and accounted for in any functional belief system - including veganism.\n\nThoughts?",
  "I understand you value animal lives. So lets take a dog for example how much more or less value does it have over a human? If it's equal would you save a dog over a human or would it be up to chance?",
  "Been reading that soy is really bad for you. Does the term soy-boy have any truth to it?",
  "I completly agree with veganism but i lost all hope in it\n\nI dont see a future where this fucked up system gets any better so why should i even bother?\n\nI also have grown extremely apathetic about the living beings that are being slaughtered to the point where i dont care about what or who i am eating\n\nI only continue being a vegan out of habit even though it would be more convinent to stop caring and to stop being vegan\n\nSo could you give me a reason as to why i should continue being vegan?\n\nEdit:i also dont understand how me not buying the meat in the supermarket is making a diference, not saying it doesnt, i just genuinely dont know\n\nEdit 2: you guys have some really good arguments and have really changed my mind. I guess i was being a dumbass doomer but my doomer ass can see youre right. \n\nThank you for answering my post",
  "Vegas, a lot of your arguments are great, but I think it breaks down when it comes to attacking thd \"Plants are alive too\" argument. You say that you draw the line at sentient living things. So plants don't count. You do realize how arbitrary this is, right? There's no reason or logic behind it, that's just how YOU think it should be. I think it makes more sense to take an agnostic approach. All morality is subjective, but some moralistic philosophies are more arbitrary than others. This is where we have to take a neutral position. Such as abortion. Some people will say life starts at conception and we should honor that life just because. And by the way, semen doesn't count because it's not alive yet. This is also completely arbitrary. I don't think we should put down others who believe in it either. Their morality is their own and we shouldn't push ours on theirs. There shouldn't be any laws against it because it's so arbitrary though.\n\nAlso, take this argument. Think if aliens come right now and harvest us like we harvest meat. They bred us like we breed meat. Sure, we'd rather they don't kill us right now, but would we really rather they had not started to breed us at all? Then we would never be born! I'm sure we would rather a shortened life rather than no life at all.\n\nThe fact is that life doesn't really matter anyway. We have laws to protect ourselves from extinction, because extinction affects us, because we think our lives matter. We have laws because if we didn't our lives would be worse, not because life inherently matters, that's just an illusion. That wouldn't apply to animals because we don't really need them to survive. You can make an argument that going vegan is better for the environment and therefore in our best interest, but that's different than declaring the sanctity of all life. When we die we go back to like it was before we were born. None of this actually matters, we're just coasting along for the ride.\n\nYou could say people are being unethical by forgetting to recycle their coffee cup from Starbucks, but it's not very realistic because each individual contributes very little to harming the environment, but it's only as a whole that we are harming it. That's why we need government to stop it.\n\nAnyway, thanks for humoring me.",
  "In a previous post, people discussed epidemiological studies that show a negative association between meat consumption and depression [1]. People rightfully pointed out the association could be due to confounding variables. This consensus was reflected in the top comment, questioning the likelihood of there being some 'magic happy chemical' in meat.\n\nWell, it seems like this is indeed the case. The 'happy chemical' is called carnitin and is predominantly found in red meat [2]. Researchers found that depression is associated with low levels of serum carnitine. Furthermore, several RCT showed improvements in depressive symptoms from carnitine supplementation. Carnitin supplementation had similar effectiveness to established antidepressants, but fewer side effects [3]. The link is so strong that researchers have proposed to use serum carnitin levels as a diagnostic tool for depression [4].\n\nThis is one example (of many) that illustrates the health benefits of consuming animal products, specifically red meat, and is part of why humans should eat meat.\n\nSources:\n\n[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2021.1974336\n\n[2] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.853058/full\n\n[3] https://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/abstract/2018/02000/acetyl_l_carnitine_supplementation_and_the.4.aspx\n\n[4] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.671151/full\n\nEdit: update links to sources",
  "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHzfvM8mXxI",
  "So, I wrote this following a long chain of thought. Would like to know your opinions.[https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQdwmvnb5DJCEKYV8TukaEj7AIx8BZcZn1FSXOZ6zjEODOALNV3k00lOyfkkthB6uWW5pf8DtrMMhSI/pub](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQdwmvnb5DJCEKYV8TukaEj7AIx8BZcZn1FSXOZ6zjEODOALNV3k00lOyfkkthB6uWW5pf8DtrMMhSI/pub)\n\n​\n\nAlso, please pardon the coherence in the text. I was (and still am) half asleep while writing this. \n\n​\n\nCheers",
  "So as an non vegan, im curious where does the line of morality begin when it comes to veganism and the supply chain of the production of vegan food. Whether it be through accidental slaughter of living animals through cultivation or transportation.",
  "Oysters or a venus fly trap? Which would you eat if you had to choose one?",
  "I am not a vegetarian. I raise these precious animals myself, and I process them myself, because I know they have had a good, healthy life. They live outside, in the sunshine. They get to play, eat, sleep. They are protected from predators. They are not raised confined to a feed lot, or inside a concrete building. They are not over crowded, they are not sick, they are not deformed.  Because I do eat meat, I want to make sure that the animals I eat live a good life, not a horrible one. I don't ever buy meat at the grocery store. I know how my animals are treated, even up to the end. And yes, I cry when I say goodbye to them. But I am not a vegetarian. I care about these animals. Most of them would have no life in the wild. So they get to live with me. And then I eat them.\n\n \n\nIf you are a vegetarian, good for you. Good for you for the discipline to eat healthy enough and find enough protein sources to stay healthy. If you are not a vegetarian, then do some research on where your meat comes from, and you'll be shocked at what you are supporting by eating at the grocery store.\n\nThe other thing I do know is that there is this fantasy that animals can live and awesome life without us coming along to eat them. Well, without me and my dogs, if my sheep were out in the wild, many of the lambs would succumb to predators. My chickens would do the same. And the ones that were super smart and agile and everything - yeah, they could live for some time in the wild. Until they got old and frail.  The reality is that all of these animals would either succumb to illness or predators in the wild. Wild animals don't get the joy of peacefully passing away in their sleep. HECK, most animals don't get that privilege! Even my pet dogs and cats don't get that privilege. \n\nIf I were to quit butchering my animals for meat right now, most of them would live nice happy lives. Until the end. When they got sick and suffered and died, or when the coyotes finally figured out that they could grab one. All life ends. ALL OF IT.  If you are a vegetarian (you're killing that carrot every time you eat one) you may still feel morally obligated to convince the rest of us not to support the slaughter of animals for our food. Those animals will still die. And instead of being carefully handled, and dispatched quickly and as painlessly as possible - they will still die. And they will suffer when they do. Whether you eat animals or not, animals all die. So will we. But I can treat my animals with love and care. \n\n \n\nIf you are a vegetarian or vegan - again, good for you for the discipline you have in eating healthy and replacing those proteins with other sources. I can still respect you and your decisions and have conversations about it, but it is unlikely you will change my mind. Or change my farm.",
  "First, the difference between introduced and invasive species. Introduced species are non native but cause no harm. Invasive species are non native and cause active harm to an ecosystem.\n\nTake Asian carp, for instance. Silver, bighead, grass, and common carp cause harm to ecosystems by decreasing biodiversity, competing with native fish, eroding river and lake bottoms, and even eating the eggs of native fish at times.\n\nSo with that in mind, what is your opinion on culling them? Is culling them okay and eating them is not? Are neither okay? Are you fine with it and you just won\u2019t take part in eating them?\n\nI know y\u2019all aren\u2019t a monolith and I\u2019m not trying to pull a Ben Shapiro and \u201cown the libs\u201d and I\u2019m actually genuinely curious on what thoughts are on this issue.",
  "Hey guys, I just wanted to submit some of my thoughts about meat eating and the context of veganism, and maybe get some counter-points. For the purpose of this post, I would like to keep factory farming and the American meat industry out of the discussion. That topic is huge and would only distract from what I'm getting at, and frankly I think we can all agree it's a disgusting system. I'm talking specifically about the practice of killing animals for food.\n\nBasically, I think eating meat should be acceptable because it's a huge part of cultures around the world. Not just one or two cultures, or just a few of the most recognizable cultures, but every culture. Even in India, the country most famous for its vegetarian population, animal products are used in cooking and have been for thousands of years. If you ask people in any country around the world what a meal consists of, they would most likely say meat, vegetables, and a form of starch. This isn't a modern invention or an idea that any one society pushes, it's ubiquitous and ancient.\n\nSo maybe you think, \"Duh, but it's still wrong!\" Alright, I can accept that you think it's wrong. Your personal choice is totally valid to me. But I think it's only fair to expect some level of mutual respect. The morality or immorality of eating meat is a complex, nuanced issue. I'm not saying vegans should or shouldn't be vegan, my point is that both choices should be acceptable to everyone. Instead of saying, \"Eating meat is always wrong,\" it would be better to acknowledge that eating meat is a way of life with deep roots, deeper than almost any other human behavior, and that maybe it's alright to disagree.",
  "I hope this is the right place for this, if not I'll be happy to delete/move this post.\n\nMy mother has recently decided to become vegan after being vegetarian for ~40 years. I know that she made this decision primarily for animal welfare reasons, and she no longer drinks milk (she was already avoidant of most animal byproducts e.g. gelatin products, pecorino cheese, leather, wool, etc). However, she still eats eggs, although she doesn't buy them. \n\nBasically, she owns a handful (I think 5 at the moment) of ex-battery hens, and has been rescuing them for many years. Some of these hens still produce eggs, so she eats them, I think partially because she was raised not to throw food away and because she knows the conditions they are in. She has a largish field behind her house where the chickens live, and treats them really like beloved pets - they each get a unique (and pretty!) name, she hand-makes their organic food every day, spends time walking around with them, puts them away at night in a heated, foxproof hut, wakes up at sunrise every day to let them out again... She even gives them these little jackets if they're new and have had feathers come out, so they're not cold and to protect their skin. She has a special vet who's a chicken specialist on speed dial (her local vet has no idea what to do with them), and when they eventually pass from old age there's a solemn funeral for each and every one. Basically, these are the most spoilt little chickens I've ever seen, which they absolutely deserve considering where they come from.\n\nThe reason I'm asking about this is because my mother joined a group on Facebook aimed at older vegans in her area. Someone on there saw the photos of chickens on her page (I think one of them is even her profile picture) and asked about the eggs. When she said she does eat them a bunch of people started replying saying she isn't a vegan and shouldn't be in the group. My mum is really upset about it as she previously found the group to be supportive, and doesn't know what she can say to defend herself. She still considers herself vegan.\n\nSo my question here is, is it ever possible to be a 'vegan' but eat eggs in a scenario like this? Is there any sort of defence? I am not vegan myself, so I really don't know the ins and outs but I want to help my mother, even if that means advising her of the proper terminology to use so others won't get upset. \n\nIf you get this far, thanks for reading all that and again if this is the wrong place for this please let me know.",
  "That's my question. Pests = mice, rats; that will chew through things and poop on your stuff. This is a health hazard.",
  "I've read a lot of vegans on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube and come to the conclusion that the aggressive, ALF supporters maybe bad for veganism as a whole. Sub genres of vegans show up when supermeat is mentioned or when dietary habits of dogs and cats are enquired. Gary Yourofsky's comments on the Nepal earthquake were diabolical. However, he did do one good speech, but that's kind of where I stopped listening to him. Personally, I'm cutting back animal products, with the research and knowledge I have gathered off my own back. I still occasionally consume fish, eggs and cheese. I do drink soya and almond milk nowadays. I'm in a stronger position to be vegetarian, despite the hatred it gathers from the vegan community, as it's often \"worse than meat\" to many abolitionist vegans on facebook. This may make absolutely no sense to any of you as I'm writing off a phone (oh, naughty). The gist is, I admire the ethical stand point of vegans, I can even understand the anger that comes from it, but I think the more aggressive and outspoken in the community will turn people away. I am much more thoughtful when searching for food, mainly veggie and vegan. I often visit vegan places as I enjoy seeing the alternatives. \n\nTL;DR: Aggressive Vegans on social media, MIGHT be hindering the movement.\n\nEdit: I enjoy vegan and vegetarian food. I find little delights in finding them out and about. Feel free too shoot me down, but I'm complimenting you guys.",
  "What's your rebuttal? I am tired at debating. My brain is shutting down and I need help. ",
  "First of all this is a rare situation. But one could conceivably develop a back mounted pistol or long gun perhaps for a war effort. Russians have been known to train dolphins and whales as scouts. Pigeons were used in war and we all know about dogs.\n\nOkay, so you're approached by an armed animal. The animal does not know you, it only knows its training. And you fit the profile of someone to act against.\n\nIs it unethical at this point to fire the first shot before the animal does? I would argue that it is not. The animal's ignorance does not absolve its lethality. Much like child soldiers.",
  "I\u2019ve seen comments from people saying they won\u2019t, for example, buy a veg burger from McDonald\u2019s because they don\u2019t want to support the company. McDonald\u2019s almost certainly has an entire team of people - accountants, marketers, etc. - analyzing the profitability, growth potential, etc of the vegan food market. One of the most basic business principles is not to subsidize one product with another, so you\u2019re not really subsidizing meat when you do. And if vegan food were really that much more profitable than meat that would actually be great news because that would give them an incentive to push those products.  Smaller companies are watching these bigger companies and taking cues from them. If big evil companies can\u2019t make vegan products profitable, nobody else will even try. Also, the more your average person sees these products in their everyday life, at their favorite fast food restaurants or on store shelves, the more normalized veganism will become.",
  "I'm pro-choice on abortion politically because I think the consequences of the ban are worse than the act itself, but I'll admit that it makes me very uncomfortable, and given the choice for myself only, I probably wouldn't go through with it, especially if armed with scientific knowledge that at a certain point it must cause pain.\n\nObviously, this wouldn't question wouldn't be a problem in the cases of extremely early term abortions, but at a certain point within the woman's womb the forming child's faculties far exceed that of many animals that vegans would refuse to eat for moral reasons.\n\nI feel this question is \"trickiest\" for individuals who are both fervently pro-abortion and fervently vegan, since in both cases you are weighing the decision of a single actor with regard to either a lower or equal being (depending on your subjective hierarchy if you are a utilitarian).  \n\nA woman deciding whether to eat meat or abort in the second trimester often faces a very similar tradeoff between a (lesser?) being's pleasure and their own.  \n\n\n\nI am interested from the moral/personal/ethical standpoint of you making the decision for yourself. I think this question is difficult for any moral framework (e.g. Deontology, Kantian, virtue, consequentialist utilitarian, whatever).  Is the sacrifice of another being's life worth the convenience/pleasure that the action would add to your own?  How do your personal (not political) views on abortion and veganism relate with one another?\n\nInterested in the replies.\n\n**Note: As I said earlier, I'm really not interested in the political/legal framework.  Enforcing a ban on both abortion services and meat consumption tomorrow would have horrible unintended consequences in the same way as one another, often stemming from mass civil disobedience.  What I am interested in is your own personal ethical outlook.**",
  "I've worked at an organic farm for about a year. The products we use to fertilize our fields all contain animal parts: blood, bones, ground up lobsters, etc. We sell a huge variety of fertilizers that are approved for organic growing in our farmstand and they all contain animal products. So, if we use animal parts to fertilize our fields, are the organic fruits and veggies we grow vegan? Dead animals went into producing them. \n\nIf organic fruits and veggies aren't vegan, the alternative is fruits and veggies grown with chemical pesticides. There are plenty of environmental and ethical issues with chemical pesticides, and in my opinion these issues are more serious than the ethical dilemma of eating organic, local crops fertilized by dead animals. \n\nI haven't made up my mind on this issue yet, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot and I am really curious to hear other people's opinions. ",
  "I say internet because no vegan has said this to me in real life, so I don't mean all vegans.\n\nThis seems to come from a single source, a talk from. Dr. Milton Mills in which he cherry picks aninals to make humans match up to an herbivore. Alternatively it will say frugivore instead of herbivore, but the reasoning is the same.",
  "While it is understandable that everyone may have some different views within a group, I found myself debating with someone who subscribed to the idea that veganism is a Kingdomist viewpoint.\n\nI disagreed by saying that based on arguments, it seems like a vegan would not be in opposition with granting other things besides animal consideration as long as it has the traits worthy of moral consideration. Namely, as usually put, the ability to suffer or sentience.\n\nThey put forth that by definition, the vegan society is only concerned with animals being sold for food and other commodifion of them.\n\nNow I disagreed with this because it isn't done because they are animals but because vegans consider that animals (at least usually) have what is necessary to be considered morally relevant.\n\nThis all boils down to a question. Is it the letter of the law (animal rights), or is it the spirit of the law (sentient rights) that vegans argue for?\n\nIs a Kingdomist approach vegan, or is it taking advantage of fallible wording?\n\nI do want to note that I consider a Kingdomist approach as identical in logic as any other discriminatory approach and lacking in comparison to the morally relevant traits argumentation that is used by most vegans.",
  "To be clear, this is **not** an argument against veganism. It is a question related to the marginal cases argument.\n\nSuppose a human baby with zero social ties is in a burning house and there is also a cow in a burning barn. You can save only one.\n\nThe cow is an herbivore, so no sentient beings will suffer as a result of its continued existence. The baby could be be raised vegan (I don't know at this point who the adoptive parents would be). But, even if the baby is raised vegan, there will likely be some suffering of sentient beings because industrial plant production generally results in accidental death of animals. Industrial plant production in this case is required for the infant's survival.\n\nBased on this argument, the correct moral decision is to save the cow because it prevents the most suffering. But, I would still choose the infant. It's simply in my human nature, which is an appeal to nature fallacy, but I would do it anyways. \n\nWhich would you choose and why?  Are there any rational arguments that would make my decision morally correct? ",
  "Is it to eventually have a majority or everyone become vegan?\n\nIs it to minimize harm done to animals?\n\nWhat is the big picture is what I'm asking. :)\n\nEdit: well everyone, it's been a pleasure discussing with you all, I'm going to bed now but will reply more in the morning, thank you all for your insights, and the most convincing topic I ran into was not about the animals themselves, but how bad the meat industry is for the environment, can't really argue with that point, so even if people don't agree with the \"save the animals\" aspect of veganism, the environmental aspect can't be denied, thanks again and good night! :)",
  "I have been aquiring the new hobby of arguing with vegans apparently. Since I work in the medical field and have to provide diet recommendations sometimes I read basically every study I can get my hands on and have the time for. \n\nI also never argue the ethical point with vegans since I am strictly interested in the best healthcare for my patients and veganism tends to be perceived as dogmatic. /s I can't imagine why...\n\nSo my question is this: Why do vegans seem to think that all meat is equal in generally bad for you. Nobody with half a brain cell would ever argue that factory farmed meat or dairy is healthy. That would be denying the facts. Interestingly enough though vegans (at least the ones I've spoken to) never talk about grass-fed meat or even the distinction between muscle and organ meats. Grass-fed liver is one of the healthiest foods on the planet. \n\nThe problem purely from a health point of view is factory farming and not meat. Wheat or genetic modified soy are true hazards to our health but they are passed over for some reason despite the wealth of research showing us that they kill us. (In contrast to not genetically modified soy and wheat pre-1970s).",
  "take note : not all mutations are bad, it can be good in the means of increasing of survival or getting rid of unwanted feature.   \n\n\nFor example humans used to be so hairy (for thermoregulation) and they have wisdom tooth (for cutting raw meat)  but in the presence of fire and other innovations we don't need those kind of traits   \n\n\nI think the changes in the human body might occur   \n1. the stomach will be either be too acidic ( since most vegetables are more alkalizing ) or it will produce less acid ( since our stomach doesnt need to pump more HCl in the body) - our body has a way to homeostasis   \n2. We will have a way to digest cellulose   \n3. plants to human virus is a possible transmission ( viruses has a ability to adapt )   \n4. We will probably have softer and brittle bones   \n5. there will be changes in our DNA   \n\n\nhopefully you can think of ways how humans will change in the next 1Millions of years",
  "[https://www.veganlifemag.com/diamond-mining/](https://www.veganlifemag.com/diamond-mining/)\n\n  \nHumans want shiny things so the earth is destroyed, yes i know that we desire fancy cars and pretty houses or brand name clothes but those things have secondary values, we drive them, live in them or wear them  \n\n\nA diamond has no other purpose than to be a shiny thing  \n\n\nI do know that diamond and gold are used in manufacturing processes and serves a real purpose compared to again a shiny thing to show our friends",
  "Is it just as bad to kill an ant as it is a cow?",
  "I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, and I doubt I ever will be, because I'm extremely selfish and lazy, and I love the taste of meat and animal products too much. But there's no logical way to disagree with anything they say. Animals are innocent, sentient beings. And when you pay for meat and animal products, you are paying people to murder them, steal their babies, etc.",
  "I'm from a country where eating insects in something normal and socially acceptable. Is eating insects bad for vegans? I saw a post about eating clams and muscles and most of you seem to think it's alright because they aren't sentient. What about bugs, like crickets or ants? ",
  "First let me start off with: I am not here to fight. You have my full and total respect for the vegan life choices. \n\nI consider myself as a non vegan that tries everything I can to source my animal products ethically. I only eat meat twice a week, which I buy from a free range farm where the cows are slaughtered on location. I do eat yoghurt every morning, which I get from the same place. And although I rarely buy products like winegums/milk chocolate, I won't say no when offered. \n\nI have vegan friends who started to approach me in the past few months like I am the scum off the earth for doing what I am doing. Debates we've been having about me not being vegan have become fruitless, because it gets wayyy to personal wayyy to fast. I feel like neither party is truly open to listening to the other party anymore. \n\nI was wondering if there are people here that are open to a civil debate on the topic. I feel like I am making conscious decisions, but I am open on things I can improve. I feel like I am making ethical choices, but can not fairly test/challenge my choices in the debates with my friends because they mainly yell at me that I am a horrible person (FYI, I am not innocent in those discussions either. I get defensive). \n\nPS: using a throwaway account for anonymity purposes.. \n\n",
  "Is it wrong to eat meat?",
  "Animals being equalized with humans and humans being categorized as in the animal kingdom happens daily in the vegan community. \n\nVeganism often compares animal suffering to human suffering and environmental suffering. \n\nWe all know that porn traffics and abuses men, women and children every single day in horrific ways with no end in sight. In some cases there is consent but in just as many there aren\u2019t, and as with many animal industries the porn industry is largely unregulated. Even the seemingly \u201csafe\u201d sites are proven to have \u201caccidentally\u201d hosted illegal exploitative content. \n\nEating eggs doesn\u2019t kill a chicken but it directly correlates and impacts the lives of other animals who are slaughtered in the industry by normalizing and perpetuating their use. People who consent to making porn don\u2019t die but the production of porn fuels an industry where very real people including children and animals do suffer and die to create content for the industry. \n\nI\u2019d argue you cannot be vegan and support porn at the same time. The only way to reduce the abuse to the most exploited and murdered in the industry is to give it up all together. \n\nIf human rights are animal rights, and you would argue against bestiality or similar, and humans are animals then how is porn acceptable to vegans when it exploits humans (and sometimes animals in pornography) as an industry?",
  "What are we to do for animals that literally cannot be vegan. Like Dogs, and Cats? They are incapable of survival based on plants alone. Sorry my question is so short. I am not the most eloquent fellow.",
  "Sounds stupid but I have a rather important question and the crux of the argument relies on vegans not eating snails.\n\nIn the end vegans (who choose not to eat/use animal based products because of their disagreement with harming animals) will still eat a salad.  \nThis salad could be made from leaves which have been surrounded with pest killing devices or chemicals and it would not be considered harming an animal by the majority of vegans (otherwise they would refuse to eat most vegetables).  \nAll kinds of tangential arguments could be made about this, an example being \"if none of the animals are killed, is keeping an animal from food which it requires to live considered cruel?\" and other such arguments.  \nTL;DR If a vegan chooses to eat food which has been deliberately farmed so pests such as snails may die as a direct result, would killing snails and eating them be different? if so how?",
  "Why should we support veganism when there are ways where exploiting and being cruel to animals can be for their own good or where doing something that's not vegan is going to help out animals more than being vegan?\n\nI can list multiple ways\n\n* rewilding livestock back to their untarnished forms\n* animal sanctuaries\n* slaughterhouse documentaries\n* eating animal foods that would go to waste if you didn't eat it\n   * like if you bought it be accident or was gifted it\n      * then - eating plants instead might contribute to crop deaths while the animal died in vain\n* animal testing for animal medical treatments (vaccines, etc.)\n* animal rescuing\n   * where being cruel in giving them vaccines (because the shot might hurt them), tagging them (which hurts them, but can save other lives from illegal hunters), etc. can save their life\n* not focusing on 'purism' for the sake of reducitarianism\n* allowing wild animals into gardens for them to live freely instead of worry about making the food not veganic enough to be vegan\n* freeganism",
  "So I live a rural part of Louisiana and as most here can guess there ain\u2019t many vegans were I live so most of the locals hunt, fish and grow gardens. I don\u2019t personally hunt but I do enjoy fishing just hanging out with a buddy or my father and we drink and have fun and if we don\u2019t catch something oh well we still had fun. My cousin called me this morning and said he killed 5 hogs and that he needed help cleaning them (skinning and gutting) so I got dressed at 6:50 and went to help. I didn\u2019t ask for anything since I don\u2019t really eat a lot of pork but he gave me an entire hog. This is probably around 100lbs or so of meat and I thought to myself if I don\u2019t take it then the person that might may not eat all of it and it will go to waste or my cousin would turn it into dog food so I accepted. \n\nI viewed as I would fish. I\u2019ve had fellas offer me their catch cause it wasn\u2019t enough for them to fool with. \n\nSo my question I guess is is it vegan to not waste the meat?",
  "Why do we never see stories and articles on successful vegans aka the majority vegans who eat a whole food plant based diet but keep getting news on fruitarians who starve themselves with fruits and few raw veggies?",
  "I was reading an article about an individual who decided to try out the diet and workout regimen that Duane \"The Rock\" Johnson follows daily. Essentially it's about 10lbs of food a day at around 5000 calories, and about a quarter of weight in food alone comes from fish. The rest is eggs, steak, chicken, fruits and vegetables. I know many vegans claim that a diet consisting of animal products (but especially the flesh) is that of an unhealthy diet that leads to multiple health problems. This seems to be almost the polar opposite however. Here is a man who: \"In one year, The Rock consumes more than one-third of a ton of cod alone.\" but is in unarguably peak physical health, when by all vegan accounts he should not. I know veganism is mainly about the morality of exploiting animals period, obviously this isn't addressing that. I am addressing the vegans who speak of how any diet with animal products is one that will be a detriment to ones health. Also if this is not the appropriate place to ask questions like this, I apologize. Please feel free to ask the mods to remove this post if that is the case. Also I will link the article I read below for your reading before discussion. Thank you.",
  "Insects, arachnids and crustaceans are all, arguably, sentient beings. But they are killed intentionally all the time, I suspect, even by vegans. Swatting flies and killing cockroaches. Yet these same vegans believe it is cruel to eat shrimp, keep scorpions as pets or in a zoo, or perform beekeeping. Unlike flies or cockroaches, these arthropods are being kept and farmed for a purpose. Why is it OK to swat a fly but not eat a shrimp or eat honey?",
  "I mean, it's not like I personally go to a field pick out a juicy cow and say yeah I'll have you for steak tonight please. I would go to a restaurant where the cow had already been killed and prepared, it's going to get eaten whether that's me or somebody else. The same with animal products in supermarkets, they will either get eaten or thrown out, it's too late by this point I might as well Benefit from the animal products instead of them just going to waste?",
  "Lets say you have two two different 10-acre plots of land, A and B. Assume you have unlimited clean water and the soil is nutrient rich.\n\nPlot A is set up as an annual crop rotation, with sub-plots for fruit, legumes, ancient grains, and vegetables. Basically, grow as many food-bearing plants as you can get away with.\n\nPlot B is set up with permanent fruit and nut trees scattered at appropriate distances. Under and between the trees, there is feed grass on which an appropriate number of ruminants graze. The feed grass is never disturbed, and beneath the grass live a natural distribution of insects and ground mammals. The ruminants are allowed to reproduce naturally and animals are only taken (humanely) so as not to allow overpopulation. The animals are never fed additional food from outside the plot. The only intervention in their lives would be to provide them covered living space in the winter and keep that area clean.\n\nWhich plot would you like to work on, and why?",
  "I\u2019m trending that way. I love all life and am also trying to become a better person. \nAll that said, I have a question for you all. It\u2019s kinda different I think.\nHere goes, \nI was just reading the ingredients for a stick of I can\u2019t believe it\u2019s not butter. It says it\u2019s vegan friendly. But it\u2019s made from palm oil. I\u2019ve read that palm oil is from trees that are grown on clear cut land. It\u2019s not an animal product but, it may have had adverse effects on animals and the people who live there. I\u2019m genuinely curious what you all think about this? I apologize if this is too deep of a question. I\u2019m still working to transition to a different person.",
  "1. Every post against veganism is downvoted. Ive browsed many small and large subreddits, but this is the only one where every post discussing the intended topic is downvoted. \n\nWriting a post is generally more effort than writing a reply, this subreddit even has other rules like the poster being obligated to reply to comments (which i agree with). So its a huge middle finger to be invited to write a post (debate a vegan), and creating the opportunity for vegans who enjoy debating to have a debate, only to be downvoted.\n\n2. Many replies are emotionally charged, such as... \n\nThe use of the word \"carnist\" to describe meat eaters, i first read this word on this subreddit and it sounded \"ugly\" to me, unsurprisingly it was invented by a vegan a few years back. Also it describes the ideology of the average person who believes eating dog is wrong but cow is ok, its not a substitute for \"meat eater\", despite commonly being used as such here. Id speculate this is mostly because it sounds more hateful.\n\nGas chambers are mentioned disproportionately by vegans (though much more on youtube than this sub). The use of gas chambers is most well known by the nazis, id put forward that vegans bring it up not because they view it as uniquely cruel, but because its a cheap way to imply meat eaters have some evil motivation to kill animals, and to relate them to \"the bad guys\". The accusation of pig gas chambers and nazis is also made overtly by some vegans, like by the author of \"eternal treblinka\".",
  "So let's say that 80% of people stop eating meat. What happens when the meat industry lays off huge swaths of the workforce? Can the economy handle that many people leaving the workforce? Is an animal's well-being worth more than the families of people who work in the meat industry? We've seen what happens when industry leaves a town.",
  "One of the most common arguments on any r/futurology post about anything related to animal agriculture is: farmed animals, such as cows, pigs, or chickens, will go entirely extinct if we become a vegan world.\n\nFirst of all, let\u2019s just start with that idea being true. What is the problem with them going extinct? We are sending multiple species a day into extinction by treating the earth as we do now, and the only thing people do is see \u201canimal goes extinct\u201d on a headline, say \u201cthat\u2019s a shame,\u201d and continue on with their day. Even if you do care, if you\u2019re against animals going extinct, and even under the premise that farmed animals will go extinct in a vegan world, is it not still better to have a vegan world as that would prevent a whole boatload of extinction that occurs from animal agriculture? Would not trading those 3 animals still be better if your goal is to prevent extinction?\n\nBut honestly, the reason people give when they say that those animals will go extinct (meaning every single one will die) is that no one will give a shit about them if we can\u2019t exploit them. Yet there are countless sanctuaries who DO take animals. Also, this ignores the idea that maybe, just maybe, not every cow pig or chicken on earth is on a farm. http://www.wildcattleconservation.org says there are 10 species of cattle in the wild today. A google search can give you all the information you want to know about wild chickens. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_pig is an article literally talking about pigs who are on their own.\n\nNow while not every cow pig or chicken can just be released at once, we won\u2019t all go vegan overnight, and if we ever are in a vegan world, it would likely be a result of simply stopping breeding them. That still leaves all of the animals that are in sanctuaries, along with the literal examples of cows, pigs and chickens living in the wild or feral.\n\nThis subreddit and CMVs about veganism have opened my mind up to a lot of different omni perspectives, but I\u2019ve never gotten a clear understanding of the logic behind the idea that cows pigs or chickens will go extinct as a result of a vegan world. Nor do I understand why it\u2019s an issue if keeping those alive is one of the biggest contributors to climate change, which is causing a mass extinction of animals. If somebody could explain that perspective rather than just saying \u201cthey\u2019d go extinct,\u201d I\u2019d love to hear anyone\u2019s thoughts and if I disagree, want to debate.",
  "I'm a dietary vegan and working on other aspects.\n\nI've learned a lot of hand soaps have animal products. I was at my mom's house over the household and she had honey in one soap and silk in another. Plus there are others with lots of animal byproducts, or traditional soap has animal fat.\n\nDo you guys bring hand soap with you everywhere? Sometimes you can't even tell what is in hand soap at some random place.\n\nGetting rid of non-vegan products outside of food is so hard and I've been struggling :(",
  "This is from my experience apparently a really hot take among some people. \n\nCross-contamination should not be a concern for vegans, but apparently it is. Vegan chicken nuggets fried with the same oil used for actual chicken is apparently a vegan sin - despite the oil being vegan, and consuming those nuggets having no effect on the supply of actual chicken. No manager is going to look at rising sales of vegan products - no matter if 'contamination' is at play - and conclude more animals should be bred to meet demand. \n\nYet organic products aren't viewed with the same absurdly critical lens, despite actually being morally concerning seeing as organic produce requires the use of bone meal and animal shit... or it's not organic. ''Conventional'' fruit in comparison is much more likely to come from a source using synthetic fertiliser. Between the organic apple and non-organic apple, choose the non-organic one. That way you're less likely to be contributing to cost reduction for farmers offloading manure and bonemeal to organic farms. \n\nSince I'm assuming vegan chicken nuggets don't have much if any organic methods in the supply chain, eating ''contaminated'' vegan products is genuinely more vegan than an organic apple (even when assuming no beeswax!).",
  "I submit the following points:\n\n* Gastronomy is a mental health issue. \n* American Gastronomy has been systematically ruined.\n* Poverty is an assault on mental and physical health.\n* Consumers are not morally responsible for the behavior of land owners and \"voting with your dollar\" is a Capitalist fraud.\n* Land owners are capable of manufacturing demand.\n* Only Revolution can overthrow land ownership, and nothing short of overturning land ownership will put an end to industrial meat farming.\n* Vegans such as Gary Francione seem criminally and unforgivably unconcerned with the fact that the difficulty of forming a viable gastronomic notion as a vegan under poverty is not their problem.\n* Veganism is primarily upper middle class.\n\nSo I'm certainly 100% opposed to industrial meat agriculture. It is cruel, environmentally unsustainable and produces more meat than it is healthy for human beings to eat. \n\nIn fact, I'm opposed to the entire agricultural infrastructure such as it currently stands. It will be irrevocably destructive to the environment so long as land ownership is a factor in its makeup. Monoculture agriculture is killing the planet and making people unhealthy.\n\nSo ideally I'm for a decentralized system of some kind owing none of its makeup to Magna Carta or the Peace of Westphalia. One in which agroecological methods are in such widespread implementation that everyone has abundant food available to them in their own yards and even urban neighborhoods, so that our gastronomic notions are in tune with the seasonality of things, come from native plants and fresh sources, and so that biodiversity may be restored, as there is simply not sufficient room on the planet, not just for meat agriculture, but for the entire Western Imperialist quality of life in which our yards and farms and infrastructure are biologically barren, if we expect to accommodate the rest of nature. We must not conceive of ourselves as separate from the rest of nature. With an investment in agroecological methods and the restoration of wide spread biodiversity, we would also see a restoration of the natural condition of the fauna, who are typically accustomed to roaming across the entirety of the land, and who suffer and overpopulate when they are constricted to small \"natural\" areas. The presence of plants all over the land would restore their natural attraction to roaming, and this is essential to an ecosystem. There needs to be civic infrastructure covered in greenery specifically devoted to providing thoroughfares for the travel of animals. \n\nIf this kind of transformation can occur, which it only can upon the collapse of Capitalism, then meat agriculture is completely unnecessary. If you desire meat, just kill one of the animals eating from your own orchards. Most likely, eating meat at only the frequency you can kill and process an animal yourself, is more like what human bodies evolved experiencing. Then cruelty isn't an issue, the animal lives a full life in nature. In my own personal experience it is far more edifying and spiritual eating an animal you have participated in the processing of than one you have purchased.\n\nSo Veganism, which has no aspiration whatsoever towards the dismantling of Capitalism, is absolutely incapable of causing any change, except to the aesthetic makeup of the consumer economy.  Actually I do appreciate a great deal of the vegan food which has been made, as food producers are being forced for the first time in 10,000 years to reexamine the base structure of the food we are conventionally accustomed to eating, and oftentimes the results are far superior. So that's good. But it's no more morally meaningful than an improvement in any of the expensive food I have the ability to purchase. \n\nSo first I say you're not doing any good anyway. But secondly I say your opinion that a consumer is morally complicit in the structures by which they are victimized is a perspective only the kind of ignorance that wealth gives you of the problems of poverty makes possible, and sure enough most vegans are wealthy or are young people in a state of transitional poverty towards the kinds of careers their wealthy parents had, with the caveat that the economy sucks for Millennials, but they are not without parental support generally.\n\nForming a viable gastronomic notion in America is difficult, and it has been antagonized by specific mechanisms of the human body that have been discovered, and have been exploited to continue the model of indefinite growth intrinsic to Capitalism, causing our obesity epidemic. Fully two thirds of the country today is overweight, and fully one third is obese. If these same people were their same age only 40 years ago this would not nearly be the case. Food is now hyperpalatable, out of tune with the seasonality of things, and specifically designed to lack \"flavor specific satiety\" so that nothing is quite flavorful enough to make you full. At the same time the kinds of produce that used to be more readily available is now obscenely expensive where a pauper in a food desert is concerned. \n\nWhere people who go on diets fail is that they take the \"calories in, calories out\" perspective and so start depriving themselves of the things they enjoy, which in the case of food is a sacred and necessary thing for mental health, and lack the ability to replace that deprivation with healthier foods they might enjoy more, because they lack access to farmer's markets, can't afford Whole Foods, lack the gastronomic and culinary education to make good use of such produce even if it is accessible to them, et cetera, et cetera. Human beings are emotional creatures and the gastronomic notion we are accustomed to is deeply, emotionally wired, and any compromise of that requires emotional resources, which we are deprived of from work, unkindness, poverty and many other factors, and you only have so many emotional resources in the day. \n\nHuman beings are also social, epidemic creatures, who are easily influenced by certain known mechanisms. Epidemiology tells us you're far more likely to be obese if you live within walking distance to a convenience store or a fast food restaurant, if you live in a food desert, if your job is sedentary which most jobs in America are, et cetera, et cetera. The health metrics of any country demonstrably fall as soon as McDonald's is introduced there for the first time. The food that's around today is *designed* to prey upon the weaknesses of human mental and emotional processes, even weaknesses of the sensory apparatus we are born with, from marketing and presentation to the calibration of the food's taste to encourage additional consumption, which they can do with scientific precision. \n\nThe Proletarian is the victim of the agricultural and food sectors under Capitalism. The Proletarian is not complicit by their consumption. The Proletarian faces, in most contexts beneath upper middle class, virtually unconquerable antagonism to their gastronomic and mental health. The land owners and monied interests have the resources, funds and science behind them. They will win nearly unopposed if there is not fundamental systemic change to the makeup of civilization.\n\nSo Revolution is the only way, whether violent or non-violent, but Revolution none the less. If you're a Vegan but are fine with Capitalism and Imperialism and expect for nothing in particular to change except that everyone will one day change their mind and stop eating meat, then you are day dreaming and advocating nothing of value. You participate daily in and benefit daily from the systemic makeup of things. Your vegan purchases, in the greater context of the infrastructure they support, absolutely keep the meat industry afloat to no less of a degree than the purchase of meat. \n\nI don't mind a disagreement on any of these points, but please, stop arguing for the moral complicity of Proletarians. This is ugly behavior. ",
  "I\u2019ve been reducing my meat intake for a few years but whenever I try to cut it out entirely I feel horrible. Basically chronic fatigue symptoms. I\u2019ve read recently that in the us 60% of organ meat is wasted compared to 10% of normal meat. Eating this seem like it would contribute significantly less to animal suffering than creating more demand for more common meat. I\u2019m interested in other people opinions and if my facts are correct.",
  "This is a question  I've wanted to ask vegans, esp the ones who believe that \"carnists are stupid/brainwashed/etc\", \"veganism is the absolute truth\" or \"if you value humans and not animals your morality is inconsistent\". Why do you think that majority of philosophers/ethicists are non-vegan and hold that veganism is *not* morally obligatory if veganism is so self evidently true or if the arguments for veganism are so strong?  \n\n\n \n\n##### [Eating animals and animal products (is it permissible to eat animals and/or animal products in ordinary circumstances?): omnivorism (yes and yes), vegetarianism (no and yes), or veganism (no and no)?](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4938)\n\nAccept or lean towards:  \nomnivorism (yes and yes)48.02% (47.05%)  \nAccept or lean towards:  \nvegetarianism (no and yes)26.47% (23.92%)  \nAccept or lean towards:  \n**veganism (no and no)18.37% (16.50%)**",
  "Generally, vegans say that it's not that animals are equal to humans, it's just that they have enough value such that killing them unnecessarily is unjustified. But how can this be the case?\n\n>**P1.** Infants and the intellectually disabled (so-called \"marginal cases\") are equal in moral value to all other humans   \n>  \n>**P2.** If infants and the intellectually disabled are equal in moral value to all other humans, but sentient non-human animals are not, then there must be some relevant difference between infants/the intellectually disabled and sentient non-human animals that justifies this difference in moral value  \n>  \n>**P3.** There is no such relevant difference   \n>  \n>**C.** Sentient non-human animals are equal in moral value to all humans\n\nThis seems to imply that we should not just grant non-trivial moral status to animals, but full equality, and all the privileges that comes with. I don't really see any way of simultaneously holding that marginal humans are equal to non-marginal humans and also holding that they are superior to non human animals. The only difference is their species but that doesn't seem to be relevant to moral status in any obvious way.",
  "To me this doesn't seem unethical, but I'm curious what people here would have to say. Seems like a waste to let a full grown cow die and not be used for food after it has grazed on a farm for years.",
  "Vegans should be antinatalists to be consistent with their ethics.\n\n### The Asymmetry\n\n> (C1) If a potential person will likely live a life of severe suffering, then we would think that it is unethical to create that person. (C2) However, we wouldn't think it is unethical not to create a person who would live an amazing life.\n> \n> For example, co-founder of Facebook Dustin Moskovitz has not created and raised any children himself even though he is a multi-billionaire with many resources. I think it would be hard to say he is acting immorally in this regard. The reason being: he is not harming anyone in this regard.\n> \n> (C1v) Similarly, since we know that animals brought into existence for food would likely live a horrible life, it is immoral to bring them into existence. (C2v) And, since no animal is harmed by not coming into existence, it is not immoral not to create them.\n\n### The Rebuttal\n\nThere is a common rebuttal to the asymmetry (ie. C1 and C2):\n\n> _The asymmetry doesn't apply. Instead, we have to weigh the pain (or suffering) and the pleasure (or well-being) in one's life, and (R1) if the pleasure outweighs the pain, then it was justified to bring that being into existence. (R2) If the pain outweighs the pleasure, then it wasn't justified to bring that being into existence._\n> \n> _For example, if we knew that before bringing person X into existence:_\n>  * _X would die of cancer over a six-month period at the age of 60,_\n>   * _X would become* in love at age 20 and have a blissful romantic relationship until X died,_\n> \n> _then we would say that it is justified (at least morally neutral***) to bring person X into existence since the pleasure would outweigh the pain in X's life._\n> \n> _But if we instead say that we knew that X was going to die of cancer starting the day they were birthed, then we would say that it was not justified (immoral) to create X since the pain outweighed the pleasure in X's life._\n\nBut then to a vegan**, I think that (R1) implies either the negation of (C2v) in some cases or an acceptance of the asymmetry. \n\nOne could describe a scenario where we couldn't say that the animal Y lived a horrible life before being killed with not much pain involved. Then regardless if it was moral/immoral to kill Y, an acceptance of (R1) should lead a vegan to say that it was justified (morally neutral) to bring Y into existence, even if we knew Y would ultimately be killed for trivial human use.\n\nYou could try to maybe say that the act of (even instantaneously) killing is more bad than the act of dying (slowly) from cancer, but I think that it is both a negation either (R1) or (R2) and an appeal to nature fallacy.\n\nNotice, I am trying to claim that not accepting the asymmetry can lead to (C2v) being false in some scenarios, not that (C1v) and/or (C2v) are false.\n\n### An Alternative Rebuttal\n\nAnother rebuttal is to reject the asymmetry by saying something like:\n\n> (T1) _If person X is glad that they came into existence, then it was morally justified (at least morally neutral) to bring them into existence._\n\n(I think there are lots of problems with arguments like these that solely rely on self-reporting as a case against the asymmetry, though that is not the topic of this post.)\n\nUsing this rebuttal, a vegan would need to say that this applies to sentient non-humans as well, all things being equal.\n\nFor example, dog breeding involves forcing a dog to become pregnant and, in many cases, splitting up the resulting pups for human use. Also, many pups are recommended to go through [crate training](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crate_training) which involves a lot of pain and anxiety for the pup.\n\nSo while a vegan using (T1) could say that forcing the dog to be pregnant for human use was wrong, they would also need to say that it was at least morally neutral for the pup to come into existence if the pup (later in life) was glad that they came into existence. Thus, if we could breed dogs via [extracorporeal pregnancy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb), it would be hard to be against dog breeding while using (T1) to reject the asymmetry.\n\n### Conclusion\n\nI have some more thoughts on the topic of antinatalism and I didn't give an argument to why I think (C1) and (C2) are correct, but I'd like to hear your responses to some of these points so I can refine/alter/abandon some of these arguments if needed. These aren't all of my thoughts, so I will be happy to respond in the comment section to clear up anything!\n\n##### Notes\n\n*I avoided the term \"fall\" since it has negative connotations.\n\n**I am defining a vegan as someone who accepts the position:\n\n> (V1) There is no morally relevant difference between humans and sentient non-humans that would justify breeding, drugging, killing, and/or confining the non-humans for trivial human use, all things being equal.\n\nI am aware that there are other definitions.\n\n*** \"at least morally neutral\" means that it is either morally neutral or morally justified/good. Another word to use is \"morally permissible\", though that term has some connotations that I didn't want to introduce.",
  "I'm genuinely asking and not looking for a fight!\n\nMy mom recently got a few chickens, she raises them in her yard, they have a pretty good life, she only has females and has zero intent of killing them and just let's them do their thing. Sometimes they lay eggs (unfertelized of course) \n\nAnd I am not completely sure what I think about it. In general my mom eats meat (yes of course I get the irony) but she won't raise an animal for it to be killed and treats them as pets. \n\nNo I haven't eaten any of their eggs but I would just like to hear different opinions from other vegans",
  "For context, I have a very low-meat diet and eat vegetarian probably 90% of the time. I am constantly questioning my dietary choices and which is the best balance of sound nutrition and low environmental impact.\n\nIf I do buy meat, I try to buy grass-fed, local and organic and see little issue with this (environmentally). Obviously I am still guilty of eating dead animal. It is not their death that really bothers me, more their dignity in life and impact on the environment. I also really hate wastage, more than anything, so if someone is going to throw out a load of meat I would rather eat it myself.\n\nThoughts?",
  "I tried cutting out animal products, and I ate VERY healthily. I had an app to make sure I was getting the proper amount of everything, from calories to nutrients. That being said, I still ended up just plain not feeling well. I lacked energy, had brain fog, was nauseous, and I got sick much more often. After a couple months of reintroducing meat I felt so much better. \n\nYes, you can get nutrition from plants too, but the protein and iron aren't as bioavailable. Also, the proportions of carbs, fat, and protein will be different from those in meat, and some people might not feel well with those proportions. There are also nutrients in meat that can't be found in plants, such as creatine.\n\nI have seen vegan debaters like Earthling Ed taking on many people who are selfish and just want to be omnivorous because of taste. This was not my position at all. I still wish I could be vegan, but my body is not an experiment and I simply didn't feel well eating that way. I'm still as vegan as I can be, I don't buy any leather, fur, feathers, etc, I buy all vegan shower/makeup products, and I don't eat 'optional' foods that include animal products (like desserts). It's really just for my health.",
  "I am not trolling or being sarcastic in anyway.\n\nKilling a human is obviously immoral and illegal. Yet in wartime if a group of soldiers are killed by a sneak attack from an opposing force it is not considered immoral and is not illegal. \nBut if a soldier is tortured and killed then it can be considered a war crime.\nThere are people in this world that think killing a human is perfectly fine. \nThere are also people who think killing a human for any reason is not acceptable, even in wartime.\n\nAbortion is the same, some believe it\u2019s moral and a woman gets to choose and some believe it\u2019s immoral and should not be allowed. \nAgain there are laws in some states that make it illegal and others that make it legal.\nSome women have an abortion because of convenience and others out of necessity but in general it\u2019s a hot topic as society has outlawed it in some places and allowed it in others so I can see the argument for debate on if this is moral or not.\n\nNot only is killing animals legal, it\u2019s glorified. Some people eat cats and dogs. Others hunt for sport.\nUsing the United States as an example of a first world country:\nThere is not one state that is even close to outlawing the killing of animals for food\nThere is not even one state in the US that has banned hunting for sport.\n\nI absolutely understand that killing an animal for food is not the best way to feed a society.\nI absolutely understand that being vegan is a choice and can impact the world in a better way.\n\nBut things that are immoral are illegal. We as a society will not stand for something we as a group feel is immoral.\n\nThere are things in this world in which the immoral nature of the subject is up for debate. These topics are huge polarizing things in society, and the verdict is not even out yet (while most people know which way the world is leaning)\n\nAbortion\nGay marriage \nDisciplining your kids\nHarassment issues\n\nAgain if killing animals for food is immoral why is there not even the whispering of legislation to support the immorality.\n\nPlease do not tell me why YOU think it\u2019s immoral.\n\n**My question is why do you think society as a whole disagrees with you?**\n\n90%+ of the world can\u2019t be uneducated, unfeeling, monsters.\n\n\n\n",
  "I don't think animals have moral consideration, and I don't think global warming/climate change is a very big deal. I am curious if there are any potential reasons to be a veg*n that I am forgetting.",
  "I don't really have a debate exactly, but here seemed more appropriate than r.vegan\n\nWhat I'm curious about is how people balance a meat eater eating meat, being conscious of the process to create the meat, but still being a relatively good person and caring for animals.\n\nI've met some arguments one year and in person where the vegan struggles to consider anyone who eats meat to be capable of good.\n\nThe notion of someone simultaneously caring about animals and eating meat seems to be an oxymoron to many as well. \n\nSo I guess my question is - do you think that someone can be a good person if they eat meat? And, do you think that someone can care about animals and eat meat? \n\nCheers",
  "My post has been removed and I genuinely don't understand. The mods are not messaging me back.\n\nI agree that veganism is a venerable and ethical philosophy, but I feel excluded for trying to propose that the /r/vegan text should be amended to include the opening sentence of TVS manifesto as that recontextalises the sidebar text.\n\nI feel that the post was either misunderstood or simply picked off, as at no point did I argue against veganism. What do you all think?\n\nHere is the topic.\n\nhttps://old.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/aemdor/can_the_sidebar_text_be_adjusted_to_include_the/?context=10\n\nWhat about this debate is anti-vegan?",
  "One of the philosophies I believe in is that if my stance doesn't directly affect something, I'm not gonna care about it. For example, voting for the president. I could vote for whatever, the results will be the same. The very cliche answer to that would be \"but if everyone would think like that it would go wrong, you need to do your part, game theory, yada yada\". I don't think that's a valid argument at all. Whatever decision I make, I can take two the different universes (in case its binary) and look at the outcome, and decide from it. If they're the exact same, then whatever. I'm myself and only myself. My stance won't affect other's.\n\nSo about being vegan (most likely a vegetarian, actually), I don't believe I would be helping the cause in an effective way, so it shouldn't matter. But there's more to it. In this case, MAYBE I can still help. If I keep eating animal meat, by the end of my live I would have eaten X animals. Otherwise, maybe I could have \"\"saved\"\" those X animals. But here's the thing, would that really be the case? I have no idea how food supply works, but maybe in that case the food would just rot in the supermarket instead and go to waste. Or something similar. The standard argument to give me here would be that I would be doing my part, if multiple people did this it could actually help, the industry would be less profitable, it would be disencouraged, that kind of thing. But given the \"philosophy\" I just mentioned (by the way, is there a name for this kind of belief?), that argument just doesn't make sense. \n\nIn that case, would it really matter if I became a vegan/vegetarian?",
  "I really don't understand how people can go for 5 years + on just plants - after one meal i feel bloated, a little dizzy and become hungry shortly after. Plus, my concentration is far worse. No matter how much plant I eat I just don't feel satiated and fart a lot after. I don't encounter these problems after eating meat.\n\nFor plant meals I have either:  \n\n\nPasta with tomato passata, spinach, kidney beans, red onion chickpeas  \n\n\nRice noodles stir fried with onion, garlic, peppers, mushrooms, carrots, spinach, tomatoes, broccoli.\n\nFor meat meals I have either:  \n\n\n8-9 boiled chicken legs  \n\n\n300g gammon + 6/7 eggs, both fried in butter  \n\n\nRice + 500g beef mince (grass fed, to avoid cruelty) + 1 red onion  \n\n\n200-300g salmon fried in butter + potatoes\n\nMy sinuses are much better when eating the meat ones, plus I feel much more alert and energetic. No farting or bloating.\n\nMy point: We can't eat just plants, since it is mostly fibre. Excess fibre causes bloating and farts. 70% meat : 30% plant is optimal for me. I am physically fit and my blood pressure is normal (135/85). Blood tests are also normal",
  "I'm not anti vegan, I don't mean any ill will. How do vegans feel about the damage that agriculture does to the environment? The effect of bulldozing ecosystems and poisoning of waterways with runoff to have a sterile field of soy for example doesn't seem to be recognized. Also, the industrial farming of bees for pollination. \n\nLesser of two evils to feed ourselves?",
  "Let me ask you ( I took a beating in r/vegan): is game meat a fair alternative? Of course, not all.\n\nI'll show you. For a while now I've been living on an almost vegan diet. Exceptions being made at my granny's and whenever there is no alternative (I live in the German countryside). \nBut, for professional reasons I'm also a hunter. As a forest officer hunting is part of my work life and necessary, too. \nNecessary because of the lack of predators, the history of game preservation (Third Reich and GDR) to get their leaders many big stacks e.g. \nOur forests are in parts heavily damaged due to either peeling off the bark for food (talking about near 100% in some areas) or eating the terminal buds. Both have an economical and ecological impact. I am happy to explain late!\nBefore I'm getting lost...the idea is to reduce the population to a point where forests can grow with game but only such an amount of damage as if there was a natural equilibrium.\nAnd that's why we hunt. And I do it, too although I'm not a fan of it. I'm not celebrating it nor do I collect antlers and whatnot. But I eat it sometimes. \n\nIt is much better in taste and quality than supermarket mass production meat and it has no footprint as they are there, just more than you would guess and what's sustainable.\nAnd I am responsible for all of the production chain.\nI'm not eating meat on a daily base but I don't feel bad for the exception. Just the killing is something I will never do with ease.",
  "Hi everyone,\n\nI was thinking about the use of animals for medicine and I think I\u2019ve solidified that vivisection and animal testing are unethical. That thought then brought me to an interesting question; is it ethical to take the venom from snakes and spiders to make antidotes for humans? \n\nAs far as I know the animals aren\u2019t harmed during milking, and they aren\u2019t held in captivity for longer than need be. I think definitely milking is more ethical than medical testing on animals, but can it be justified to take products from animals without harming them to save a few human lives?\n",
  "So because of the pandemic the whole industry that I work in is non-active. I am now looking for a temporary job and my partner found me one, but it\u2019s in a fishing shop. I feel ethically impugned to work there but on the other hand I really need an income rn. What would another vegan do?\n\nEDIT: it\u2019s in a warehouse, not an actual shop.",
  "The book is dialogues on ethical vegetarianism by Michael Huemer. In this book, two college students \u2013 a meat-eater and an ethical vegetarian \u2013 discuss ethical vegetarianism in a series of dialogues conducted over four days.  [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6ZiLViOYPeadLGtk6Sp57sRXCqP2dtqF](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6ZiLViOYPeadLGtk6Sp57sRXCqP2dtqF)",
  "Am a vegan. Hear me out. \n\nI believe that you cannot be an ethical vegan unless you are also an environmentalist. Why? Because by irresponsibly engaging in unethical and unsustainable practices of any kind, you're dictating the allotment of the Earth's resources, while also choosing to partake in the destruction of the habitat and resources desperately needed by the animals you're trying so hard to protect.\n\nNow, I'm not saying that any person who ever uses single-use plastics is \"not vegan enough\", or \"not doing enough\", I'm not saying that just because you commute to work you're wrong, and I'm also not saying that anyone who has a reason (for instance: medical) to use certain products in a wasteful way is  invalid. What I am saying is that there's a difference between thinking about what you can change and not doing anything. Abstaining from animal product is absolutely not enough, and I think that as a community, we as vegans don't recognize our own cognitive dissonance, because we get into the mindset that this is an \"omnis only\" thing. To put it simply, we need to remember that just because we've taken one red pill doesn't mean we've taken the only red pill. In reality, there are *many* red pills that we need to be taking. \n\nWhat can you do? A lot! If you haven't, start bringing your own bags to the store, or simply switch to paper! Get some produce bags and start using those! Buy in bulk if you can (maybe wait until after the pandemic for this one)! Use a reusable water bottle instead of a new one. If you're ordering takeout, make it a little less friendlier by asking for no cutlery, or choose to get a drink at home so that you can skip that Styrofoam cup and plastic straw. Patch your own clothes. Cut up some old tshirts that you'd otherwise toss and use them as rags. Chose to reject things like fast fashion, and instead look for ethically made and sustainable clothing. Find brands of your favorite things that *are* ethically sourced and produced! Switch to a nontoxic cleaning product. Find spaces where you can provide yourself with practical, reusable solutions so that you can reduce your waste output.  All of these things seem small, but make a *huge* change when it comes to helping out the bigger cause. Nonhumans animals get it the worst, because they often don't have the luxuries like we do (like controlled air) that help us forget about climate change, and they also can't fight this fight. Instead, we need to act as advocates so that *their* voices can be heard and do *everyone* a favor. \n\nI'd love to hold a discussion on this and see what other people think. This is just my opinion.",
  "I know we can get B-12, Iron, and the like from supplements.\n\nDoes anyone know about any other nutrients lacking in a vegan diet? Something like an amino acid or whatever?\n\nI\u2019m really looking into veganism but I\u2019m scared there is some *obscure* molecule or nutrient that will be lacking and will bite me in the a** years down the line.",
  "Veganism is certainly more ethical and healthy than the typical meaty diet. \n\nHowever, veganism is morally dogmatic. \n\nHumans are not fundamentally different than other animals. \n\nVegans simultaneously argue that animals are sentient, but not capable or moral action. \n\nPerhaps a muscle has no feels, and it would be better to eat it than let a mouse be killed in the harvesting of grain. \n\nEdit: A mussel, like a clam that attaches to a rock in the sea, not a muscle that moves an arm. ",
  "I understand this is a Vegan page, but hear me out. I agree mass slaughtering of animals in horrible conditions to put meat on the table for the masses is a terrible way to treat an animal. it\u2019s why names such as beef, pork & poultry came about to desensitize the buyer from the product. Yet, going out into the woods & killing an animal that needs to be under a certain population number then eating said animal is just as ethical as veganism. Most wildlife conservation is paid for by hunters through gun & ammo taxes, licenses, tags, etc. This money goes directly to fund the nature we all get to enjoy & pass down through generations. decrease in hunting well you guessed it, equals less money for wild life conservation. Meat is an essential for a complete diet for total health. Not to mention, a person who takes the life of an animal to eat it has more respect & appreciation for that animal then any other person who\u2019s a non hunter in my opinion. So with that said, what\u2019s your opinion on the subject?",
  "Why do people go raw vegan?",
  "It's annoying to check in to this sub and find posts that aren't debates but are instead pointless trivias left to \"confound\" vegans. Obviously, everybody starts from somewhere, but there are so many posts that just posit some ridiculous idea wherein the OP doesn't respond to the question they pose. It's just pointless.\n\nCan we at least have a rule where OP has to respond to comments? ",
  "Where I stepped into this sub with ecological concerns, it has been made clear to me the one and only drive for a true vegan (as supposed to plant based diet) is the ethics behind it, aimed to end the suffering inflicted by humans upon our livestock.  I have been considering how to bring the ecology questions I have, but feel I need to go a bit deeper into the ethic thing before I can go there.\n\nThe ethical argument is purely emotional, and at it's strongest expression uses terms like slavery, rape and murder.  Although it's possible to make logical comparisons between those terms and elements of modern animal husbandry (on grounds of the lack of consent), it easily comes over to non vegans as a far stretch of the imagination.  After all, every time livestock anticipates an interaction and prepares for that, it can be argued they give a tacit consent...\n\n​\n\nSo I'm going to attempt to lay down my 'carnists' view of why  the so-called 'suffering' of domesticated animals is justified.  To do that, I need to list a number of concepts to build that case. I'm going to cut and paste some things to make things a bit easier for me. I'll use *Wikipedia for that and paste in italics.*  If I get text from somewhere else I'll tell you so.\n\nTo point towards descriptions or understandings  that echo what I've distilled out of the discussions here to be 'the vegan argument' or 'vegan understanding', I will use SVR (Standard Vegan Reasoning)  Nothing bad meant with that, just to let you know when you see that its my understanding, or generalisation, of the reasoning used.\n\nI wonder if we can somehow skip the 'scientific consensus says humans can thrive on a full plant-based diet'.  Right or wrong, it will kill any discussion...\n\nAlso, I'm not defending the way we farm now.  I'm very much looking for ways to change things, I'm just convinced animal husbandry has a crucial role to play in our future as mankind.  The really short version of my argument is more like 'domesticated animals suffer less than wild animals, and this is why this is true...'  In my view, the SVR aim of abandoning animal husbandry all out is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.\n\nThe other thing that I would like to ask, as I'm of course going to be the devil's advocate and therefore all my comments will be 'carnist'...  Please don't do the thing that always seems to happen on this sub and downvote  everything just because you don't agree with it.... If the argument is weak, fair enough. If you don't understand, ask...\n\n​\n\n# OK, here it goes;\n\n**DOMESTICATION**: *Domestication is a sustained multi-generational relationship in which humans assume a significant degree of control over the reproduction and care of another group of organisms to secure a more predictable supply of resources from that group.*\n\nSo this is basically the SVR definition as it is mostly used to point towards the abuse. However;\n\n*A broader biological definition is that it is a co-evolutionary process that arises from a mutualism, in which one species (the domesticator) constructs an environment where it actively manages both the survival and reproduction of another species (the domesticate) in order to provide the former with resources and/or services*\n\nBasically the same, but it points towards '*a co-evolutionary process'* (a process that changes both parties)  and, importantly, '*mutualism'* (beneficial for both partners), and *'constructs an environment',* an action or (energy) investment.\n\n*The domestication of animals is the relationship between non-human animals and humans who have influence on their \"care\" and reproduction. Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was also the first to recognize the difference between conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a by-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.*\n\nI would like to point out 2 biases in the quoted bits here. First *...multi-generational relationship in which humans assume a significant degree of control...* and secondly *...the relationship between non-human animals and humans who have influence on their \"care\"...*  Domestication **is not a human trait**; its a Evolutionarily Stable Strategy\\*.   It is relatively commonly observed among insects, and recently we even [found a fish who has domesticated a shrimp](https://newatlas.com/science/fish-first-animal-domesticating-species/).   (\\* I'll come back to this a but further)\n\nSo, with that in mind, a fairer description would be  this:\n\n>Ecologically, domestication is a specialised type of symbiotic relationship in which one species (the domesticator) provides sustained, multi-generational support to another (the domesticate) in return for a predicable supply of a resource. Over generations, the positive benefits received by each partner can drive physiological, morphological, or behavioural adaptations that increase their value to the other, as well as their reliance on the partnership for survival.\n\n([Current Biology 29, November 18, 2019 \u00a9 2019 Elsevier Ltd.](https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(19)31249-7.pdf) )\n\nI been wondering if i needed to include this... **EVOLUTION**: *Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.*  The reason i have mentioned it here is because it mentions something essential about life; '...*over successive generations.'*  life is about death...    It's undeniable.    Death is part of life.\n\nAnother reason to quickly look at it is because it encapsulates the concept of Natural Selection as we need to realise  that domestication is distinct from that.\n\nBut the main thing is that we need to understand that all phenotypes (the observable characteristics in an individual resulting from the expression of genes)**,** or to put it supper simple; 'things that evolved in us', including our 'fight or flight response (I mean, that is what we ultimately talk about here, isn't it?) have evolved because they increased Darwinian Fitness.  (explained a bit further down)\n\nAnother very fundamental thing to understand is that (the evolution of) life is all to do with the conversion of energy, and the efficiency of the process that converts that energy.  No doubt this needs to be discussed in the comments, as this is too complex to explain here without this post turning into a book...   As a taster:\n\n>The history of the life-Earth system can be divided into five  'energetic' epochs, each featuring the evolution of life forms that can  exploit a new source of energy. These sources are: geochemical energy,  sunlight, oxygen, flesh and fire. The first two were present at the  start, but oxygen, flesh and fire are all consequences of evolutionary  events.  (DOI:10.1038/s41559-017-0138 [full text](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316561085_The_energy_expansions_of_evolution))  ([isolated infographic](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ilqooLhz2QM/WWrvECOT1MI/AAAAAAAACls/4009E2-pN3MgXO9a9C9pvbrhHQ9CjaCDQCLcBGAs/s1600/energy%2Band%2Bevolution.jpg))\n\nThis energy efficiency  is most easily observed in **SYMBIOSIS**: *any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different biological organisms ... The organisms, each termed a symbiont, must be of different species.*\n\nWithin this symbioses; **Mutualism**. And in particular **Reciprocal Altruism**:\n\n*Mutualism or interspecies* *reciprocal altruism* *is a long-term relationship between individuals of different* *species* *where both individuals benefit. Mutualistic relationships may be either obligate for both species,  obligate for one but facultative for the other, or facultative for both.*\n\n*Reciprocal Altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a  manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will  act in a similar manner at a later time.*\n\nSo, before i go any further, i want to put some of this together.  It's clear that our relationship with domesticated animals is a symbiotic one.  However, because of the perception of suffering, the SVR describes this relationship as Parasitism.\n\nI want to argue it's actually a complex mutualistic one , with mostly obligatory and some facultative elements on both sides.\n\nAs we domesticate, we 'push away' from that balance balance point where natural selection 'wanted' to be originally.  As a consequence, the domesticator **has to take the responsibility for the delta.**  In effect, **the energy balance between the two species shifts**.  If the domesticator takes a responsibility away from the domesticated, it takes over **the need to invest the energy** needed to provide for that faculty, and consequently **takes that need for energy investment away** from the domesticated.   If the efficiency by which  the domesticator can do that compared to the domesticated is higher, the gain ends up bigger than the sum of the parts...\n\nTo put it plain; Man is as much (or even more...) enslaved by the cow as the cow is by man...\n\nSo the next concept is Biological (or Darwinian) FITNESS:  *the* *quantitative* *representation of individual* *reproductive success*. It is also equal to the *average contribution* *to the* *gene pool* *of the next generation, made by the same individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype.*\n\nSupper plain; fitness is how successful a species is at living.  It ties in/overlaps somehow with selection; *The* *British* *sociologist* *Herbert Spencer* *coined the phrase \"****survival of the fittest****\"  in his 1864 work Principles of Biology to characterise what* *Charles Darwin* *had called* *natural selection*\\*...  The next further advance was the introduction of the concept of\\* *inclusive fitness* *by the British biologist* *W.D. Hamilton* *in 1964 in his paper on* *The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour.*\n\n*inclusive fitness is one of two metrics of evolutionary success as defined by* *W. D. Hamilton* *in 1964:*\n\n* ***Personal fitness*** *is the number of offspring that an individual begets (regardless of who rescues/rears/supports them)*\n* ***Inclusive fitness*** *is the number of offspring equivalents that  an individual rears, rescues or otherwise supports through its  behaviour (****regardless of who begets them****)*\n\nIt should be getting clear by now where I'm going to with this argument.  But before I going to introduce the last concept, I really want to lay emphasis again on Symbiosis, as it has been pooh-poohed a number of times on this sub as I brought it up in the comments.  So here is a nice article talking about it in a bit more depth:\n\n**Intimate partnerships:** Recent research illuminates how symbiosis has been\u2014and still is\u2014a major player in evolution  [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514276112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514276112)\n\nSo the last concept I want to introduce is THE EXTENDED PHENOTYPE:  *a biological concept* (... of which the..) *main idea is that* *phenotype* *should not be limited to biological processes such as* *protein biosynthesis* *or* *tissue* *growth, but extended to include all effects that a* *gene* (\\*) *has on its environment, inside or outside the body of the individual organism.*\n\n\\*I would like to add here that the original author of the hypotheses (Richard Dawkins) also came up with a 'parallel' to gene evolution, also driven by natural selection called the meme.\\*   This is actually not discussed within this wiki article, so to complete the statement within his theory you should read: to include all effects that a gene **and meme** has on its environment\n\n(\\*Memes are blocks of information or knowledge, and the building blocks of our cultures; *Memes generally replicate through exposure to humans, who have evolved  as efficient copiers of information and behaviour. Because humans do not  always copy memes perfectly, and because they may refine, combine or  otherwise modify them with other memes to create new memes, they can  change over time. Dawkins likened the process by which memes survive and  change through the* *evolution of culture* *to the natural selection of genes in biological* *evolution*\\*.  '*Agriculture' is a meme, or better a set of memes...*)\\*\n\n*... we arrive at our own \u2018central  theorem\u2019 of the extended phenotype: An animal's behaviour tends to  maximize the survival of the genes \"for\" that behaviour, whether or not  those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing  it.*\n\n(I'm adding this, but more to clarify the extended phenotype than for the concept itself... )\n\nA concept closely related to this is NICHE CONSTRUCTION: *the process by which an* *organism*  *alters its own (or another species') local environment. These  alterations can be a physical change to the organism\u2019s environment or  encompass when an organism actively moves from one habitat to another to  experience a different environment.*\n\n*For niche construction to affect* *evolution*  *it must satisfy three criteria: 1) the organism must significantly  modify environmental conditions, 2) these modifications must influence  one or more selection pressures on a recipient organism, and 3) there  must be an evolutionary response in at least one recipient population  caused by the environmental modification.)*\n\nSo what are the points I can distil out of all this?\n\n* First at all, and straight to the 'suffering' part of it.  Domestication and selective breading has changed our livestock fundamental from it's wild ancestors. Especially to select and breed for docility have 'pushed up' the trigger-point where the 'fight or flight mode' is activated.  The animals have, in a way, become fearless which for me equals less suffering...\n\n​\n\n* If we can say that fitness is how successful a species is at living, so higher fitness equals thriving. Thriving to me sounds like the opposite of suffering... It's an undeniable that agriculture increased fitness... [Humans and Big Ag Livestock Now Account for 96 Percent of Mammal Biomass](https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html) . And once again, to support the notion that the relationship is a mutualistic one; [The Shared Use of Extended Phenotypes Increases the Fitness of Simulated Populations.](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.617915/full)\n\n​\n\n* From the point of domestication, I repeat; *\" Over generations, the positive benefits received by each partner can drive physiological, morphological, or behavioural adaptations that increase their value to the other, as well as their reliance on the partnership for survival.\"*   Both us as our livestock have evolved into a mutual dependency. (As I stated right in the beginning, if we can avoid the 'humans can live 100% plant-based debate here... Also; I'm not defending the *way* we farm livestock, I defend the *act* in itself...)\n\n​\n\n* So finally, and to strengthen my final point, I would like to take the argument to the deepest form and state that the Human+Animal-husbandry-genepool (+crops-genepool\\*)  are 'one-extended-phenotype', and that our failure to recognise it like that stems from the fact we have a tendency (we have evolved...) to think reductionistic instead of holistic.  A thought experiment; If two 'species' are mutually dependent, say a fig and a wasp, the both unable to reproduce without the other ([Why we couldn't have figs without wasps](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/mutualism)), can we really state they are two different species?  **Only if** we classify one half as an animal and one half as a plant...  (\\* I put crops in brackets as it's not part of this argument and I'm personally convinced they play a secondary role after livestock.)  To make this concept extra clear; the best example of this is of course [the lichen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen), something most people would see as a kind of plant.\n\n​\n\nAnd finally finally, just to illustrate the point a bit more;  [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0470-4](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/60105880/Spengler_and_Mueller_201920190724-68097-182601k-libre.pdf?1564001599=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DGrazing_animals_drove_domestication_of_g.pdf&Expires=1673350612&Signature=AtpA0CvRVAtlAFha2ue39chzUR6iNX~ikcmh5XcLY5G2AgA2mKVyHv6V-ZQTBLJqWmK83SH4TB21~gYYP6tPfaXsvIDvNTSpq34tzTvgxWNu0JwKlSWUPNA4IuD4PQSuR1ChFyzlKxIw4VnmGR5izMJ7WmVsQnzH7pIGSNR~aJG0VS3Muq6jy8Wa3Drbef4-3Dx0OsLs-va4rgNirEJIWKNApd-JjgyMddhhgeGsMVVzGrSO4jMYiF9aeGm8P4TvNiIaN7sOpBQ18vnVkZtO9OZSxwrZXy524~aoWDE5xvusGCV~MNK3jzZ8USu09dan8PPqBJBKXYbTaHm0OjfJHA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA)\n\n​\n\nSo I think this is about all I can say here so looking forward to replies to the comments.\n\n(ps I'm going to be a bit busy this coming week, but will reply!)",
  "There are any increasing number of theories that mushrooms/fungi are in fact sentient beings capable of relatively advanced communication, ability to work as a group, perceive the world, etc. Have you considered these theories and does it have an impact on your life and veganism?",
  "Is a humans life more valuable and meaningful than any other animal?",
  "I have two cats and have always loved having pets. But this can be nothing else but a moral contradiction. How can I call myself ethical and eat ethically but then say that it's fine for me to be the keeper of other animals. What if they roamed around freely to their own accord and I was just the food supplier. What is a way to have ethical pets if any",
  "For context I have been vegan for a year now but this topic came up in discussion with a friend and I wanted to know what you guys thought of it.\n\nI know someone who suffered from anxiety and depression and recently found cooking to be a tool to help with this. He cooks mainly curries and these normally contain chicken or another type of meat. \n\nThe obvious fact here is that he could switch out the chicken for something else and he would gain a similar amount of pleasure from the process of cooking.\n\nHowever when we look at this action on its own, do you think that the benefit to his mental health is worth the pain caused to the animal involved? \n\nIt's kind of hard to explain the context fully but objectively, where should we draw the line? I for example wouldn't severely oppose someone who suffers from an eating disorder choosing to eat some meat as it would undoubtedly be good for their wellbeing. \n\nWould love to here your guys' thoughts.",
  "The ancient ancestors of modern humans consumed flesh some 2.6 million years ago. The most commonly accepted theory is that what we believe makes us the most \"human\" (aside from our genes; our brain) evolved to the size and ability it has bc of the consumption of meat. As such, we have been \"conditioned\" to consume meat for 15x longer than we have been able to talk. We have also consumed meat longer than we have walked upright. We have been consuming meat longer than we have been making tools, too. Just like these other aspects of human culture, we condition each new generation due to the continued success the last generation experienced w the aforementioned, making the conditioning more and more ingrained. \n\nThis is not to say it makes meat consumption correct morally; this is not an appeal to nature of history. This is not an argument in favor of meat consumption per se, that is. It is a critical injunction against a common refrain that I hear on this sub: that we only continue to consume meat bc of simple conditioning parents do to their children and/or bc of the \"big meat industry\" My argument is there is nothing simple about the conditioning to consume meat and \"Big Meat (hehe) has v little to do w it in the grand scheme of it. \n\nAnything that gives us a survival advantage will gain \"favor\" and be reinforced. If a specific location at a specific time of the year is favorable for finding fruit, over the course of several generations, that location will be selected for even if the fruit stops being as plentiful. This is part of the same reinforcing system which leads to criminals selecting close to where they live as the primary place to do crime; it's what familiarity is. It is what has been hypothesized is at the center of the birth of \"sacred\" places that seem to have no real significance; it's reinforcement from long forgotten generations of continued visitation of a formerly fruitful destination that we are conditioned to return to for long forgotten reasons. \n\nMeat consumption is believed to be the leading cause of our brain expansion which has given us our greatest survival adaptions. The amount of reinforcement this has had over the course of 2.6 million years cannot be understated. As such, it's not simple \"indoctrination\" as it is when some faddish cult has sprung up and conditioned someone to accept their leader the proper moral arbiter of existance, etc. To consume a vegan diet through choice is a novel concept to homo spaiens as our ancestors were consuming flesh literally for millions of years prior to modern humans being present on earth. \n\nIdeas like truth, morality, and justice are all conditioned as consuming flesh is. The only difference is truth, morality, and justice have existed for millions of years less than the consumption of flesh. If the desire to live in a house (also conditioned) is strong in humans do to < 10k years of habitual conditioning, imagine how it will be in 2.6 million years of continual exposure w positive reinforcement. The entire point here, again, is not to argue that meat consumption is morally correct, as meat consumption happened millions of years prior to moralities creation, but, to show that the concept of it being a faddish and/or cult-like conditioning/indoctrination is plain false. It goes beyond even cultural conditioning; it goes beyond human conditioning. It is a hominid conditioning that has shaped our behavior, our tool crafting, our walking patterns, or migration, our general and specific behavior, our culture, our entire being for literally millions of years. \n\nTo believe we can simply just toss that away and simply move on bc it is not a direct need for survival is foolish, IMHO. We do not need so much that use and yet use it bc of the longstanding comfort we have w it through conditioning and those who argue veganism should just happen would do better if they understood the dominate nature of conditioning and how conditioned we are to consume meat. What this means is if veganism is to become the way of humanity, it will prob take a very very long time to become this. Meat consumption is not simply a fad or a cultural idea; it is what has made us what we are.",
  "Just bc I can survive wo consuming animals and just bc I cause suffering to an animal in killing it to consume does not mean I should not do it (it also doesn't mean I should do it; by default both are valid responses rationally/logically speaking) Morality is an emotional concept based in perceptions and not logical discourse. It's the same fallacious reasoning as someone saying \"The 2nd Amendment says we can have guns so we always should be able to have them!\" Just bc it is a specific way does not mean it ought to remain that way in perpetuity. \n\nAs such, when you are debating omnivore interlocutors and believe you are making a rational/logical position clear and using these emotion based positions to reinforce them, you are actually undercutting your position. There's nothing inherently wrong w making an emotional argument; one should know they are though and proceed as such. It is much more difficult to justify why everyone alive should adopt your emotional based position VS a logical one. \n\nSo please, continue to make emotional pleas in support of animals and your position, but, know that it is not a logical conclusion; just bc something is a specific way in reality that does not mean it ought to continue this way. We absolutely can survive wo animal products but this in no way informs to a reality where we ought to live that way. Much to the same extent, we do cause pain to an animal when we kill it, but, this fact does not speak to, in a rational/logical way, what we should or should not do. There's a gap and one must fill that gap w an emotional plea, not a logical one.",
  "So I\u2019m a vegan and I absolutely adore cooking shows and competitions- think Masterchef and shows on Food Network like Beat Bobby Flay. But I was thinking the other day about how usually a mandatory ingredient in those episodes are a cut of meat or type of cheese and you don\u2019t often see a vegan competing in those shows. So if you were vegan and entered the competition you would have to cook those ingredients for the judges to eat in order to advance, but say you went on it for the purposes of exposure on cooking vegan food when you have the ability to or to get recognition in the culinary scene as an end game to highlight veganism, how do you feel about it? \n \nIn the scenario I\u2019m thinking the chef wouldn\u2019t eat/taste the animal product, they would just know how to cook the protein from feel, smell, or based off previous experience cooking it in the past, but they would take the opportunity to make a vegan dish when the mandatory ingredient is a vegetable or condiment of some kind. Thoughts?",
  "Full disclosure, I am vegan and have been for many years. I believe that it is important to show the reality of the industry to people that might otherwise not know so they can make informed moral decisions. \n\nSomeone recently linked me to a street auditing video where interaction with some vegan street activism is instigated and captured. Auditing is a kind of sub culture where people exercise filming rights in public to see how they are received by officials such as police, and other members of the general public. Some say it's to protect the rights of people by exercising them, some say it just to provoke people for views. It's very interesting either way.\n\nIn this particular video the photographer happens upon some vegan street activism where television screens are displaying footage of violent animal agriculture practices. The video maker questions the morality of showing these kinds of images in public where children might view it and be disturbed by what they see. He likens it to showing pornography in public and describes it as inappropriate. \n\nI've been thinking about this for a few days and I have some thoughts on this argument:\n\n - I think children have the right to know how the food they consume is produced, but I do find the argument against potentially traumatising them somewhat convincing.\n - I have never shown this kind of footage to a child for the very reason that I wouldn't want to traumatise them. When asked by children why I don't eat/use animal products I will usually simply tell them that I don't want to unnecessarily harm animals for it and leave it at that.\n - One key difference here regarding the pornography comparison, is that while both might be seen as inappropriate for children, most children are supporting the practices shown on the vegans' videos, however indirect it might be. This isn't really the case for pornography. In the country where this interaction is recorded, kids are allowed to buy animal products and do, they are not allowed to buy pornography (even though some might).\n - Another aspect here is culpability. Most children are not really in a position to be held accountable for directly supporting these kinds of practices. The younger children who might be more upset by this kind of footage are not usually responsible for sourcing their own food and most likely rely on their adult parents/guardians.\n - While the images might be disturbing for children and adults alike, it is not really comparable to the harm that comes to animals in the production of food. I realise that this isn't a particularly strong argument and feels like a kind of two wrongs tu quoque.\n \n\nThese are just my thoughts on it. I wanted to get some thoughts from others in this sub whether you agree with veganism or not. Is it morally permissible to show these kinds of images in public in your view? \n\n\nThe video in question was this one: https://youtu.be/_14eiUufvws\n\nHis approach was a little obnoxious but he seemed to be sympathetic to the ethics of veganism (he spoils it a bit at the end by vindictively frying meat at around 19:30 and blaming the protestors). I think the demonstrators just accepted him as one of the many trolls they encounter through outreach and didn't engage in any meaningful way about the argument regarding the appropriateness of showing footage like of animal harm in public.\n\nSo what do you think? I'd like to hear takes on the topic from many different outlooks.",
  "I see a lot of vegans claiming that a vegan diet is 'natural' (meaning it is what we would eat in nature). But in deciduous places such as Europe the only natural food other than meat would be things such as berrys, nuts, etc; and those things only grow at certain times in the year. So how would we have survived without animal foods? No hate, just interested.",
  "Is the author trying to avoid some kind of overly-excitable profanity filter? Is it a PC thing? Serious question, I'm new to this sub and I don't get it.",
  " Okay so mic the vegan made a video responding to \"what I've learned\".\n\n[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\\_83-G6fwmgg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_83-G6fwmgg)\n\nBut there's this comment which suggests that mike got some of the details wrong-\n\n\"  Mike cited this Review that actually shows Processed Meat and Sodium  are Healthier than Fiber in his \"debunking\" Eric Berg video. This data  was not reported in the Write up which vilified Eggs and Cholesterol -  the Data was ignored, which can be found in the Figures / Tables .\n\nThis  study looked at 6 of the Largest Heart Disease Study Cohorts between  1985\u20132016 . That's a lot of Data. Still believe dr. Greger or Mike after  reading this?  \u2022 Fiber was a Higher Risk Factor for CVD and All Cause  Mortality than Processed Meat and Sodium \u2022 Low Saturated Fat (vegetarian  / vegan) Diets had the Highest CVD\u00a0 and All Cause Mortality Risk \u2022 Red  Meat, Animal Meat, Eggs and Cholesterol had the Lowest Risk for CVD and  All Cause Mortality\n\nJAMA (Journal  of the American Medical Association) Associations of Dietary Cholesterol  or Egg Consumption With Incident Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2728487](https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fjamanetwork.com%2Fjournals%2Fjama%2Ffullarticle%2F2728487)   \\--  Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54831/](https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC54831%2F)   Low cholesterol and violent crime [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11104842/](https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fm%2Fpubmed%2F11104842%2F)   \"Adjusting for other factors, low cholesterol is associated with   increased subsequent criminal violence.\" Interestingly, there has been a   rise oin militant Veganism in the last few years. Correlation, or   Causation? Please consider this.\n\nDietary  Cholesterol, Lipid Levels, and Cardiovascular Risk among Adults  with  Diabetes or Impaired Fasting Glucose in the Framingham Offspring  Study   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024517/](https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC6024517%2F)   \u201cIn sex-stratified analyses, men in the highest sex-specific tertile  of dietary cholesterol had a 43% lower risk of CVD \u2026\u201d  \u201cThis study found  no evidence of adverse association between dietary  cholesterol and  risk of CVD among adults with T2DM or prediabetes. In  fact, after  adjusting for confounding by other lifestyle factors, those  with higher  dietary cholesterol intakes had a lower long-term risk of  developing  CVD.\u201d\n\nUse of dietary linoleic acid  for secondary prevention of coronary heart  disease and death:  evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet  Heart Study and  updated meta-analysis [https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/346/bmj.e8707.full.pdf](https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmj.com%2Fcontent%2Fbmj%2F346%2Fbmj.e8707.full.pdf)   \u201cIn this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid \\[Omega 6 Vegetable   Oils\\] in place of saturated fats \\[Animal Fats\\] increased the rates of   death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular   disease.\u201d\n\nThe Evidence for Saturated Fat and for Sugar Related to Coronary Heart Disease [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856550/](https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=RpLCqxMC3XxohL84qX3xN1DDch98MTU3ODA4MzkwOUAxNTc3OTk3NTA5&stzid=UgxeB85fCigau-wMCgJ4AaABAg.923xiTHbyNf92ChbTjElEU&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC4856550%2F)   \"Additionally, diets high in sugar may induce many other abnormalities   associated with elevated CHD risk, including elevated levels of  glucose,  insulin, and uric acid, impaired glucose tolerance, insulin  and leptin  resistance, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and altered  platelet  function.\"  \"This paper reviews the evidence linking saturated  fats and sugars to  CHD, and concludes that the latter is more of a  problem than the  former.\" \"\n\nand there is also a post on r\\\\science that states that\n\n\"Results  from a large (n=48188),  18-year follow-up from the prospective  EPIC-Oxford study show that  vegetarians and vegans have a 20% higher  risk of stroke compared to meat  eaters.\"\n\n[https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d30jzq/results\\_from\\_a\\_large\\_n48188\\_18year\\_followup\\_from/](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d30jzq/results_from_a_large_n48188_18year_followup_from/)\n\nThis is actually pretty concerning. Can anyone help?",
  "I have been a vegan for almost two years and I was traveling in a train through the English countryside. I would often see these huge fields with 10-12 sheep/cattle eating grass, sleeping, lying down etc which seemed reasonably happy with their lives. So my friend (who I have tried to convert to veganism) said to me \"You claim all animals are put in cages, tortured, abused, never get to see sunlight etc but that's not what I see\". How would you argue against that or explain that? With that said, I still think it's completely unethical to kill an animal for meat even if it lived a good life.",
  "When someone can\u2019t go vegan or stops being vegan for health issues, vegans like to point out that \u201cthe academy of dietetics and nutrition have conducted a study which proves a well planned vegan diet is appropriate for all stages of life and meets nutritional requirements\u201d\nHowever, it doesn\u2019t seem like this statement applies to some people with certain medical conditions. \nWhile in theory, a balanced and supplemented vegan diet can meet nutritional needs, this may not be practical for everyone. For example, they may have gut issues and problems with digesting plant based food, or they could have multiple food allergies or intolerances thus restricting their diet would be risky. Some people have absorbtion issues and meat is more nutrient dense and bioavailable than plants.",
  "Listen I'm a huge fan of Ed Earthing even I'm not a vegan, there are some good topics on connotation with animal ethics to live and justified anti-violence. He's an activist on animal ethics because he finds any violence unjustified, which sounds great message about anti-violence that even non-vegans could appreciate. Yes, an act of antiviolence is a great activist because any violence has no excuse to happen- even domestic abuse because that's no good. Yes, he's one of those anti-violent people that comment on fighting is wrong, this is a good thing because bullfighting needs to stop and rodeos are too aggressive (in a cold-hearted psychotic way) to happen. \n\nNot getting attached to a farm animal is not an excuse because the farmer is letting to become aggressive to the very animal they raised. Aggression as in not having a qualm if it gets killed because someone slit their throat (does it sound an act of aggression to animals). Not getting attach does not mean it's okay to be aggressive or cold heart kill it like a murderer. No wonder Ed Earthling is becoming more anti violent when years go by because he's tried of any aggressive excuse of killing because the farmer told them not to get attached. When did the farmer told you not to get attached when people develop signs of aggression like a sadist that wants violence because there are not attached to the reality itself, ironic right?",
  "I have this one  \n[https://animalvisuals.org/projects/1mc/](https://animalvisuals.org/projects/1mc/)  \n\n\nBut it doesn't show how it's calculating deaths for cows. Is there a more supported study?",
  "Basically title. Many insects and small rodents are killed in the farming process. Even natural pesticides are extremely toxic and in a lot of cases are not superior in any reasonable format. Why is this ignored?",
  "I see their points but I still feel it's twisting and altering the definition of veganism to make it suit an antinatalist agenda in which animal exploitation is pushed to the back while resource use is pushed to the front of the argument. I'm antinatalist my self for entirely personal reason that have nothing to do with veganism, yet I struggle to see how this would ever help our cause. Our very existence causes harm, we accept that as vegans and do our best to reduce harm as much as possible, but how does that extend into self-sterilization? So I'd love to hear some sound and logical arguments against it. I'm hoping there's more than just 'you can raise vegan kids'.",
  "A big part of why I started supporting veganism and animal liberation is (among other things) the climate change aspect. I heard about cows emitting a lot of methane, so it seems logical to support stopping the meat and milk industry.   \n\n\nHowever, I have 2 questions about that, that I'd like to get an answer to, to be confident about my views ;  \n\n\n1) Wouldn't the cows still emit methane once they're free? I mean, they're still there. And we can't just kill all the cows that were in the meat industry, can we? That would seem counter-intuitive.  \n2) If we liberate all the cows, what do we do? Are they few enough that they can just coexist freely with humans without interfering?",
  "I saw a video saying chickens for meat are bred to grow at an unnatural pace. Even if they weren\u2019t killed wouldn\u2019t they just suffer having to go through that? Wouldn\u2019t it be more humane to just not let them suffer?",
  "What are some good things to watch/read for an introduction to veganism?\nMy friends are fine with talking about veganism, but I'm quite bad, because I get easily frustrated. I want to tell them X is a good place to learn about veganism.",
  "Imagine a forest. Deers live in this forest, but a lot of them are starving and sick because there is not enough food for them.\n\nHumans see that the situation is bad.\n\nFirst human: Don't do anything, just leave the animals alone. They have only one right: the right to be left alone.\n\nSecond human: Are you insane? They are starving and sick. I think we should release some wolves to do the job. Wolves are natural. Everything that is natural is good. Nature knows best. Wolves are evolved to hunt deer. We need to do what we evolved to do. Wolves have canines, they need to eat meat to survive. We need to cull the weak and sick deer. We need to kill the deer, otherwise they are going to die. Survival of the fittest, might makes right baby! Praise the ecosystem, praise nature!\n\nThird human: What? Wolves have zero compassion, they are going to rip them apart and eat them alive, that's absolutely insane! Imagine that you are a pregnant deer and a wolf rips your baby out of you and eats you alive. That's absolute horror. I think human hunters should do the job, they are capable of compassion. A quick bullet to the head is much better than getting eaten alive.\n\nFourth human:  I think we should take the sick and starving into a wildlife sanctuary, give them food and heal them. I think we can come up with a non-lethal method of population control, for example sterilization. We can also monitor them, heal them when they get sick and vaccinate them against diseases. Deer are friends! They are not food! We need to make sure our friends are okay.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nOut of the 4, which human's point of view is most ethical?  Which one would you choose?",
  "It looks and feels better, it\u2019s sustainable and organic. It does a better job than the synthetic vegan crap. I\u2019m NOT talking about skinning a snow leopard here; I\u2019m talking about coyote pelts from culls, lambskins as a byproduct of raising sheep/lamb, deer skins from hunts, etc. etc.\n\n*The questions/rebuttals are all very repetitive at this point. Any point you want to make has probably already been made, so check the threads. I\u2019ve answered all comments at this time. Don\u2019t want to devote more time to replies, so if I don\u2019t respond, it\u2019s because I turned off notifications and got better things to do*",
  "I\u2019m half expecting the vegan half of this sub to say \u201cof course it\u2019s better to eat the plant based alternatives! It\u2019s plant based and full of goodness!\u201d And the omnivore side of it to say \u201cmeat is better as it\u2019s not all processed with chemicals etc.\u201d\n\nIt\u2019s a debate I keep seeing on social media when I see ads for meat alternatives.\n\nBefore anybody does also argue \u201cif you love animals so much, then why do we need alternatives?\u201d Sometimes to an omnivore these alternatives are one thing helping them do their bit at least! \n\nBut the reason I ask this is because I\u2019m personally trying to switch my diet to more plant based alternatives. A lot I have struggled with but some I have really enjoyed over the past 12 months.\n\nWhat is the actual science behind these alternate foods compared to their meat counterparts? Are they full of chemicals? Are they better?",
  "What do you think about the increasing prevalence of this sentiment? Is it a legitimate threat to our movement? I have seen it solely on \"social-justice\" blogs, instagrams and other social media platforms. It truly baffles me that someone who prides themselves on being so aware of injustice can dismiss veganism or condone animal abuse.   \nPerhaps the most extreme examples of cognitive dissonance come from these people who spend their time analyzing the smallest nuances of racism, sexism, homophobia etc. and then dismiss animal abuse as a non-problem. I immediately lose all respect for \"social justice warriors\" who post anti-vegan messages. Any attempt to reason with them is met with dismissal on the grounds that \"you're being ableist/classist\". It's infuriating and their belief makes zero sense to me. I can understand nearly every argument (were meant to eat meat, food chain, animals do it etc.) except this one.   \nSo I have two questions- are these people right? and if not, how would you approach them?",
  "I keep seeing posts making claims that 'you can't be X unless your a vegan', or saying 'you can't be vegan unless you're also X'\n\nAnd honestly I agree. How can I say it is a good thing for me to have strong convictions about how animals are treated, while I have zero convictions about how our planet/other people are treated?\n\nI hear the phrase 'veganism is THE moral baseline' and it bothers me so much it makes me want to crawl out of my skin. 'Veganism is A moral baseline' is far more fitting saying in my mind as it doesn't hold veganism up a a pedestal as if being vegan is the only way to be ethical.\n\nTo sum up, I see being Vegan as simply a facet of being an ethical person and that there are many equally valid and important facets that have little to do with veganism. Furthermore being vegan is only a single step on the road to becoming an ethical person.\n\nThis ended up being more of a rant, and this post isn't based on any real research and is mostly just my feelings. Any feedback/critiques are very encouraged",
  "Mined fertilizer ingredients (rock phosphate, potash) are - well from mining.  This impacts the environment isn\u2019t sustainable and negatively affects animals and humans.\n\nI have seen many \u201cvegan fertilizer\u201d products with mined ingredients - this amounts to \u201cvegan washing\u201d these products aren\u2019t really vegan \ud83e\udd51",
  "Could becoming vegan as a whole singlehandedly save the environment if veganism becomes a bigger trend in the future? \n\nThe climate is dying, and that's really sad, I hope people realize it and start to become vegan: and I hope veganism can make a positive impact on the climate well enough to curve the loss the environment is suffering.",
  "I thought that this sub might know the answer to my question.\n\nI neither like nor dislike PETA. In fact (as a vegan) I know surprisingly little about them. I constantly see PETA being made fun of or criticized, but I'm not sure where this criticism is coming from. Apparently they lie, exaggerate, and scam people? \n\nCould anyone point me to some information on this? I'm interested to know why they're so infamous and if I should be avoiding them. ",
  "There seems to be a lot of ex-vegans in /r/zerocarb like a really high amount of them. I also have 3 ladies at my work who are 10+ year vegetarian and they are all back eating meat because of health issues, described mostly as autoimmune issues... is long term veganism simply not possible? We have entire vegetarian populations for example India, but they are not the healthiest people on the planet I guess. What\u2019s going on here? Do we need meat and dairy?\n\nAnother example today in the news:\nhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7872671/Woman-switched-vegan-diet-eating-offal-says-shes-never-felt-better.html",
  "Have a positive, and compelling, argument for your beliefs.\n\nIt's really that simple. Understand the ethical case for your position and state it clearly.\n\nThings that don't work.\n\n-Equating animals to humans.-\n\nThis should be obvious but it's a regularly repeated double standard. The other animals aren't held to the same ethical obligations as humans but humans should see our equality with the other animals and not doing so is \"spesiesist\". If you can't sew the double standard here read it again.\n\n-Claim that if there isn't a single trait, or group of traits, that apply to all ethical decisions the person is being inconsistant in a way that makes them wrong-\n\nEthical decisions are situational and a reason that fits a general case may not cover some fringe case. That doesn't mean there isn't some other reason to behave similarly in the fringe case. All it means is fringe cases will often have fringe reasoning. \n\nAll one needs for proper ethical reasoning is a goal and a justificafion for the activity in service to the goal. Not all goals are equal and if your base goal isn't human wellbeing in curious how you define the word good and what standard you use for ethics that isn't self destructive.\n\n-Use any form of deontology-\n\nIf you want to claim a moral duty exists you'll need to justify that claim. Else I'm free to say, \"no it doesn't.\" And that which was presented without evidence or argument needs no evidence or argument to dismiss it.\n\n-Call me names-\n\nI'm regularly amazed by this one. The sub is debate a vegan not get called names by one. The hostility does nothing for your cause but undermine it. If you can't engage in good faith, then you probably should take some time off for your own health and wellbeing. All that stress is harmful.\n\n-Hold a very narrow time window for utility-\n\nUtilitarianism is the only ethical system that can justify its precepts. However arguments against utility almost always follow one of two paths, 1. A very narrow focus on utility that requires every action to have an immediate transactional benefit, extreme short sightedness, or 2. A hilarious hypothetical where the base rules of reality are rewritten and then ethical decisions under the nde ruleset are examined with the ethics of actual reality. \n\nSeriously, stop the down vote, hold off on asking me about puppy kicking, those only reinforce the stereotype of the angry vegan.\n\nRather than attacking my position, make the positive case for yours. Even if I agree all the reasons I do things are wrong, that doesn't get me to veganism. The only way to get me to vegan is to convince me veganism is the best path to human flourishing.",
  "A few posts from /r/vegan have made it to /r/all. The subject of these posts usually involves mocking omnivores or discussing how much better vegans are. This gives all meat-reduced diets a bad name and turns people away.\n\nI'm very concerned that Reddit's vegan and vegetarian communities would rather be an exclusive clique and brag about how awesome they are. If that's what you all want, for the sake of animals you should make a private subreddit. That attitude makes omnivores think \"oh those crazy vegans\" or \"oh those miserable hippies\" and they won't give any thought to our messages. Sure, maybe we'll \"win over\" one or two, but even those who come into it militant and gung-ho about how they'll never harm another animal again are more likely to burn out and quickly go back to their old diets to never return. As a result, more animals will die.\n\nWhen presenting ourselves as vegans and vegetarians, we should be peaceful, kind, tolerant, and helpful. If someone says they won't eat meat one day a week, we should celebrate that. We should post high quality pictures of our meat free meals to /r/foodporn, we should post recipe guides to /r/gifrecipes, we should post our quick and frugal meals to /r/eatcheapandhealthy and when we do, leave the shaming, blaming, and politics out of it. Everyone is aware of vegetarianism and veganism, most are unaware of how simple and tasty it can be. \n\nIf we let people come to use, they're more likely to stay. Please, for the sake of animals, try to represent this movement well.",
  "Sorry I don't know how to word it exactly but I was curious if what I'm growing is vegan. I use animal manure, and sometimes other animal products like ground bone instead of chemical fertilizers. Does this make the veggies I'm growing not vegan?",
  "There is a video titled Grass Fed Beef Slaughter (you have to verify your age on youtube to watch).\n\nDo you think if people were shown footage where animals are killed as humanly as possible, they would be upset and disgusted, the same way they are when they are shown the usual footage by vegan activists?\n\nWould you be against doing cube of truth with footage of best case scenarios? - I would be interested in your reasoning.\n\nMost people just can't afford/don't have access to animal products from \"cruelty-free\" or \"ethical\" farms, but they certainly would want to buy these products, if they had the opportunity.\n\nIf this is the case, I believe in order to make someone vegan, you have to be able to make a case against a best case scenario.\n\nI believe most vegans doing this kind of activism wouldn't accept being introduced to any other ethical issue in a one-sided manner, they would want to know the pros and cons of prostitution, market economy, human migration etc. \n\nIf I wanted to make a case against market economy, it is evident to me, that I have to make a strong case against market economy, not capitalism. \n\nOr if I wanted to make a case against all forms of prostitution, arguing that prostitution is associated with the spread of sexually transmitted diseases is not enough - I would know, that I have to present all the pros and cons, before making the conclusion, that prostitution is never ethical.\n\nMeat eaters could do cube of truth with the same material vegan use (or basically just join vegan cube of truth events), and they could hand out information about \"cruelty-free\" or \"ethical\" farming.\n\n# Edit:\n\n### One more analogy:\n\nI could show people shocking images of bodybuilders who were using drugs or other extreme measures and got sick, to imply that no bodybuilding whatsoever is the only alternative to bodybuilding on drugs or in a extreme way. \n\nIf people were telling me:\n\n> But I think bodyweight exercise is okay.\n\nI would tell them:\n\n> But look at these images! Look!!! See??? Do you honestly think bodybuilding can ever be safe???\n\nThey:\n\n> Yes, I think so.\n\nAnd I:\n\n> Do you really really think so? Don't you see??? You don't??? No?\n\nAnd so on.",
  "When did the use of the word 'transition' become established in discourses around veganism? Particularly used in phrases like 'I transitioned to veganism in 2016' or 'I'm currently transitioning to being a vegan'. I've looked through personal accounts of veganism through the decades in magazines and books and have only really found it occurring in discussions from the 2010's onwards.\n\nI'm particularly interested the verb 'to transition' and what this says about identity and how people conceive and construct their lives in a postmodern world. Does the use of such words create particular metaphysical assumptions about human identity and how it can be shaped and reinvented over linear time? We develop narratives and stories about our selves - careers of selfhood that people strive to make coherent and 'make sense'. Assumes that as individuals we pass or move from one state to another - that we somehow cross an threshold or Rubicon after which we have transitioned and arrive at another place or state of existence - but this place is never fixed, the labels people transition to are malleable and open-ended so how do we know when we have successfully transitioned? We are more in a constant state of becoming, and to 'have transitioned' assumes fixed states of mind and perception.\n\nI know I am just splitting hairs and engaging in semantics but genuinely find it quite interesting. Any thoughts appreciated!",
  "I've seen so many posts by PETA and others about how its unethical, wrong and murder to eat meat, use wool/fur, have pets, etc. while simultaneously applauding abortion as \"a choice\".\n\nYou can't make a human life a choice and an animal life something that is more valuable than a human.",
  "I've seen a lot of overlap in products that are vegan and products that are non-GMO. Is there a lot of demand for this or is it another vegan/health conscious stereotype? ",
  "Hi and Happy New Year. I have a question  that I was hoping a vegan could help with.\n\nIn terms of animal cruelty, there\u2019s no doubt in my mind that a vegan diet means that you aren\u2019t complicit in the deaths of livestock. But it means more and more people are relying on crops - which it could be argued deprive wild animals of natural habitat. \n\nWhat\u2019s more, harvesting crops using industrial methods would harm or kill small animals and insects. \n\nHow are these issues reconciled with the idea of a cruelty-free diet? \n\nThanks!",
  "I\u2019m not a vegan but I was wondering about what y\u2019all consider to be reasonable self defense. So if I am hiking and a rabid coyote starts to run at me and tries to bite me, can I shoot it?\n\nI personally think this is fine as the animal is already going to die from the rabies and I don\u2019t have to get bit.",
  "I just realized i\u2019m arguing with 3 separate people over bivalve sentience level\u2019s in attempt to get a \u201cgot you vegan\u201d moment when I really don\u2019t even care. I abstain from eating them as a precaution. But my argument is that if we were to ignore bivalves, what is stopping you from eating a plant based diet three meals a day instead of the slaughtered/tortured/murdered carcass\u2019s of dead animals? If I bit the bullet on bivalves not being sentient would you go vegan? If I proved that bivalves are indeed sentient would you go vegan? It seems like bivalves don\u2019t have anything to do with you not going vegan so why aren\u2019t you vegan?",
  "Before anything, I'm a vegan, but I struggle to understand why animal sanctuaries function the way they do.\nWhen I went vegan I was all in for animal sanctuaries, I offered myself to volunteer at one that was in a town I was going to visit for a couple of days, after I read in their FB page how exhausting was to clean up, after they denied my petition, which upset me because I would be happy to be cleaning turds or whatever I could do for these people and the animals, I started to look closely into how they work.\nSo first, all you can see in a sanctuary FB page or insta or whatever, is that they need money, lots of it, but they only tell you so after telling you a heartbreaking story of an abused chicken that needs a 600\u20ac operation to keep living but that they would never stop suffering because of their previous abuse.\n\nI have several issues with this and it's something that bugs me beyond belief.\nFirst is that, they keep animals that are in constant pain just to show carnists what they are supporting is wrong.\nSecond is that they require a massive amount of money just to exist, money that in my idea could be used to much better purposes, like teaming up with more sanctuaries and setting up a natural park or natural reserve.\nThird is that they also \"save\" wild animals and to me bringing home a mouse that was bitten by a fox in the woods and asking people for money to \"save\" them is utterly ridiculous, it's just another way of being an intruder in nature, meddling with natural selection and evolution, as if we are to \"save\" and protect every animal ever and ignoring predators actually have to eat meat to survive.\n\nI just don't get it at all, I obviously respect what they do, I'm aware that is very noble to save another life from cruelty but I'm starting to see this is not always the case, but some sort of ego trip.\nDon't be mad at me, I'm an open minded person and I haven't found any information yet to reconsider this, to me it just gets more obvious every day and it annoys me.",
  "This is topical now, and probably of interest to explore how vegans think about Veganism.\n\nThere are a few meat-eater friends of mine who go to vegan restaurants while I'm around, they always pick the most meat-like vegan food. It's appreciable that no animals are harmed in the process but the intent to eat meat is still unchanged.\n\nI think, our focus should be more around promoting ethical veganism (than just dietary) exclude all forms of animal exploitation including not wearing clothing made of wool, leather and not using products tested on animals.\n\nWhat are your thoughts?",
  "Vegan most of my life, and it has always been very very easy for me, I have never enjoyed eating animal products, nor have I ever craved them. I\u2019ve always been healthy  with no illness or physical issues. I used to think people who said they need meat to feel good, or to be healthy were in denial.\n\nBut by now, I\u2019ve just met too many people who have tried to be vegan or vegetarian who experienced energy and health issues or intense cravings that were so hard to ignore they could not sustain this diet. I  am now of the mind that some bodies just respond better to plant based and others to animal based. \nGiven that probably most humans could \u201csurvive\u201d on either all vegan or omni diets, is it possible that some people only \u201cthrive\u201d consuming animal products and others thrive more with plants?\nSecondary debate: is it ok to choose to thrive rather than simply to survive if it meant taking the life of animals?",
  "A year ago I was 375lbs my blood pressure was 175/105 and fasting glucose was 135.\nI joined /r/zerocarb and started eating only meat and drinking water.\nI'm down to 265 my blood pressure is 119/75 and my fasting glucose is 75.\n\nI'm curious about your input/questions about my past year or results.",
  "\"Don't ask me why I'm vegan, ask yourself why you aren't.\" :P",
  "Me and my missus have been debating this for a long time now, the same goes for animal medicines so on and so fourth ",
  "I am a vegan myself but when I think about veganism as a mean to avoid unnecessary animal suffering, from a philosophical perspective, I run into an issue.\n\nSome animals are killed when growing crops, vegetables and fruit too, so if we are willing to give up the enjoyment of eating meat to save animal lives, why wouldn't we give up the enjoyment of eating vegan snacks, vegan cakes and similar stuff that is not necessary to maintain a healthy diet and for humanity to continue its existence?\n\nGrowing plants to produce these things harms animals too (obviously not on the same scale) and we eat them solely for our own personal pleasure so what moral high-ground does a vegan that buys vegan food, than isn't necessary for him to survive, have to lecture a non-vegan about morality? Wouldn't it essentially be the same as someone that eats 2 chickens a month telling someone that eats 3 chickens a month that his diet is morally superior because he supports less animal suffering?\n\n**By the way, I am aware that to compare the deaths of animals caused by the crop industry and the deaths caused by the meat industry is ridiculous using a common sense but I'm asking from this cold hard logic viewpoint**",
  "If pharmaceutics don't experiments with them, what will be the solution? i think the human cares and life it's an important thing,but how can we maintain a balance between the pharmaceutical benefits for our health and the animal life?",
  "What is your stance on the use of manure? It is no longer a waste product. It's a commodity. What about the use of blood, fish, and bonemeal as fertilizer? Do vegans avoid such produce? Could large populations be sustained on produce without large animal farms? Could we produce enough cotton and linnen for clothing?",
  "I haven't researched the stats in a long time but when I first started looking into this stuff many years ago, it was said that something like 50Billion animals where killed a year for human eating.\n\nObviously, if the world transitions to vegan, these 50B will mostly be culled. Maybe some can be rewilded but probably virtually none as a percentage and maybe some will go to sanctuaries but again, virtually none percentage wise. (This point remains true on a smaller scale if any country goes vegan or if the demand for animal products goes down significantly).\n\nIf one argues: \"while the current state of farming is disgusting, we could collapse down to some 'humane farming\". Vegans will often say \"Even if the animal lives the good-life, killing can never be humane\". But doesn't it seem better for an animal to live and be killed prematurely than to be denied existence entirely which is what would happen if humanity wasn't eating them.\n\nI imagine this is a fairly common argument but there doesn't seem to be an obvious and fatal counter-example right off the top of my head. You could say something about sustainability which might be convincing but would certainly change the dynamic of how compelling veganism is as a moral imperative. You could advance some slightly more technical argument about killing being wrong deontologically or something but I'm not sure that'd be convincing to me or most people.\n\nThere's something else here that I'm not so interested in getting into words properly and might not be super convincing to a lot of people even if I did. But... disallowing the existence of entire species seems somehow more perverse than 'mere killing'.\n\nI've been vegan for the better part of a decade but in recent years, I find myself increasingly skeptical of the sort of 'philosophical underpinnings'. I happen to be remain vegan in practice because I have neither the means nor the desire to seek out a way to consume animals that reduces to obvious negative effects to 'mere killing' but I think that if that weren't the case, I'd be running out of reasons to refrain.\n\nThanks for reading.",
  "So, I'm not a vegan.  I believe that eating animals is morally justified.  **HOWEVER**, I think this entirely hinges on whether animals qualify as deserving of rights.  If animals have rights (as they would for example in a suffering-based utilitarian rights system), I think it plainly follows that not only is veganism acceptable, it's *morally obligatory*.  However I think it goes further than that.\n\nI think the central question is \"where do rights come from?\"\n\nFor me, the answer is a metaphorical/hypothetical contractual agreement based on certain conditions (if you know philosophy, think Nagel/Rawls/Scanlon).  Basically, we have the right to life because we recognize as rational thinking-things that it is in our personal best interest to band together in a society that doesn't kill eachother.  Basically \"I don't kill people because I don't want to be killed, and the best way to accomplish that is to societally adopt a right of life\".\n\nThis metaphorical/hypothetical contractual deliberation (wherein we decide what things qualify as rights and what don't, etc) requires that the agents in the deliberation be rational and capable of understanding the abstract concept of \"rights\".  After all, if you asked a plant what rights we should have, it has no way to comprehend rights.\n\nBecause a non-rational-agent is incapable of understanding the concept of rights, they're also unable to respect the rights of other rights-having-beings in all the circumstances that they would be expected to.  Thus, they are not party to the contractual agreement that determines our rights, and thus do not have rights.\n\nI believe that animals do not have the mental capacity to understand an abstract concept like rights, and thus do not have rights.  This means that, morally speaking, killing an animal is no different than harvesting a plant, or breaking a rock.\n\nThat being said, that doesn't mean we can morally do *whatever we want* to animals.  They don't have their own rights, but there are still practical/pragmatic concerns about certain behaviors, for example, animal abuse.\n\nTorturing animals for personal enjoyment is, I hope we can all agree, an awful and inexcusable behavior.  For me, the moral wrongness of this comes from the provable relationship between animal cruelty and violence towards humans.  Because torturing animals often leads to violence against humans, I believe rational agents in the contract deliberation would agree to animal torture being wrong, because of it's resultant effect on other rights-having-beings.\n\nHowever, because animals don't directly have rights, any consideration of the value of their life is taken *in comparison* to practical benefits for rational agents.  So while torturing animals for personal enjoyment is wrong for the reasons above, farming animals for the meat because people enjoy meat is (at least in theory) acceptable.\n\n**How is this not just speciesism with extra steps?**\n\nI admit it leads to a similar result at least right now.  However I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of animals having rights, if they can be shown to be capable of understanding/respecting rights.  For example, I think there's at least some science backing up the intelligence of certain animals, like dolphins, gorillas, etc.\n\nI don't know enough about animal psychology to know if they can comprehend rights, but if someone could demonstrate that they are capable of understanding/respecting rights, I'd wholeheartedly agree that we are morally obligated to respect those rights, and probably do something in the realm of reparations for past harms.\n\n**Doesn't this require accepting that some humans also don't qualify for rights?**\n\nIn short, yes.  In long, not really.  In the abstract sense, yes, some profoundly disabled humans would be outside the contract, and thus not have rights directly.  However, for the same reason as animal cruelty is wrong, a strong argument can be made for extending rights to profoundly disabled people.\n\nBecause the rational agents who are engaging in the deliberation know that they might have profoundly disabled relatives, and know that psychologically we have strong bonds to family.  We also know that allowing certain violent treatment of this small subset of the population would also likely have a strong correlation with violence towards rights-having-beings as with animal cruelty.  Between those two aspects, I think that *effectively*, we'd be required to respect most or all of the same rights with profoundly disabled people that we do with rights-having-beings.\n\nThis also opens up one of the ways that this argument could be turned to support veganism.  If it could be demonstrated that the vast majority of society had strong reactions to animals being killed (to the level of a family member being killed, mind you) and that this belief was pervasive enough to not be merely a personal belief or a moral belief, then there would be a basis for conferring a similar level of \"effective rights\" onto animals.  However I think we're nowhere near this point in current society.\n\n**How is this view \"better\" than veganism?**\n\nFirst off, I have no problem with non-ethical vegans.  Anyone who eats a vegan diet for nutritional reasons, or for purely emotional ones, I have no problem with.  My problem is with the position of ethical vegans who want to take the further step of applying their ethics to others.\n\nMy understanding of typical ethical veganism is the suffering-based utlitarianism presented by Singer et al. in books like *Animal Liberation*.  I have a number of problems with utilitarianism itself that I think go beyond the scope of this sub, but I also have problems related to utilitarian veganism in particular.\n\nFor one, how does the \"name the trait\" argument not cut both ways?  The challenge is always on the meat eater to \"name the trait\", but I think vegans have an equally tough time naming the trait that *does* qualify animals as having rights.  Using the maximal reduction of suffering (as in utilitarianism) seems like it has it's own speciesist issues (like our idea that suffering *just is* badness itself, when from an evolutionary perspective you could question that).\n\nI also don't understand how ethical vegans justify the \"second class\" rights we give to animals.  For example, it's wrong to eat animals because they have the right to life, but it's apparently okay to lock them in your home until stockholm syndrome sets in because \"pets are cute\" and \"we're doing them a favor\"?  We certainly wouldn't accept those arguments in favor of locking humans away against their will (at least unless they're prisoners but that's a whole separate discussion).\n\nI've also never met a vegan that would actually choose to save 5 cats from a burning building if they had to choose between 5 cats and two children.  Ethical vegans want to say we're morally obligated to fully respect the rights of animals (which I'm on board with assuming they have rights), but then also want to have their rights be secondary to humans.  That strikes me as deeply hypocritical.  Is the suffering of animals \"lesser\" than humans in some way, or are they in some other way less deserving of \"full\" rights?  And if so, why can't that same argument be used to justify eating them?\n\nAny ethical theory that supports separate \"tiers\" of rights is deeply concerning to me, because it seems like the kind of thing that could, with minimal adjustment, be used to justify things like slavery or other kinds of class oppression.\n\nOne last point that worries me is where to draw the line.  Our right to life is, in my opinion, a moral obligation/duty.  If people are somewhere being unjustifiably killed, it's our *duty* to do what we can to stop it.  If animals also have the right to life, to what extent might we be required to go out into nature and stop or curtail predatory behavior?\n\nSo basically, I see ethical veganism as hypocritical because it attempts to draw the line in a somewhat arbitrary position, and then while advocating for a strong sense of rights, also quietly brings in \"second class rights\".  I think a contractual basis for rights creates a far preferable system for explaining the origin of rights, in a way that can adequately explain the way people see rights in society, without falling into the traps that utilitarianism falls into.\n\nEDIT: I doubt any people are still reading this, but on the off chance someone stumbles upon it: while going over this thread, on a whim I decided to read the short chapter on animal rights in Robert Nozick's book, *Anarchy, State, and Utopia*. (lots of books like this are available for free on libgen.io and other places around the web)\n\nRegardless of your position on animal rights, I think it's absolutely worth a read if you're even a little into philosophy.  The book is long of course, but the chapter is quite short.  In classic Nozick style, he doesn't present a single argument that he claims is correct, rather he asks a multitude of questions and challenges some pre-existing views.  He has some arguments in there that I think absolutely *blow away* any of the arguments anyone in this thread (including me) has presented on either side of the topic.  He also addresses a bunch of what we've been talking about here.",
  "I feel like veganism often overlooks the human suffering behind consumption. If the central maxim of veganism is to reduce or eliminate suffering, shouldn't that extend to humans to the same extent (if not greater extent) as animals? However vegans do not necessarily consider fair labor standards, occupational safety, fair wages, etc. in their consumption habits. \n\nI like to substitute avacadoes for cheese because they have the same cream texture. So say I'm given two choices at the market: I can buy avacadoes produced by workers who are paid less then minimum wage, live in substandard farmworkers housing, and experience harmful exposure of pesticides to them and their families; or I can buy goat cheese that's produced by a friend who uses sustainable practices and allows the goats to roam across plenty of land, socialize, and anything else it would take to say that the goat was living a good life. Which should I choose? It seems clear the vegan option is worse. \n\nFurther, consider the suffering that goes into non-food products. I just saw a headline about another suicide at an iPhone factory. We all know about sweatshop labor and clothing. Should vegans consider that suffering too? \n\nOne answer may be that it's only realistic to deviate your consumptive habits so far. But you definitely can live without an iPhone or Nike clothes. So I feel like a vegan responding to these points would be pushed into a corner where they have to admit that they continue to consumer these product because of comfort and ease despite their principles - the same line of thinking that is one of the biggest obstacles to convincing people to go vegan. I feel like this validates nonvegans reluctance because even if you go vegan you have to use the same logic to continue unethical consumption. \n\nFair trade and equal exchange are okay but only go so far. If I'm not mistaken those labels are only applied to imported goods and we have no fair labor label for domestic goods. If the goal is to end suffering, it seems to me we should start with people. And importantly for my argument, you don't have to consume fair trade goods to call yourself vegan. \n\nIt sum it seems weird to me that you could call yourself a vegan and still consume products that cause suffering to humans. ",
  "I'm up with veganism up until its about not using objects that were created by insects or that harm insects. First off, many, many insects die from pesticides for vegetables as it is.\n\nMost insects don't even have noiception, which is just the reflex-like device insects have, otherwise the first part required in an animal in order for it to feel pain. This isn't even talking about the emotional level pain that mammals and birds feel. Basically, mammals and birds are like (2/2) on receiving pain, while insects are (0/2) and I could argue that even animals with (1/2) aren't worth moral consideration. What makes an insect's life worth more than a plants?\n\nFor this reason, why do vegans abstain from honey and silk? Soooo many insects die from so many other causes.\n\nAlso, bivalves like oysters don't feel pain, so what's wrong with eating them?\n\nThen, for a real question I don't know about. Do crabs, lobsters, and spiders feel pain??\n\nThanks!",
  "https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/pig-organs-for-humans/536307/\n\nI am pretty sure there will be a huge backlash against vegans if vegans were to protest against it, further reinforcing its crazy cult status. But the whole thing reiterates the idea of commodifying animals and the speciecist view of seeing animals as means to our ends.\n",
  "Most vegan leather today is currently made from PVC or PU.    \n\nIt's been said that PVC is an emerging toxic plastic, extremely harmful for the environment, and PU comes from fossil fuels, and producing PU is not yet entirely non-toxic. \n\nQuite a dilemma here: should I appreciate the fact that no animal was harmed during the production or should I be worried that my purchase might leave a carbon-footprint? \n\nWhat do you guys think?",
  "Best Speech Ever Commentary",
  "Eating meat is usually perceived as being more masculine than abstaining from eating meat, but does physical evidence really support these perceptions?\n\nMeat-eating men have lower testosterone, more flaccid penises, and more repulsive body odor, as judged by heterosexual women. Are these the traits most usually associated with more 'masculinity'?\n\nhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10883675/\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117588/\n\nhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16891352/",
  "What is the justification for treating the unnecessary, human caused suffering of animals as equal to the unnecessary, human caused suffering of other humans? Humans and animals are not equal so by what authority should we treat their unnecessary, harm caused suffering as equal.\n\nThe authority to generate morality against causing human-human unnecessary suffering is a selfish one; if unnecessary human-human suffering proliferates, society will inevitably degenerate into revolution and anarchy where I personally have the risk of suffering and dying. Also, if things like theft, assault, and rape are not morally selected against, I live in fear of that happening to me. There is not a selfish argument to lend authority to ethical veganism as the suffering cow is not me.",
  "I won't ask that you take parts on the whole yt drama thing, I'll just ask for you to read PV's article on NTT [here](https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait) (which explains NTT, shows how it doesn't lead to veganism, and reinforces it to make it \"meat proof\" I guess)\n\nAnd then, I'll kindly ask that someone explains to me in ELI5 style what is being said [here](https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Part_1_Counterexample), in the \"In English\" section. Especially the second sentence, it's almost unreadable.\n\nIs NTT airtight or does it have holes? What is PV trying to say?",
  "The time for debate us over, join me my fellow vegans if you heed that call, in the extermination of the reptilian carnist threat. I am not at all a hardstuck, bored madperson typing this from bed. OFWGKTA praise trans-species Jesus. Apeople.",
  "Ok so let me preface this by saying I\u2019ll be 4 years vegan in April so I definitely think veganism is worthwhile. I\u2019ve come across this critique that veganism is racist a lot on twitter and in my graduate department (I\u2019ve gotten a surprising amount of rudeness and I\u2019m not like an activist or anything). \n\nWhen I went vegan I wasn\u2019t really concerned about what marginalized people or people who lived in food deserts were eating. I understand poverty and oppression could making eating choices limited and I\u2019d rather people eat what\u2019s available. Long work hours contribute to eating whatever you can too. I work in the restaurant industry and there\u2019s a lot of people who rely on our animal product laden menu for food. Are there seriously vegans who target poor and marginalized people? \n\nVeganism is at least to me a rejection of the dehumanizing qualities of the capitalist exploitation of labor in industrialized societies? Am I wrong here? \n\nI don\u2019t think veganism as a lifestyle is really inherently racist though. My bf and I are white Americans who live in a small city? We\u2019re interested in converting other middle income people who live in cities? Animal products so gross me out now though lol. \n\nIndigenous people living traditional lifestyles often live in specific ways adapted to their ecology and at least where I\u2019m from (Northeast US) indigenous people ate animals for survival and used them probably the most ethical way possible. My issue isn\u2019t at all with people living pre-capitalist lifestyles especially since animals aren\u2019t raised for the sole purpose of slaughter and the overall ecosystem is well maintained which is better for everybody. \n\nI really think veganism can be used like Christianity, cleanliness, western culture and a bunch of other moral markers in a white supremacist way but it\u2019s not inherently racist. Like women covering their breasts isn\u2019t racist until some dude in the 1860s says women bare breasted in subsaharan Africa is why those people are worse than whites.   \n\nIdk those are my thoughts, do you think it makes sense? Do you think veganism is white supremacy?",
  "\nThis isn\u2019t a huge deal but it\u2019s been bugging me. Is the concept of anthropomorphism inherently speciest? I have really bad moral OCD where I am constantly thinking about the morality of my actions. For example, one of my favorite games of the decade is Hollow Knight. For those of you who don\u2019t know, it is a game in which every character is a cute anthropomorphic insect person. This made me start thinking: is this a speciest concept. If you make the insects seem like people in fiction, then you acknowledge they\u2019re not like people in real life and therefore are not afforded the same rights. If aliens more intelligent than us made a game that elevated us to their standards then we would be incredibly offended because the contrast that they\u2019re playing with sees us as lesser. Also there\u2019s the movie The Lobster. In it, single people are forced to find a romantic partner in 40 days or they will be turned into an animal of their choosing. Is portraying the concept of being turned into an animal as bad speciest? I\u2019m just afraid that media I consume might be promoting immoral values.",
  "I have seen a hash tag that asks people to name the traits that if absent in a human would allow them to be eaten. If a person doesn't have an answer then the conclusion says if we cannot name a trait we must not eat animals and thus are morally obligated to be vegan.\n\nHowever, if I were to say the same thing about the law, that the law applies to humans and no trait a person could lack would make them free from human law, then the conclusion would be that we are obligated to hold animals to human law.\n\nI could also be cheeky and say sentience and. Excuse saying if a human lacks sentience it is OK to eat them doesn't mean all animals with sentience cannot be eaten.\n\nI personally do not feel there is a situation where it would be morally justifiable to murder and eat a human. That, however doesn't apply to all non-humans as my example with the law helps to demonstrates. This argument essentially is little more than a false equivalence. ",
  "We polled almost 1,000 18- to 35-year-olds about their attitudes on sex on the first date and whether they've actually done it! 6XABuT",
  "I'm very tired so sorry if this doesn't make a lot of sense. But I've never really gotten veganism. Like how is avoiding animal products saving animals? You realise any reputable market will buy from good farmers and butchers because what no one seems to realise is that if animals are stressed and afraid when they die then their meat will be worthless. It will be tough and no one would ever buy it. It's called RIGAMORTIS. Look it up for more information. \nNow yes of course not everyone would raise happy healthy animals and butcher them when they are happy, but completely avoiding animals products seems entirely pointless to me. \nNow sure I don't ever buy caged eggs. I actually go to a farm to buy my eggs but why would you not just buy free range eggs from a farm you can research? And that goes for any other product. Why wouldn't you just boycott brands and farms that don't have healthy procedures and living environments. \nLike eggs and meat are some of the most nutritious foods we can eat so avoiding them seems silly to me when you can just buy free range milk and eggs and organic meet from a butcher where you can know exactly where the meat is from. \nI buy 90% of my meat and dairy straight from farmers where I can see the living conditions with my own eyes. I know a lot of people don't have access to that but googling a company and brands can come up with a lot of great info. \nAlright I'm gonna stop rambling and go to bed because I just had a 17 hour long fucking day. Hope to wake up to some good responses. \n\nSource: Chef at one of the top 10 most sustainable restaurants in the world and top 20 in the world. ",
  "Cats, unlike humans, *are* obligate carnivores. I understand that some vegans take the view that even having pets would be considered restricting the autonomy of them, but I'm sure the majority would like to keep our furry friends. Animals need to die to feed them, and since humans provide food for their pets, it seems to follow that there'd still be the necessity of slaughterhouses and keeping livestock. Would vegans still consider that unethical, and if so what would be the alternative?",
  "I have a protein and iron deficiency. I have allergies to legumes, all nuts, soy, tofu, and most things vegan. I can't swallow pills because my gag reflex. My doctor suggests a meat diet because I need the protein.\n (Wouldn't turn vegan either way, and don't say watch Dominion or Don't watch.org because I did. It was boring.)",
  "As a long-time vegetarian, whenever I've tried being vegan, I've hated it. Here's why:\n\n* The food - I'm a pretty good cook, and I make a number of decent vegan dishes. However, eating only vegan gets pretty old after a while, and I crave dishes with a bit of butter, cheese, etc. Vegan dishes that imitate non-vegan ones are, for the most part, pale imitations.  (I say this after having made dozens of them. Sort of okay, but it leaves me wanting the real thing.)\n\n* I have to meticulously balance my diet to ensure I'm getting all the right nutrients. \n\n* I hate having to turn down products with dairy in them all the time (work, parties, etc.).  I get it's the rational thing to do, but that knowledge doesn't cheer me up. I know that sounds petty, but humans aren't rational automatons. It's easy for me to abstain from meat because the link  between meat consumption and suffering is so visceral that I wouldn't even enjoy eating it.  Despite the vegan documentaries I've seen and books I've read, that link is far weaker when it comes to, say, someone offering me a homemade cupcake or chocolate at work at 3pm when I'm hungry and don't have any of my own food left.\n\n* For most products, not just food, vegan substitutes cost twice as much and are half as effective. My expensive vegan foundation looks like a clay mask compared to even cheap non-vegan brands. It's near-impossible to get a vegan waterproof mascara, and the vegan non-waterproof ones smear and disintegrate. Eye shadow range is limited (e.g. I found it impossible to find a vegan lavender eye shadow, the colour I normally wear). The vegan conditioners I tried made my hair super greasy. I get it's petty, but it's frustrating. Also, I'm not even a huge make-up person --- I only own a couple of products. If it's this frustrating to me, I don't know how someone who was heavily into make-up would find it.\n\n- Shoes -- basically no stylish options (the only vegan boots sold near me look like they're from a 1996 Target junior girls' catalogue), and the non-leather shoes I buy wear out after little use. If I pay for an expensive vegan leather alternative, then it looks like I'm wearing (and thus supporting the manufacturing of) real leather.  \n\n* The surcharge on anything vegan (mentioning this again as it's very frustrating for someone on a limited budget). Want some ethical marshmallows? That'll cost you $20. Ethical nail polish? Another $20. \n\n*  Milk used to be one of my favourite foods, and I hate the taste of non-dairy milk. Psychologically it's difficult to abstain from it when I can get the real stuff from an ethical farm (albeit at a crazy surcharge, but in this case it doesn't bother me). If I abstain from the ethical milk, I'm not supporting the farm that tries to do right thing (no artificial insemination, calves stay with mothers for months etc.). If it goes out of business, all that's available to the millions of omnivores is the factory farmed stuff. So I don't even feel good about abstaining from it.  (Also, I get that people abstain for dairy etc. for health reasons, but psychologically that's far easier.) \n\n* Having to constantly check whether something's vegan or not. \n\n* Again, psychologically it's difficult to be vegan when everywhere I go there's people who don't give the slightest  toss about animals (aside from dogs and cats). Here I am paying out the nose for products, eating a monotonous diet, possibly harming my long-term health, and I step outside my door and look at a crowd of leather-clad people chowing down on delicious-looking hamburgers at the fast food joint opposite me, without the slightest care in the world.  \n\nIn sum: I'd never go back to eating meat, but I've found being vegan to be a pretty miserable existence. It's like death by a thousand cuts - alone, each item is is petty, but taken together, it's pretty frustrating. I can easily abstain from non-vegan products and eat a vegetarian diet, but having to maintain a vegan diet makes me unhappy. I wish it didn't, but it does. What can I do?   \n\nOther point: It seems like discussions of finding veganism difficult isn't really accepted on /r/vegan. If you complain about something, you're essentially told you shouldn't feel that way (\"You shouldn't miss cheese, nutritional yeast/soy cheese is a fine alternative!\").   I question how many people there are long-term vegans. In my experience, despite being fully aware of the exploitation of animals, and being a SJW-y person living in an area with vegan restaurants and (expensive) supermarkets, it's very tough to stick to. It's like being on a restrictive, dreary perma-diet.\n\nEdit: Possible over-kill on the word 'psychologically'. \n\n ",
  "If so, why. Few bees die due to them being in a safe place and it actually benefits the local environment, and the bees are not hurt",
  "So veganism is the rejection of commodifying animals. For this reason I don't believe pet ownership to be vegan.\n\n1) It is very rare to acquire a pet without transactional means. Even if the pet is a rescue or given by someone who doesn't want it, it is still being treated as a object being passed from one person to another (commodification)\n\n\n2) A lot of vegans like to use the word 'companion' or 'family' for pets to ignore the ownership aspect. Omnivores use these words too admittedly, but acknowledge the ownership aspect. Some vegans insist there is no ownership and their pet is their child or whatever. This is purely an argument on semantics but regardless of how you paint it you still own that pet. It has no autonomy to walk away if it doesn't want you as a companion (except for cats, the exception to this rule). You can train the animal to not walk/run away but the initial stages of this training remove that autonomy. Your pet may be your companion but you still own that animal so it is a commodity.\n\n\n3) Assuming the pet has been acquired through 'non-rescue' means, you have explicitly contributed the breeding therefore commodification of animals.\n\n\n4) Animals are generally bred to sell, but the offspring are often neutered to end this cycle. This is making a reproductive decision for an animal that has not given consent to a procedure (nor is able to).\n\nThere's a million more reasons but I do not think it can be vegan to own a pet. \n\nI do think adopting from rescues is a good thing and definitely ethical, most pets have great lives with their humans. I just don't think it aligns with the core of veganism which is to not commodify animals.",
  "It feels like everyday there is a post in r/vegan where someone is asking for advice with dating a non-vegan. Pretty much every comment that follows is the classic reddit advice of just leave them. I think this is a pretty short-sighted outlook and I\u2019m going to explain why.\n\nI should add that I\u2019ve been vegan for 6 years now. I have had sleepless nights over this very topic. I\u2019ve ended relationships because the other person wasn\u2019t vegan. I\u2019m talking about this because I feel like I\u2019ve sat at both ends of this argument.\n\nAlso, let me be clear. Obviously don\u2019t date someone who bullies you for being vegan, who isn\u2019t respectful of your choice to be vegan and isn\u2019t willing to eat vegan food with you. Also, I understand if you want a meat free house etc. Also don\u2019t date someone with the intention of turning them vegan.\n\nThe main reason vegans give for not wanting to date non-vegans is a clash in values. Often, I see comparisons like dating a non-vegan is like dating a racist or a misogynist. I understand this logic but feel that it\u2019s not quite the same \u2013 here\u2019s why:\n\nMost humans are good people, and like vegans, they don\u2019t want to see other people or animals in pain. They find the thought of hurting an animal repulsive and don\u2019t want to see it or be in anyway associated with it (don\u2019t worry, I get the irony here). My point here is that most people are against cruelty.\n\nMeat, eggs, and dairy is part of our tradition (at least in the UK where I live). My whole family eats meat, and I ate meat for 22 years (I was vegetarian for a year before going vegan). It was totally ingrained in me that eating meat was ok and normal. I was told that vegetarians and vegans were a little extreme. Eating \u201cnon-vegan\u201d is totally normalised in our society.\n\nMost people, myself included are really good at seeing something awful like slaughterhouse footage and thinking \u201cwell that\u2019s only an isolated incident\u201d, \u201cI only buy free-range\u201d and \u201cthere\u2019s not really much I can do about it\u201d. It took me a long time to see past the industry driven BS and I think its unfair to hold someone to a value I\u2019ve only just found.\n\nMy points here are trying to show that it\u2019s normal for people to see something they massively disagree with but still, through environment and upbringing dismiss it, ignore it and continue to fund it. I don\u2019t think the clash in values is as severe as lots of vegans think. Most non-vegans are good people who want a cruelty free world, they just haven\u2019t broken out of the heavily reinforced/meat is ok/we need meat mindset.\n\nI also think its worth reflecting on who we all we\u2019re before we went vegan. I wouldn\u2019t say that I was ever evil, violent, or cruel. I just ate meat because it seemed normal. I would\u2019ve said that I loved animals and that I was against animal cruelty, but I still ate meat.\n\nI think that so long as you\u2019re dating someone who is kind, accepting and understanding you can have a loving a fulfilling relationship, even if they don\u2019t eat meat. Who knows, after spending time with you maybe their mindset will change.\n\nI\u2019ve read this through a few times and it still seems a bit muddled, happy to discuss.",
  "which is better being a meat eater but actively helping the environment and society ( let say actively cleaning the coast area or rescuing stray animals , building recycable habitats for humanities) or becoming vegan because they are shallow and just doing it for fame and body figure",
  "Hi all, I'm going to start out by saying that I am a vegan and I also have an environmental science degree.\n\nI know too well how invasive species cause massive problems for ecosystems and can cause certain species to go extinct very easily.\nCommon practice is to cull these species to maintain ecosystem stability, this is an important aspect of environmental conservation.\n\nTypically culling is seen as the best way to go about this as you can't capture and release these animals back into their own country of origin, doing so causes problems where they belong.\n\nMy other thoughts include capture, nurteur and release to prevent reproduction but that might not be ideal either. \n\nDoes anyone have an opinion on this issue?",
  "I fully believe that vegans are more moral in their ideals than non-vegans. I've seen anecdotally that some vegans might act more rude than their counterparts but I'll write that off as controversial people in any group being the most vocal and present in discussions. Besides, it shows that they actually care about this issue.\n\nMy personal opinion is that, if my individual impact on this industry truly changed anything, i would avoid consuming animal products. If it's already there though, and it's going to waste, i don't see a moral issue in eating the animal since I'm not supporting any harmful industries. At this moment, i do not believe that i would change anything by giving a retail store a small amount of money every once in a while. Someone else is eventually going to buy that same product and contribute what i would've contributed. The only thing i gain from avoiding these products is a sense of morality and a loss of enjoyment and potentially money. As far as I've seen, vegan alternatives for things i want to consume are not cheap. You have to weigh these things, maybe not equally, but somewhat proportionally. This ties into a point I'll make later in my post.\n\nI do understand that this personal opinion would never work on a larger scale. If we all indulge in something with the idea that we have no impact, nothing will ever change. At the same time, if i choose to not indulge while other people do, my impact would do nothing to help. It's difficult to find an answer to this dilemma but overall, this is more of an opinion to keep to yourself.\n\nIf i wanted to try my utmost to avoid participating in unethical business practices, i would either be living in the woods with nothing or i would be dead. In any industry, evil exists somewhere along the supply chain. Our phones that we talk on, our computers that we use for work, everything that we buy has some amount of unethical practices tied to it. Ethical consumption does not exist under capitalism. I don't believe we should all be personally responsible for this truth but that does not make it any less true.\n\nMorality has no place in a discussion where you're picking and choosing which things to be moral about. Anybody who valued morality to the extreme could not reply to this as they wouldn't have anything to reply with. Again, they would be living in the woods or dead.\n\nIf you could, give me a counter to this argument. You could use morality in your reply but know that i will most likely disregard that for the reasons i listed above.\n\n&#x200B;",
  "An argument I hear a lot from religious friends is that God placed animals on this Earth for them to consume. Therefore, it is not morally wrong to be an omnivore.\n\nNow, in a discussion about veganism, I would have found it fruitless to then change the subject to whether or not God exists, so I would leave it at that and not press the point.\n\nBut this made me think. A vegan theist may believe that God placed animals for them to eat. Yet, they also find omnivorism cruel and wrong. In order to reconcile these beliefs, I can only think of a few scenarios:\n\n1. You don't believe God ordained animals for human consumption\n2. You believe God is malicious\n3. You are vegan for reasons other than morals\n\nIs there any religious vegan that wishes to expand upon, or talk about their own beliefs in regards to this?",
  "I don't eat meat for the taste but for health reasons. I live a very active life style which includes regular weight lifting. There is no plant protein equivalent to that of meat. Especially in regards to the anabolic response of animal protein on skeletal muscle (Study:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26224750). It is also established that lean muscle mass is a strong predictor of longevity (Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035379/). We know frailty in elderly persons put them at significant risk for falls and subsequent hip fractures which cause deterioration in health (Study:https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.3.398). I firmly believe the United States not only has an obesity epidemic but also a frailty epidemic (a person with a BMI of 26+ is 9 times out of 10 also very weak). I do believe someone can live a very healthy life as a vegan. I also believe a vegan diet can build muscle as there are several vegan athletes/bodybuilders. However, I do not believe it is as optimal as an omnivore diet because of the excessive carbohydrate intake involved in the vegan diet. I'm hoping for some/all of these views to be challenged as well as any other input you all have as that is how I learn best. ",
  "Not a vegan but I understand (though don't personally agree with) some of the moral philosophies behind it and am not here to pick a fight.\n\nOk, preamble aside.\n\n>honeybees are the world's most important commercial\u00a0pollinator\u2014the\u00a0Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that of 100 crops that produce 90 percent of the world's food,\u00a071 of those are bee pollinated.  [source](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/diversity-bees-good-environmentand-farmers-wallets-180951339/)\n\nHoneybees in the US are a non-native species so this entire system is an artificial one.\n\nIf bees are a necessity to plant agriculture is their keeping still outside of vegan ethics or would it be considered more of an unavoidable side effect like the deaths caused by other plant agriculture practices?  If it's arguably ok to keep them and use them for pollination, at what point of the keeping process is the line crossed into unethical from the vegan standpoint?  If bees are unacceptable across the board, what techniques/technologies would you recommend to replace them?\n\nI know \"vegan\" isn't universal in its interpretation and that some of you will have harder ethical lines than others.  This is not intended as a \"gotcha\" question, I'm just trying to educate myself on your stances/arguments.",
  "My uncle owns a small, isolated farm in rural Maryland. He raises cows for milk and chickens for eggs, and very rarely will he kill an animal. (This is all, generally, for himself and for immediate family.) \n\nWhen I was 15 my family and I visited him in Maryland and took us for a tour of the farm. The last place he took us too was the barn where his cows slept at night or came just so sit. It was mid day so most of the cows were out and about in a large, fenced off area around the barn except for one.\n\nWhen we walked inside we could immediately hear wheezing and when we asked what it was, my Uncle told us that one of his cows was getting up in years and had developed respiratory problems that would eventually lead to her dying of old age and organ failure. \n\nTwo days into our visit with him, he killed the cow in as humane a way as something like that can be done in order to keep her from suffering more as she slowly died. \n\nIm your opinion, was this the right or wrong thing for him to do? Why?\n\nEdit: Chickens and cows not raised for meat",
  "Hello. I support veganism pretty much wholesale already. I just have one small question.\n\nI think we can all agree that animal agriculture is sucks for the planet. According to [ourworldindata.org](https://ourworldindata.org), 77% of agricultural land is used for livestock, while 23% is used for plant-based food (crops). \n\nSo if we abolished animal agriculture in the future, then 77% of agricultural land would be theoretically free to use for plant-based food.\n\nBut if everyone went vegan, I assume that all 7.5 billion of us will eat more plants than we do now.\n\nIf that's the case, wouldn't the environmental benefit of abolishing animal agriculture be offset by the additional consumption of plant-based foods (so more land use)? Or will our land use still decrease?",
  "[Here](http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/peta-warhammer-fur-free/) is the explanation from PETA about this subject.\n\nA few notes :\n\n* I know that PETA is not representative of the values vegan community. Especially not with this subreddit.\n* I am vegan. This shouldn't have any place here but I don't want responses trying to explain me why we shouldn't use fur.\n\nArgument from PETA :\n\n* Using virtual fur in popular game, play a role in the transmission of animal cruelty.\n\nArguments of opponents :\n\n* There is no correlation (nor [causality](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/study-finds-no-evidence-violent-video-games-make-children-aggres/) between player of war games and violence. \n* Human used fur to protect from cold. Giving historical contest.\n\nEDIT : turns out it was a troll from PETA ... I don't know them enough\n\n",
  "If your vegan and say because it\u2019s healthy, if we had a magical pill that stoped anything bad from happening to you (cancer and stuff) would you eat meat\n\nAnd if your a vegan because of animal suffering,\nWould you eat meat if we turned cows unsentient\n",
  "I\u2019ve been with a handful of both vegetarians and meat eaters and there\u2019s a clear difference in sexual performance. The vegetarians are very energetic, longer lasting, are able to maintain an erection, and smell better. The meat eaters on the other hand, and these weren\u2019t out of shape people or people with bad lifestyles, had worse odor, had a hard time keeping up, had a harder time maintaining an erection, and seemed to get tired out quicker.\n\nI thought to myself oh maybe this is just a coincidence or something but then I was watching the Game Changers and they did a study where they tracked the participants erections while they slept. When they ate meat they had far less erections at night but when they ate a plant based meal they had more erections at night that were stronger. I did more digging and the saturated fat and cholesterol in meat isn\u2019t as innocent as people thought, and it does affect and slow down blood flow to other parts of the body. Like if a meat eater constantly eats meat for every meal and they have clumpy/fatty blood constantly cycling throughout their body it\u2019s going to affect blood flow and eventually build plaque. \n\nI\u2019m a vegan but i haven\u2019t been with any other vegans so i can\u2019t make a comparison but there is definitely a difference in guys who eat meat vs guys who don\u2019t eat meat. I do believe that meat intake negatively impacts sexual performance and is one of the main factors for erectile dysfunction as men age. The documentary really showed that all meat is bad for our health including the so called \u201chealthy ones\u201d like chicken because it still builds plaque.",
  "I'll start off by saying I know this is not every vegan. I have come across many ethical vegans on this sub that find it correct to equate humans to animals and thus argue \"Would you do this to a human? Would you rape, eat, or enslave a human? If not, why do this to an animal?\" This is an is/ought fallacy but my argument shows an emotional and not a logical reason this train of thought is fallacious.\n\nMy belief is there is a difference between animals and humans and those ethical vegans who attempt to conflate human issues of rape, murder, slavery, etc. to animal conditions are betraying their true belief to the inferiority of animals through remaining friends and cordial w family, coworkers, strangers, etc. who are omnivores.\n\nIf you found out tomorrow you father was a rapist or your friend was a murder or that your boss owned slaves, you would quit those relationships no matter the cost. Yet you tolerate omnivorism bc it is nowhere near the same to take control of an animal at birth, limit its freedom, herd it, then kill it, butcher it, cook it, and eat it as it is to assault your wife (another offense most would drop a relationship w another over).",
  "I\u2019m a vegan myself, but not very activist or preachy (compared to many others). Even so, I still get told to shut up on Facebook and people get offended when I share an article about eating less meat and tell me I\u2019m making them feel bad.., \ud83e\udd37\ud83c\udffb\u200d\u2640\ufe0f\n\n\nSo, it has made think about how to get more people to go vegan. It feels so pointless talking to omnivores about it. I remember a quote from Forks over Knives or one of the other documentaries on Netflix where Dr. Greger gets asked if people have to buy organic produce and he has the most fantastic reply where he basically says that it is not a must and that \u201cnothing should stop you from stuffing your face with as many fruits and vegetables as possible \u201c - this quote is seared into my brain and heart. Because everyone knows that fruits and vegetables are good for you, but the way we structure our omnivore diets, everything is built around meat. Meat is the hero and at the center. So it makes it hard to add more vegetables, because they are not in the center of the meals. \n\n\nTo my point: I don\u2019t think we need to necessarily make everyone vegan to save the planet and animals. We need to change the way we think about meals. Force governments, institutions, businesses etc. to focus on meals where vegetables are the core ingredient and meat is accidentally there (or not).  That could potentially be a much easier route to making people eating less or no meat, because it\u2019s much more guilt free and I could see many governments going that route, to model healthier diets. It would also make it much easier for families to make meat free meals if it is modeled around in society and becomes more commonplace. So I wanted to hear what you think?",
  "For physical and mental health reasons, I have to incorporate cholesterol in my diet.  How do I get cholesterol as a vegan?",
  "So every time you are on the internet and the question why or why not to eat meat comes up one of the major points on both sides seems to be that it is healthy/unhealthy.\n\nBut does anyone really become a vegan, because he/she thinks it\u2019s healthier? I don\u2019t get why you would make such a drastic diet choice, because you think it\u2019s a bit healthier. There are good reasons to stay away from meat like the environment, bad living conditions for the animals (to put it mildly) or just not wanting anything to die for you. But trying to convince someone to stop eating meat, because you think it\u2019s healthier doesn\u2019t make much sense to me. \n\nAnd I\u2018ve got similar problems with people who defend eating meat by bringing up that veganism not as healthy as eating meat. First of all it\u2019s definitely not more unhealthy than the other extreme which is eating meat almost every day. As far as I know scientists are yet to give a definite answer, but it looks like eating meat in reasonable amounts and not eating meat, but making sure to get all your vitamins and such are both about equally healthy. But you can\u2019t tell me that your main reason against becoming a vegan is that it\u2019s so unhealthy when you eat meat almost every day and go to McDonald\u2019s every now and than.\n\nEdit: for anyone interested - Not vegan, but kind of a vegetarian (short: I don\u2019t buy meat myself, but if others cook, I\u2019ll eat it). I\u2019m not desperately trying to get everyone to stop eating meat. I don\u2019t think people who eat meat are assholes and I definitely don\u2019t think insulting them is the way to go.\n\nEdit 2: Not a native speaker",
  "1) The \"You're in the right direction\" viewpoint\n\n2) The \"You're a hypocrit because you don't care for animals 100%\"\n\nWhich one is it? Are there more options?",
  "A while ago I had a neurology practical that required us to dissect a frog to examine its neural pathways for credit. It made me wonder what vegans would think about this. Is this unethical to them? Am I a bad person to them? Now a lot of animals are used for medical research every year in the U.S and other countries. I was wondering what vegans think about these testings. Considering a lot are very important for cancer (and other) research. We can't really substitute them for a human replacement a lot of the times either since most are dangerous experiments.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nps: I don't actually think it was inhumane it's just that I'm interested to know vegans take on that\n\nPss: the animal was frozen and humanely killed before hand, we didn't actually kill it just dissected it",
  "I can see where vegans/vegetarians are coming from when they say that mass industrialized farms of animals are immoral, but what are your thoughts about hunting for meat? I wouldn't think hunting for meat would be immoral at all, animals have been killing each other for food forever. Getting shot with a gun or crossbow is also likely a much quicker and less painful death than being eaten by coyote or other predator, so what are your thoughts about hunting?",
  "http://imgur.com/a/zPHbN\nthe articles that prof commented: [this](http://www.businessinsider.com/india-malnutrition-a-story-of-rotting-crops-and-rotten-bureaucracy-2012-7) and [this](http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/The-mother-of-all-disruptions/article16946195.ece)\n\nif you want some context, earlier today [this happened](http://imgur.com/a/ezZYH)\nand i left the convo at that, but prof keeps commenting?? (which is the one with two articles and longass paragraph)\n\ni want to respond to the last comment where prof claims that it is moot to think that land required for livestock could be used for people oriented agriculture. i think prof is saying that even if animal agriculture didnt exist gov would still subsidize corn anyway? ok i dont know what profs even trying to say with that last one :/ help?",
  "Could someone eloquently explain that chickens are, in fact, harmed?",
  "Does anyone have any solutions to the problems created by invasive species other than extermination of the invasive species? I specifically do not mean measures which help the overall situation while ignoring invasive species, and i specifically do not mean the prevention of invasive species, as we already have many out being invasive already. What measures do you think we should be taking in the face of razorbacks or rabbits, or even less dramatically rats/cats on islands? How would you handle the cleanup of a future version of the Galapagos goat incident?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nThis all is just my ramblings about the subject, was initionally going to be the actual post, but ive had problems with people not understanding my points and so compressed them in the above paragraph. Think of all this as background information if you want to better understand where im coming from. \n\nMy position is that there is no viable solution to invasive species beyond extermination in most cases. Im not going to pretend that every case is an invasive species, I use the term to indicate non native animals which cause lots of harm in the area, I'm not going to claim that we need to remove \"wild\" horses and burros. If an animal is able to live in an area without causing major damage to either other species or the ecosystem it is fine. \n\nI am less fine with maintaining sterilized cat colonies, because while that lowers the cat numbers relative to removal programs, and improves the lives of the cats, the birds don't care about the lives of the cats, they would rather we simply got rid of the cats, which is both a more expensive proposition and probably what we should do. With feral pets near humans there is greater ability for adoption, but that is not something which is universally true, and I would not say that it is inhumane to take lethal solutions against cats which have been introduced onto islands due to the fact that doing nothing will result in lots more death and, more importantly, the death of much more at risk species, such as on hawii with all the native birds or on new zeeland with their birds.\n\nCats, while exceedingly violent compared to their biomass, are not alone, especially on islands, and most of what ive said applies to island invasives as well. To get back to the land, lets focus on razorbacks, or the feral/wild pig/boar situation in texas (and other areas of america). Razorbacks, to apply the specifically american name for them (although i think they might call them that in australia) are a comination of feral pigs and wild boar released deliberately and on accident at various points in history. The reason why they are a problem is that they eat everything, unlike the native pig-like javalina, which (while mostly across the border) live in texas and south and are herbivores, at least as herbivorous as deer. This lack of competition creates a problem both because they eat every small animal that they can and lots of the more edible plants, driving large numbers of animals to simply not exist in the region where the pigs are. There is not enough people who want a razorback, mostly due to their aggression and the danger of keeping a fairly intelligent animal which will eat you if it wants to. They are the main reason why I think that there ultimately  needs to be a way to get assault guns, because they both will eat your crops and are bullet resistant, in addition to the fact that they cause at least 50million in property damage to both agricultural and wild land yearly. I will say that they were introduced by hunters, because I know that it is going to be said, but that is irrelevant to the situation at hand, which is that the main way available to deal with them is to hunt/kill them. I don't even think that anyone has seriously suggested trying to capture and corral them until they die out on their own, because of the possibly of escape and the lack of money for such an escapade. \n\nThat finishes my rambling. Again, while i think i say most of what I need to in the long form text, feel free to ignore it if it does not make sense, really i just want to hear what yall think can be done beyond hunting for the control of invasive species, as most of what ive heard before is preventative or simply denial.",
  "So I saw this article and I'm pretty torn on how I feel about it. I can definitely understand why it happens (just like feral cats in Australia) but I do wonder if there's another solution. \n[German Authorities Will Kill Hybrid Wolf-Dog Pups to Protect Wolf Population](https://focusingonwildlife.com/news/german-authorities-will-kill-hybrid-wolf-dog-pups-to-protect-wolf-population/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-post-title_1120)",
  "I'm asking this because I just saw a post on r/damnthatsinteresting subreddit which stated that the first successful pig heart transplant in a person was made. I don't know the details, I don't know if that person is going to die tomorrow, it's really not important for this question.\n\nI just want to ask a hypothetical question which was inspired by this story: if pig hearts would do 100% of the job that human hearts do, would you be in favour of breeding them in the best way possible and then killing them to get their heart in order to save human lives, maybe even tens of thousands? (I imagine it wouldn't be possible to let them die of old age and then taking their heart because I think it would be unusable). \n\nI'm vegan, but from thinking about it just these few minutes I'm inclined towards saying yes. Which wouldn't make me vegan anymore I guess.",
  "Just curious.",
  "At what point does a being become 'sentient'? Are insects considered to be sentient? Where is the line drawn?",
  "*Apologies if this has been covered here before, I've read a few posts with similar content however none have fully addressed the issues I have*\n\nI am currently vegan however I have been considering consuming animal products from sources which I have personally viewed and vetted that are known to have high welfare standards. \n\nSurely an animal living its life in a captivity that attempts to satisfy an animals natural behaviours followed by a quick painless slaughter is better than never existing. \n\nNow I know this is well trodden ground and I have heard the arguments suggesting that if that is the reason we should constantly breed animals whenever we can as not to deny opportunities for life. However the way I see it the only reason we can breed these animals in the first place is that they provide a farmer with a return that they can use to sustain themselves/their family. No one can simply breed these animals without a use for them and therefore the only way for these animals to have an existence is to be raised for their meat/milk/eggs.  \n\nFor the school of thought that argues that it is wrong to use animals in such an inferior manner what about our impact on wild animals environments through our ever expanding population and its demands (cities, roads, waste etc). We as a species live a life of luxury at the expense of animals irrespective of our diets. To claim that should not exploit these animals is closing our eyes to all the other ways we oppress animals. The only solution would be to cull 80% of our population and for the remnants to live in small wooden huts in the jungle. \n\nTherefore if I had a choice I would surely rather live a life in captivity with higher welfare standards (I appreciate the horrors of modern day factory farming) than never exist at all. Accepting the fact that for these animals there is no other alternative. \n\nPlease let me know what you think. I have a very open mind and I am looking for good arguments to sway me either way. \n\nTL;DR In our modern society a farm animal would have never existed if it wasn't farmed - surely higher welfare farming is better than no existence at all. ",
  "So I've been trying to go full vegan for about a year and a half. I'm mostly there but still struggling with certain foods. \n\nI today came across a debate from a month ago where most people concluding musicians using antique instruments would not be considered vegan and I found it interesting.\n\nI have a rather intimate fondness for classical music as one of my mother's (we shall call her Jane Doe henceforth) plays piano and the other (henceforth Joan Doe) plays cello (I play violin) and so I get pretty defensive over classical music. I will always choose to knowingly support the death and suffering of animals to listen to an orchestra playing Beethoven's Fifth (I know animals were harmed in the creation of the instruments and occasionally in the strings used for the instruments). Whenever that piece is being performed near me I make sure to go even if I know the musicians are using gut strings and antique instruments.\n\nI have strong emotional connections to specific pieces of classical (and contemporary) composers. Elgar's Cello Concerto in E Minor, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, Mars and Jupiter from The Planets, Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake and Paganini/Listz's La Campanella (noticing the theme of melancholia and anger?). I could *never* stop myself (thank you constant need for emotional validation) from seeing those whenever possible regardless of the demand I create for animal suffering.\n\nI'm also adopted and my original parents were fairly abusive and we won't get into that any further. Needless to say I have some seriously disordered eating but it's not important to this discussion (I ramble alot sorry).\n\nSo I'd like to have a discussion/debate about that again. The main issue being using instruments in which there is hide glue, horse hair, etc. being regarded as vegan or non-vegan.\n\nWould ethically sourced horse hair such as from my luthier who keeps horses as pets and obtains his hair during grooming be considered vegan? Would I be considered vegan despite my indirect support for the suffering of animals or no? Is it reducitarian? In the big picture of things, does it really matter? For that matter could hide or gut ever be ethically sourced say after natural death?",
  "Let's pretend that humans can survive by only eating oats. Let's say that oat farming causes the least amount of animal deaths. \n\nNow if vegan junk food causes more indirect animal deaths than oats, how are vegans justified to eat it? Isnt the point to reduce as much harm as possible?\n\nE.g. The impossible burger which required animal testing. Why are vegans justified to eat it when you can eat oats?",
  "Not much text to this one just wanted to discuss. \n\nAI becoming more advanced, if/when they becoming sentient, does owning a Robot become an anti-vegan principle ?",
  "edit: It\u2019s been made clear to me by the lack of direct answers to my question that I really haven\u2019t articulated it well. The following is a scenario that can help illustrate the thought experiment.\n\nLet\u2019s say Person A lives in a 1st world country with plenty of non-animal-based options for food and clothing. I\u2019m prefacing with this because I\u2019m not looking to debate grey areas like someone using an animal when they have absolutely no other option. The majority of animal use in the modern world happens under Person A\u2019s circumstances. \n\nPerson A holds a belief that it is wrong for anyone else to harm or exploit Person A against his/her will. Person A also holds a belief that they have the right to harm or exploit nonhuman animals. \n\nMy question is this: What non-arbitrary reasoning could Person A have for holding these two beliefs simultaneously, given their circumstances? ",
  "#Edit: After all the discussion in this thread and some thinking about the surrounding factors of small free range farming (like egg laying chickens still being bought from factory farm breeders who kill all the male chicks or the health detrements and likely pain cows and pigs have from being selectively overbred for growth or milk production) and especially the discussion of choice (mainly for the very intelligent pigs) I have now become convinced that the instances in which animal farming are morally acceptable are so rare that that the few exceptions are just not worth defending anymore.\n#You (and cosmic skeptic who brought the whole issue on my mind in the first place) have succeeded. Good job and thank you!\n\n[end etit]\n\nI am currently considering switching to a mostly vegan diet mainly because of environmental and economic issues. But I am still not quite convinced by the moral argument when it doesn't concern factory farming. So assuming you go by a Utilitarian perspective of pleasure and suffering, how do you answer the following questions?\n\n1. Does the life of an animal like a chicken or turkey in the wild that has to deal with hunger, thirst, predators and a likely very painful death have a positive or a negative net value in a moral perspective meaning is it good that this animal lives at all?\n2. Can you say for certain that the life of a chicken or turkey on a small farm with a moderate amount of space, a constant food supply and no danger from predators that is eventually killed in a quick manner is worse than the average aforementioned wild animal in terms of pleasure and suffering?\n3. If the net  Utilitarian value of the animal in question 1 is negative then would it be moral to exterminate the wild animals in order to prevent future generations of those animals from suffering?\n4. What about the hunting (and succequent eating) of animals like deer or wild hog in areas where there are no natural predators of those animals anymore and where they are actively destroying their own environment due to their numbers? Is it acceptable? If not, what is the alternative?",
  "My fiance is vegan and so I've been consuming a lot of pro-vegan articles and documentaries. I am also getting into weight lifting and a lot of people over in /r/Fitness recommend the 5-3-1 routine championed by T-Nation. \n\nWhile browsing the TNation website, I came across their article [Vegans Suck at Science. Here's the Proof](https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/vegans-suck-at-science-heres-the-proof). I read it and it sounds legit. When I read the pro-vegan literature, they sound legit too. Obviously, someone is wrong here but I am too new to both to discern who. Is this T-Nation article representing the complete truth?",
  "Vegan here, but want to look into \u201csustainable\u201d methods of farming animals. Not sure this is the place for it, but if anyone can point me towards useful, reliable info on sustainable farming methods? I often see people that aren\u2019t vegan say that they get meat from sustainable sources, or that x type of farming is superior to veganism and to the mainstream farming system. \nPreferably alternatives that could work on a somewhat global scale? Obviously a lot of progress needs to be made to change something like agribusiness on a global scale, but systems that could logically, feasibly apply on a global scale would be useful. \n",
  "Vegan food is too expensive. Compared to meat substitutes it doesn\u2019t take nearly as long to produce, which makes the vegan market a scandal. What can we do about this so going vegan is more financially attractive and accessible to more people?",
  "eating meat means animals more are brought in world and they're more happy than sad over life therefore it's good to eat meat?",
  "Most ethical arguments i hear about veganism are about \"causing unnecessary suffering\". Non-vegans then say that it's still better for animals to have a horrible life than no life at all, and the vegan argument is that you can't ask a non-existent animal if it would rather exist. The counter argument to this is that humans do the exact same thing with babies but then again without reproduction our own species would go extinct. In the end i feel like the discussion just got back to talking about the terrible living conditions and the suffering. But what if animals couldn't feel pain, just like plants can't? If we were able to genetically engineer animals without the ability to feel pain, would you be fine with exploiting and eating them? ",
  "I want to get to a point in my life where all my meat is derived from animals that I hunt, I want to get as far away from factory farming as possible and remove myself from perpetuating that industry. How do vegans view this? \n\nI understand that the most common argument I hear against this is that you want to reduce animal suffering which as a hunter I will be reducing their overall suffering, animals in the wild do not die of old age. They are eaten alive by predators. If an elk or deer is caught by a pack of wolves, the wolves take it down and begin eating immediately, asshole and stomach first. They go for the softest parts and eat inwards from there, the amount of suffering from this is unimaginable. If they could understand and make the decision, I'm quite certain they would choose dying a very very quick death from a rifle bullet rather than being torn apart and eaten alive slowly. What thoughts do vegans have on this type of ideology?",
  "I keep on seeing vegans insist that \"grass fed\" is somehow a fake concept. I beg to differ.\n\nI live in a rural area. There are thousands of cows living all around me that live peaceful lives out on pastures consisting of real grass, clean water, and a covered shelter for winter time where they are fed grass that has been gathered and preserved precisely for winter time feed. If you lived locally, I could physically take you to one of the farms where I bought a 1/4 cow this year, and you could observe them walking around an open pasture land located by a natural river. Every year the grass grows heavily in spring and summer, they eat it, whatever they don't eat gets packaged into big bales which partially ferment. They actually like the partially fermented grass even better, they love the taste. None of these animals are being fed \"fake food\". The idea that all cows live in a tiny stall in a giant feed lot is patently false.\n\nI believe that vegans are heavily invested in propagating the idea that \"all animals\" live in a factory farm, when in fact there are a wide variety of farms out there, operating in vastly different ways. The logical course of action is to avoid purchasing meat from the egregious factory feed lot style operations, and direct our money towards ethical farms who treat their animals with respect. Vegans would have us believe these don't exist, yet every day I drive/bicycle/walk by farms exactly like the above. In fact I know the owners of these farms, the people who work there, and I've personally visited them.\n\nVegans, what would you do if you met some of these farmers...try to tell them they don't respect animals? When they work with them every single day, ensure they are happy, healthy, disease and parasite free? \n\nSome vegans, I'm fairly sure are just against animal domestication in the first place. In that case, sure, thats a different argument entirely.",
  "I'd like to get some feedback on a trait that may be present in infants, one that I think is related to moral agency. My belief is that if I name traits that are associated with different entities, the traits should account for observational differences between the entities. For example, most human infants will grow up to become moral agents, whereas livestock infants will not. In my opinion, there are two possible reasons for this observation, a trait inherent to the human infants, or external influences, such as the way we raise each type of infant. I think there is abundant observational evidence that suggests no matter how hard we try, a livestock infant will never become a moral agent. Therefore, I must conclude that there is something inherent about human infants that accounts for the fact that most of them will grow up to become moral agents. Some would probably refer to this trait as a capability or some type of potential. I'm going to refer to it as a \"precursor\" trait.\n\nFirst, I feel that moral agency is a trait that is not trivial in the same way that skin color would be considered trivial when it comes to moral value. For example, if a human adult decides to euthanize an animal, they are (hopefully) doing so because it is in the best interests of the animal. It's hard for me to see this being the case if the human adult cannot tell right from wrong. Even though the precursor trait is not the same as moral agency, it's necessary to attain moral agency, and therefore I feel it is relevant.\n\nThe precursor trait has some unique properties. First, the trait is necessary for attainment of moral agency, but not sufficient. For example, a feral child - one with no exposure to right or wrong would not know the difference between right and wrong simply due to upbringing. However, the feral child may still possess the trait. \n\nSecond, there may be no way to know if the trait actually exists within a particular infant. For example, infants that eventually turn into serial killers may not possess the trait. We may be able to test for sentience in animal infants (maybe see if they respond to painful stimuli), but I don't know how one would test for the precursor trait I've mentioned.\n\nNow the problem presented by the trait - infants cannot attain the trait of moral agency without a proper upbringing. But we do not know which infants are capable of attaining moral agency because we do not know which ones possess the precursor trait. Therefore, I would claim that we have an obligation to raise all infants with the goal of attaining moral agency in mind, regardless of whether or not the trait is present. To do anything less would result in harm to the infants that possess the trait. This implies that I cannot kill any infants.\n\nMy thinking has some analogies to some legal systems. Humans are free to live their lives unless they have committed a crime and then they can be punished. This means there is a presumption that allows everybody to be free even though some will commit crimes. Individuals are punished only if they are proven to commit a crime. With respect to the precursor trait, there is a presumption that all infants should be raised with the goal of attaining moral agency and an individual would only be harmed if moral agency was not attained.\n\nPlease note that I understand that I have not addressed the mentally impaired with this argument. Also, I'm not arguing that the precursor trait justifies harming animals. However, I do think it makes infants distinct from animals with respect to moral consideration.\n\nThoughts? ",
  "Considering that it is very difficult if not impossible to be vegan and not support corporate agribusiness that destroys rainforest and exploits the local labor of the people who live in these areas so that large corporations can unsustainably grow soy, palm oil, paper and other plant-based products, wouldn't the actual ethical solution be to support local businesses only?",
  "Curious how vegans feel about eating insects and fungus...\n\nIntentional and incidental :D\n\nIf fungus angle is weird, mycelium (mushrooms) can solve mazes with more accuracy and problem solving prowess than people can. Paul Stammets a leading mycologist as well as peers in the scientific community, are having trouble (cant) disproving mycelium is sentient... intelligently solving mazes with numerous red herrings designed to fool or mislead senses. Anyways, it wouldnt surprise me whatsoever in the near future for it to be common knowledge fungus is sentient.\n\ni dont know many vegans, the ones i do want me to know, and are evangelists and annoying. I do however notice they dont seem to put any effort into de-bugging organic produce. once i brought a bunch of blackberries i grew to work. a vegan guy at work ate a lot without washing them... despite a large note i left warning these are yard fruits, no pesticides, insects may live in them... o well :x made me wonder\n\nSo... how do vegans feel about eating things with faces or smart things with no faces?",
  "As you all know, busting makes me feel good. The ghosts already dead, right? And often times, they're being jerks, like haunting the living n'shit.\n\nCan you be vegan and still be a ghost-buster?",
  "**OVERVIEW**\n\nHi, /r/DebateAVegan! I'm not really here for a fight, but I am truly curious about how you guys feel about The Vegan Stigma and evangelizing veganism. I come from a place of 100% respect and I value your opinions and values.\n\nAs some background, here are some of my views:\n\n- I'm currently an \"omni\"\n- I *don't think* that animal farms are bad/unnatural *in and of themselves*\n- I *don't think* that \"omni\" diets are bad (I mostly believe in balance)\n- I *do think* that factory farms have abhorrent laws and practices\n- I *do think* that, all in all, local farms run a more ethical business, but they still sell animals to other farmers and slaughterhouses, so they aren't perfect\n- I *do think* that slaughterhouse laws and practices are archaic\n- I *do think* that the environmental effects of farms are __hugely__ detrimental\n\nHOWEVER, here is the thing. I feel pretty similar to [this redditor](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/52oqmb/i_hate_being_vegan/) in that I'm terrified of associating myself with The Vegan Stigma. If I was going to commit myself to this diet, I feel like that it's something that I really need to feel strongly about and be 100% completely unashamed of it. \n\n-----------------------------\n\n**THE VEGAN STIGMA AND FREELEE THE BANANA GIRL**\n\nI feel like veganism has a stigma attached to it because, when you say you're a vegan, people will feel like you're challenging their lifestyle and you may be labelled as pretentious. At least for me, when I encountered a vegan I felt... guilty. Like my meat-eating and dairy-eating habits were being challenged. So, I could see why a lot of people respond to that with anger instead of inquisitiveness. Because, honestly, people *really* don't like to change, and they *really* don't like feeling like they are unethical/animal abusers/environment destroyers/unhealthy eaters.\n\nSO, this is where freelee comes in. I know, I know, a lot of vegans and non-vegans alike think that she's a poisonous lech, but hear me out. Freelee is unapologetically vegan. She evangelizes that shit like a Jehovah's Witness. Her approach is, in my opinion, uncompassionate and narcissistic, BUT, that girl gets the clicks! You may hate that she's associated with the movement and that many people are turned off to veganism by her, but... even though I really don't agree with her methods... I feel like telling people \"you can eat whatever you want, no problem grrrl\" won't get people to change their habits. People usually don't change unless something extreme happens in their life (like getting super angry at this random vegan chick). \n\n__I will emphasize here that I think freelee should rethink a lot of her methods and [catty, juvenile responses](http://freeleebananagirl.tumblr.com/post/141860995345/erin-janus-just-wrote-this-freelee-has-become)__, but what I am saying here is that she is clearly not ashamed of being vegan and says some brutally honest things to force people to take a hard look at their lifestyle.\n\nIf I committed to a vegan lifestyle, I would want to be unapologetically vegan and be happy to give my curious friends and family the cold hard facts about the meat and dairy industry *if and only if they asked*, but I wouldn't want to be as aggressive as freelee and come off as a poisonous bully.\n\n-----------------------------\n\n**HOW TO BE UNAFRAID OF THE STIGMA**\n\nI really don't want to adopt this lifestyle if I'm ashamed to be associated with it. Given that it's something that is pretty controversial, the only way that the mainstream culture will accept it is if there are more people who are openly vegan without being a pushy asshole about it. There have to be more people who are unapologetic and proud to be vegan.\n\nSo, how do you develop this confidence? \n\nA couple of ideas that I had is:\n\n- Narrow down why I believe in it and have citations/statistics from reputable sources to back it up.\n- Make friends with people who are vegan\n\nI don't think that will be enough, though.\n\nAlthough the citations will give me confidence in what I believe, they may not give me the confidence to deal with the people who feel threatened/angry by a vegan lifestyle. I try to avoid conflict in my life if at all possible, but dietary needs is just one of those things that you can't keep private. Friends throw parties. Mothers bake birthday cakes. Employers invite their co-workers for drinks. Saying something like \"I don't eat dairy\" or \"no thanks, I'm not hungry\" avoids conflict, but who wants to walk on eggshells about something that is such a big part of their life?\n \n\n-----------------------------\n\n**IF YOU ARE AN ETHICAL* VEGAN, THEN SHOULDN'T YOU EVANGELIZE?**\n\n_*animal abuse or environmental_\n\nWith all of that being said, I have a lot of mixed feelings about evangelism. I feel like attraction is more compassionate and less pushy than promotion, but it moves a lot slower. I do believe that nobody should ever be forced to do anything that they don't want to, so perhaps I'll rephrase the question:\n\n_If you are an ethical vegan, then wouldn't the ethical thing to do is to promote your beliefs?_\n\nI feel like, honestly, a single person removing animal products from their diet doesn't change much, but if that single person could get their SO, family, and friends to remove animal products from their diet, then that would most definitely impact the industry. That being said... I would imagine that being That Vegan that shows up to Thanksgiving with pictures of slaughterhouses is not really ideal as that just creates conflict and distance.\n\nSo, what do you guys think? What's the happy medium?\n\n-----------------------------\n\n**IN CONCLUSION**\n\nI really appreciate you guys reading this and taking the time to respond. I don't know anybody very well that is vegan or even vegetarian, so I truly value hearing your thoughts without fear of criticism for considering a vegan diet.\n",
  "Hi, I'm vegan and have just adopted a cat since he was not having a great time living at my sisters with her two dogs.\n\nI'm just interested to hear from anybody who knows more than I do about the dietary requirements of cats. Ie can they live healthily on a vegan diet? If not can they eat vegan food the majority of the time and be fine? Can I buy any good options in the uk? Etc.\n\nThanks.",
  "The crux of my question is whether you are a vegan because you feel it is morally good or because you feel eating animal products is morally bad. A analogous question would be do you practice christianity because you want to go to heaven or rather so you don't go to hell. I find it a tough question to ask in any situation but I think it shows internal motivation for an action. I will say I am omnivore but I absolutely accept veganism and it's ideals as completely legitimate. I'm more so curious if being a vegan conveys a certain moral high ground that I have observed a few times.",
  "I'm wondering if you think eating and selling meat  and fish should be illegal where it can be punished with fines or imprisonment, or if it should stay legal - but maybe be seen as bad like cheating. Or if you think it's fine like how it's today.\n\nPlease explain why. You can write \"pro legal, vegan\", \"pro legal, omnivore\", \"cons legal, vegan\" etc., so I can see what you're standing for. I want to hear arguments both for and against when it comes to ethics, animal's rights, economy, resources to feed humanity etc.",
  "So today I see a popular post in the vegan sub saying \u201chard pill to swallow: if you are not vegan then you are pro-animal abuse\u201d \n\nI would like to hear some thoughtful debate on the following:\n\"harder pill to swallow: if you own a smartphone, then you are pro-human suffering and therefore not vegan\"\n\nEdit: I phrased this pretty poorly.  I disagree with both statements, but I'm looking for some thoughtful debate on why a vegan would agree with the first statement but disagree with the second.\n\nSecond Edit: I feel like most of the responses are basically saying \"I do own a smartphone, and therefore I am pro-human suffering, but that doesn't make me not vegan because it's too inconvenient not to have one, or I chose a profession that requires it, or some other reason that is acceptable within the vegan philosophy\"",
  "I am a meat eater & I recently watched a vegan live stream educating people like me on vegan beliefs. This got me thinking.\nI came to this conclusion.\n\n\u2018Vegans are thinking about the cause, \nBut not the result.\u2019\n\nLet me explain. I completely understand We don\u2019t really need to eat meat anymore. It\u2019s a massive waste of resources and it\u2019s not good for the planet\u2026\n\n\u2018Imagine\u2019 the whole of the UK realises this and decides to make the change to a completely vegan civilisation. Great! Well not really. (In my opinion)\n\n1. Domesticated meat produce animals will suffer more than they do now.\n \n(Scenario)\nThe UK are now a vegan civilisation and all domesticated animals are free to live their life.\n\nAs you may know. 83% of all plant harvest are used to feed animals for the meat industry. \nBut we\u2019re vegan now right? \nWell them animals still exist and still need feeding and we\u2019re going to need more land to accommodate our own vegan diet needs now aswel.\n\nSure we can put them on massive fields and let them live their life naturally. But remember cows have no natural predators in the UK. We killed all  them hundreds of years ago to protect our cattle. Which means They would massively breed out of control (or not breed at all) and eat all their food supply and would starve to death because not a single farmer is going to want to spend their time and money feeding animals that have no profitable gain to them.\n\nSurely we couldn\u2019t let them starve? After all. We got them into this mess why should they suffer?\n\nDomesticated sheep.  Bred for thousands of years through natural selection to grow a unhealthy amount of wool which will lead to a painful and horrific death naturally\u2026 Well they\u2019re not going to sheer themselves? \n\nAre we really not going to make use of this material that we forced them to grow through years of torture and in-breeding and just let them suffer? \n\nConclusion:\n\nWe have forced Domesticated animals into a state where they would not survive naturally. And would be far more humane for the species\nTo be fed a well Nourished diet, Treated well and euthanised in painless method. After all, That\u2019s what we designed them for.\n\n2. How are we going to accommodate the extra need of plant food supply? \n\nYou may know that farmers spray their crops with pesticides. These are absolutely devastating for wild life. \n  \nA massive increase of pesticides would cause a massive domino effect on plants and other wildlife, Honey bees are a example here as pesticides are very dangerous to them.\n\n(Not really the UK) but countries are massively burning down forests already to accommodate the demand for land to harvest on. \nImagine how much this would increase?!\nAnimals homes are being destroyed. \n\nImagine the insane increase in farmland machinery. Which will contribute to global warming.\nTractors, combine harvesters etc.\n\n3. Finals comments \n\nOther than the massive loss of jobs & economic failure this would cause I think I covered most of my thoughts I wanted to in this post other than a few minor ones.\n\nI understand I could be & most probably am wrong about some, maybe all of the things I mentioned. This is why it\u2019s a change my mind post. \n\nI do honestly believe being vegan has good intentions but I\u2019m not necessarily a good thing. And I will not be making the switch to a vegan lifestyle because of the reason I stated above. \nWe really messed these animals up for our own personal gain. There\u2019s no reversing what we did to them. We used to think it was good thing. Now we realise it\u2019s a bad thing (just like fossil fuels) but animal harvesting lead us to life as we know it now and I personally don\u2019t believe there\u2019s no going back.\n\nThankyou for reading. I\u2019m open for criticism. I\u2019m open for being educated I\u2019m open to admit I\u2019m wrong. I\u2019m open to debate with people in the comments\n\nI don\u2019t mean to offend anybody with this post. Respect to all your choices & beliefs.",
  "I am sorry that this discussion might probably be overused, however I think I might have something new to discuss with some vegetarians or vegans who are vegetarians or vegans because they believe strongly in the cause. I know vegetarians that follow that movement for stupid reasons... and to discuss with them has no purpose. In any case I am very thankful that someone can make a discussion with reasonable arguments. \n\nThink of this, there is a scenario in which you have two subjects, you MUST torture one. However you are still a very sensitive human being who is against violence in any way, and you find any form of violence to be detestable. But in this experiment you have to do it (just for the sake of argument) One of the subjects is mute (I mean that he/she can't speak... I don't know if this is the correct way to say it.) and the other subject is not mute. Note that you don't know this information. Before the procedure takes place you can torture for 10 seconds both subjects to see which one you prefer to torture. So you realize that one shouts horribly and the other one is silent, you can't see physically none of them... Most of us human beings would torture the mute person, since you can't hear it shout, then most of the times you would assume it doest feel pain. \n\nMy point is... the vegetarian argument operates under the assumption that plants don't feel physical pain, whereas animals do... \n\nI think you know were I am going with this discussion. It is not proven that plants feel physical pain, however what if that pain is not in any way similar to what human pain is? I mean why are we only protecting one of the 5 kingdoms in nature. There is Animalia, which is the one we protect, but there is also Plantae, Fungi, Monera and Protist. \n\nWhy just Animalia? Is it just because we can relate to the pain with facial expressions and sounds?\n\nIm sorry if I sound stupid, but really think about the issue, I am not against veganism, however I do believe that there is a sense of hypocrisy or at least a sense of discrimination to the other living organism kingdoms. \n\nI finally want to mention that I absolutely HATE humans for doing terrible things with animals, I suffer more from animal killings than from human killings, so I am really not biased against veganism. \n\nI hope you understand what I am trying to say, since English is my second language... I hope I am not writing like crap.\n\n\n\n",
  "The part of veganism that is most appealing to me is the idea of reducing suffering. I don't care about health, environment, or animal rights arguments at all.\n\nSo, a fish in the wild is going to die eventually, probably eaten by a parasite or a predator, or will die from starvation or disease. How does abstaining from eating wild caught fish reduce suffering?\n\nDo modern methods of fishing cause them more suffering than if they were to die in other ways?\n\nThanks!",
  "This is a random and largely unimportant question, just curious on what y\u2019all think. \n\nSo in a full dive VR Scenario like the Matrix or Sword Art Online, would you eat an animal? Why or why not ?",
  "So this is a divisive topic for many, and I've heard a range of views on this subject as to whether honey is or is not considered to be vegan. \n\nSome vegans say yes, others say no. Here, I hope to gather some of the main arguments for and against, to help build a better understanding of the topic and people's stances on it.\n\nAs such, this is an open invitation to fact check said arguments if they're based in incorrect or misinterpreted facts. Or indeed to disagree on points of ethics. The idea is to discuss ideas and information, and learn. \n\nIn my view there is a strong case for locally produced honey; and an overwhelming case for decentralised community beekeeping. There is a lesser case for mass-market honey (and personally I do not consume it). \n\nBelow are primarily a collection of the main arguments I have encountered - and please, I'd love to hear people's views on these points and anything I may have missed! I've tried to be as objective as possible about this so that the post is something both vegans and non-vegans seeing this post can potentially engage with, and my hope is that based on people's responses I can edit the post to collate the main positions for and against.\n\nFor the purposes of this post, when I say \"vegan\" I mean the principles of basing consumption around minimising animal suffering and maximising animal welfare (and consequently, avoiding consuming animals or animal products). Hopefully this is an acceptable general definition for the broad majority of the vegan community. I add this just so we can keep the discussion focused on the bees rather than quibbling over the semantics of what it means to be vegan. I also include a lot of ecological and environmental arguments because, for the most part, I feel that these values align closely with vegan values, and we should care about making the world a better place for all creatures. \n\nThe summary is:\n\n* We should support beekeepers and their businesses (and maybe even the ethically dubious ones); \n* honey can be harvested ethically, sustainably, and non-invasively (but it often isn't); \n* bee farming is not an inherently exploitative practice - hive migration and 'consent';\n* honey is a by-product of pollination and should not go to waste;\n* the problem with honey substitutes and alternative products (i.e. agave); \n* ethical consumption - why honey is a more ethical product than most of your cruelty free grocery list\n* everyone should start beekeeping (and why if they did, most of the ethical problems around honey would disappear).\n\nSo: \n\n1. **Beekeeping is necessary to maintain bee populations (and high bee populations are important).**\n   1. We can all agree, bees are pretty great. They are vital to our ecosystems and are our primary pollinators. More bees = more good. Unfortunately, native bee populations struggle for a variety of reasons. Part of that reason is outcompetition by the non-native honeybee species most apiaries keep. The biggest reasons however are pesticides, agricultural insecticides, and other forms of pollution and disease, habitat destruction, global warming (longer colder winters kills off bees), and our society's weird obsession with populating its green spaces (parks, gardens, green areas of cities) with non-native plants and flowers or species which don't support the bee populations (and several of which are toxic to bees). The key point here is that removing honeybees from the equation will not cause native wild bee species to suddenly recover, because these issues affect both honeybees and native species. The difference is, the native species are less able to replenish their population to recover from losses, as they're self-maintaining their populations; whereas honeybees are cultivated and cared for in environments that support their populations.\n   2. Honeybees vs wild bees is a false dichotomy; supporting both aren't opposing goals and there is no mutual exclusivity in doing so. Honeybees are inferior pollinators to wild bees, we know this. There are many things that we can (and I think should) do to support our native bee species, such as lobbying to ban pesticides & insecticides that are harmful to bees, planting more native wildflowers, setting up 'wild hives'. However, overall having high bee populations irrespective of species is better than having neither, and the native bees continue to die out regardless of what the honeybees are up to, affecting the whole ecosystem. Artificial hives are protected from predators, insulated against cold in the winter, and when honey supplies run low and the hive risks starvation, the keepers can feed the bees (either sugar syrup as is more normal in large industrial hives, or residual honey solution from the excess production of honey during summer months as is more normal in smaller scale or sustainable hives).  The focus needs to be on helping to support our native wild bee populations, rather than pulling out of the honeybee economy by ceasing honey consumption. \n2. **Supporting beekeepers**\n   1. Buying honey supports beekeepers, and that is a good thing:\n   2. Here, we have to balance out the ethics. On the one hand, supporting apiaries = more & healthier bees = food & healthy ecosystems. On the other, apiaries exist on an sliding scale, from exploitative and 'abusive' to symbiotic and non-invasive. \n   3. The two main arguments I see are this: Firstly, that unlike with large scale livestock farming, it is objectively good for the ecosystem to have more bees in it, even if they're coming from bad apiaries. They are the only ones cultivating bees at any scale significant enough to have an impact. I personally begrudge the compromise and my ideal model involves small scale decentralised community beekeeping, discussed later, but it is a fair argument in respect of the current agricultural reality (even if one I personally dislike).\n   4. The second is that beekeepers (I am just using this term generally for any beekeeping operation of scale) are the ones doing the most work alongside environmental organisations and conservation groups to fight against harmful pesticides, for pollinator friendly policies, and raising awareness about bees (and how they're all dying & without them we're all screwed - I'm sure we can all agree that less bees dying is a good thing). In addition to the eco/environmental ethics stuff, this is also effectively an animal rights campaign for bees. \n   5. Unfortunately for beekeepers, beekeeping is also not the most lucrative of professions. It doesn't really lend itself awfully well to intensive farming techniques - the bees still need space and access to good local flora; honey takes a long time to make; and it takes time for hives to recover their populations if used for agricultural pollination (which also slows down honey production). This makes beekeeping a rather niche and not especially popular profession, and fewer beekeepers means fewer bees. We want more bees.\n3. **Many bee-farming methods are sustainable and are not harmful to the bees**.\n   1. It is moot that most any large scale industrial farming methods are harmful to the environment and animal (or in this case, insect) welfare. This is equally true for both livestock (no need to expand on this one in a vegan subreddit) and vegetable agriculture (fertiliser runoff, soil depletion, habitat destruction, pesticides etc.) The point here is to distinguish beekeeping from livestock farming, and emphasise that beekeeping (and honey production) can be symbiotic and cruelty free.\n   2. Unlike animal livestock, there are bee farming methods which do not 'exploit' bee populations. There is a firm distinction between e.g. sustainable meat farming and sustainable honey farming. Bees do not go to the slaughterhouse to produce honey. They are more or less left to their own devices and periodically checked for hive health and disease. Far fewer bees die incidentally when harvesting honey than die pollinating fields or during crop harvesting. Where this happens it is typically due to being accidentally crushed when the combs are removed. There are good arguments as to why this does not render honey harvesting as non-vegan. However for those unconvinced by those arguments, there are certain hive designs like drip hives that eliminate this issue entirely.\n   3. It is a misconception that bees 'need' all the honey they produce. During summer months, most honeybee hives overproduce honey at a rate greater than the hive can sustain. This can harm the structural integrity of hives, and cause excess bee death as the internal hive space is overfilled with honey or bees are killed to make room for new combs. Harvesting the excess honey is not harmful to the health of the hive, and in many respects is good for the overall health of the hive. As above, 'traditional' beekeeping usually keeps some of this harvested excess honey in reserve, to feed it back to the hive during winter. There are also fantastic new methods being developed like drip-farming which is completely non-invasive.\n   4. As a counterpoint to the above, we have the issue that most industrial hives use sugar solution to feed the hives and usually overharvest leading to the keepers using the solution to feed the hives even during summer when honey should be abundant. There is also a significantly higher rate of bee death in industrial hives & honey harvesting techniques, especially if automated. Albeit, this strongly depends on hive design. As with most intensive farming, whether its quinoa or honey, intensive practices are ecologically harmful and ethically problematic with respect to animal (or in this case insect) welfare. This forms the lesser case - ultimately, these beekeeping practices do not prioritise hive health, and typically use wing clipping to prevent hive migration. I do not personally support mass market honey produced in this way, however I would like to invite discussion on the topic as I believe there is still an argument to be made in respect of supporting the overall beekeeping economy for broader environmental and ecological reasons. \n4. **Hive Migration and 'consent' - unlike livestock, swarms are not captive and can and do abandon hives where they do not like the conditions (with certain exceptions).** \n   1. Bees practice hive migration. Hive migration is where a hive will form a migration swarm and abandon their hive, leaving to form a new hive in a new location. These migrations may be either partial, when the original hive reaches a certain size, and produces a new queen to set off and form her own hive; or complete hive migrations in which the entire population will abandon the hive entirely, because hive conditions are unsatisfactory or in continuous decline. There's nothing much a keeper can do to prevent this (other than clipping, discussed below) because the hives naturally need to be designed to allow the bees to move freely in and out to do their thing, collect pollen etc. A migratory swarm is a pretty incredible thing. \n   2. There are two approaches to this in beekeeping. The first is wing clipping, where the queen's wings are clipped to prevent hive migration. This is a common practice in larger/industrial scale apiaries, in which hive conditions are poor due to overharvesting and use of sugar syrup as a food source replacement. In practical terms, these apiaries 'need' to do this, otherwise they would lose a lot of bees. In ethical terms, this is clearly exploitative farming, clearly not vegan, and even for non-vegans it's very ethically questionable. \n   3. The second is to create an environment for the bees that is better the alternative. If the bees like it then they won't migrate. Bees stay with their beekeepers, typically, because the keeper provides a better environment than the bees would get in the wild and the bees know that they are being taken care of. \n   4. The hive understands that the keepers feed them and maintain and repair the hives, and they are safe from the cold and predators. In return, the keeper harvests the honey. Hives understand that there is a relationship in which this is done in return for tending to the hive, and as far as insect reasoning goes, that's a deal that the hive (usually) accepts. But if the hive has a problem with it, it is quite capable of defending itself; and if it really wants to leave, it will. Hives get to 'know' their keepers and don't attack swarm them even when they are harvesting honey - and when well looked after, rarely choose to abandon their hives.\n   5. It is worth mentioning that many keepers use smoke to pacify hives when harvesting honey, and it's fair to distinguish those that use this practice from the keepers who do not use smoke. While it is 'harmless' to the bees, the bees don't get a say. On the other hand, there are many who do not; and there are certain species of more docile bee more appropriate to smokeless harvesting.\n5. **Bees are hive insects, not animals.**\n   1. This is a controversial topic with a range of views. However the real crutch of this point is the idea that a bee is not an individual animal; it is a hive insect. \n   2. When looking at bee health and what's good for bees, it is not appropriate to import the same ethical judgements we apply to animal welfare and look at each individual bee as a precious creature that needs protecting. Hundreds and thousands of bees die and are killed/\"recycled\" by the hive \\*constantly\\* as part of the overall functioning of a hive. Bees do this with their own hive populations. If food is scarce, they cull themselves. They recycle their 'dead' for resources and material to be reinvested into the hive. ***The organism, truly, is the hive itself.*** Not each individual bee. The bees are more like the cells that make up that overall organism. On a personal basis we can have an empathic reaction to bees - they're cute, they're great for the environment, I'd always feed a struggling bee a bit of syrup to get it back on it's feet (wings?) but that's just me and my personal emotions and love of bees. In my mind, I know that it's the hive that matters. So here's the thing: if a few bees are killed in the process of beekeeping, but the overall health of the hive benefits as a result of that process/relationship, then that is not an exploitative relationship. It is far closer to pruning a tree to take off dead limbs than milking a cow.\n   3. One of the most common comparisons I hear is that it is like taking milk from a cow. This is an absolutely false equivalency and it seems to come mostly from a place of ignorance about how bees work, and emotional reasoning. Bees are not cows, they aren't even mammals with complex nervous systems or emotional/reasoning ability. Honey is not milk, you don't get it by squeezing the bees and you aren't eating the bees themselves like a crunchy honey filled snack. Cows are kept in a forced cycle of pregnancy in order to ensure they continue to produce milk, separated from their calves, and often hooked up to painful mechanical milking apparatus. It's inherently exploitative and abusive on any large scale. Bees however, do not need to be forced or coerced to produce honey; it is a byproduct of resource harvesting. They also do not have feelings, and the hive doesn't actually care that much about the beekeepers harvesting the honey (provided the overall hive is looked after and the harvesting is not excessive or invasive/destructive to the hive) - the hive understands there is a symbiotic relationship involved and it benefits more from that relationship than not (otherwise the hive will just migrate somewhere else, as above.) Again - the emphasis is on what the hive 'wants' rather than individual worker bees or what have you (and of course it's impossible to imply mammalian reasoning onto a hive mind, hence why the \"wants\" is in inverted quotes, but hives are a form of distributed intelligence in their own way, and it acts with a certain degree of personality and intentionality).\n6. **On pollination**\n   1. The \\*vast\\* majority of farmed bees are not used to produce honey, but to pollinate crops. There isn't actually a ton of money involved in honey, compared to the effort involved in producing it. Beekeepers typically make up that financial deficit by 'renting' their bees for agricultural use, transporting them to fields and having them do their thing. This is absolutely essential for vegetable agriculture generally, and is the main income stream for a lot of apiaries. This is unfortunately a very raw deal for the bees for many reasons, expanded upon below. The end meaning however is that rather than bees being raised to produce honey, honey is far more frequently a byproduct of industrial pollination which is sold on to maximise revenue and prevent wastage.\n   2. *A note on agricultural pollination:* \n      1. As above, many apiaries make the bulk of their income providing pollination services to farmers, rather than honey production. Hives will be rented out to pollinate agricultural cropland, because it is not possible for wild pollinators to effectively pollinate large fields of crops. This practice is both absolutely essential to modern agriculture and deeply problematic. \n      2. This is because many of these crops naturally contain chemicals/toxins that are harmful to bees; and because farmers use insecticides and pesticides on their fields which are toxic to bees. Almonds, for example, contain a chemical that is highly toxic to bees; so much so that many keepers are becoming increasingly unwilling to rent their hives to pollinate almond farms at all because they can lose up to 40% or more of their whole bee population in one pollination. In regard to the pest/insecticides, this is an even more serious issue. Beekeepers can choose not to rent their hives to almond farms, but the majority of crops are treated with pesticides, which make it very hard to avoid. Certain common pesticides can seriously impact hive health, as the 'sick' bees return to the hive and contaminate it after pollinating. \n   3. Unsurprisingly, beekeepers don't like losing their hives. Both economically, as beekeepers have to factor in the expectation that the population of their hives will take a hit from each pollination, and will take time to recover before they can be used again; but also because most beekeepers tend to actually quite like bees and it makes them unhappy when a ton of them die pollinating chemical sprayed farms in order to make ends meet as a bee-based business.  \n   4. The crux here is, the bees are being farmed for agricultural use regardless of whether or not people buy honey. Otherwise, the honey goes to waste. So twofold, a) waste = bad; and b) it supports the apiaries who are responsible for maintaining the pollinator populations necessary to maintain our food supplies and ecosystems. Bees are the true MVPs of our ecosystems, and we are utterly dependent upon them - and we have them to thank for making plant based diets possible.  \n7. **Honey farming is significantly less harmful to both bees and ecosystems than popular vegan honey alternatives, such as agave syrup.** \n   1. Its fair to mention that a good number of the vegan community is aware that substitutes like agave are harmful, and they do not consume it either. And also, that being anti honey does not necessarily mean being pro-agave (to avoid any implied false comparison or straw manning). However if you are vegan and currently use agave as a 'cruelty free' honey substitute, you may wish to consider the below.\n   2. Whether you consume agave or not, it is the most popular vegan substitute for honey, and the dietary preferences within this community drive global consumer trends. It is primarily the demand for a vegan honey substitute that drives global supply and demand for agave outside of South America. Growing agave is, plainly, terrible for the environment. It is a very slow growing crop that requires an enormous amount of chemical fertiliser, herbicides, pesticides etc. to grow; and in order to obtain the syrup, the entire plant must be killed. And this isn't even taking into consideration the added environmental impact of transporting that agave from South America to the rest of the world. As with any crop doused in pesticides and other chemicals, when a hive is used to pollinate that crop, a lot of bees get sick and die.\n   3. Honey is invariably almost always locally sourced, being a much more eco-friendly product overall and a far smaller contributor to pollution. It also takes up net-zero space by virtue of it being a byproduct of pollination. Far more bees die in order to grow agave (or indeed pretty much any large scale crop at all) than die to produce honey. As stated elsewhere, in most conventional hives it is likely that a few bees  bees may be accidentally crushed when removing the combs (something done periodically anyway to monitor the health of the hive) - however this is nothing compared to the number that will die from pesticides producing 'plant based' and 'cruelty free' honey alternatives. And that is just talking about the bees; there are also the insects, small mammals, birds, and other creatures affected by the land clearance, habitat destruction, and harvesting involved in planting and growing a crop.\n   4. The bottom line is, putting honey substitutes (or really, vegetables in general) on the table is not possible without a significant amount of bee death to carry out mass pollination of those agricultural crops. Honey is comparably less harmful to and less exploitative of bees than the products marketed as cruelty free/plant based alternatives, and involves less bee death and less harm to the hive *in addition to* being significantly more ecologically sustainable. It is more cruelty free than an almond, or an avocado.\n   5. Therefore, increasing demand for alternative products and reducing demand for honey is ultimately harmful to bees and harmful to the environment because: it makes beekeeping less lucrative and more dependent on income from agricultural pollination. Less bees = more bad, as above. And also as above, the high amount of bee death involved in agricultural pollination is significantly contributed to by consumer demand for certain products that are marketed to vegan consumers as ethical alternatives, but which in fact are unsustainable and/or harmful to pollinators (and much more so than harvesting honey). \n8. **Ethical consumption**\n   1. The old \"there's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism\" adage does apply here and it's fair to say we're all just trying to do our best to live our lives whilst making the smallest negative impact on animal/ecological/environmental welfare that it is possible for us to do under such systems. We don't all have a choice in where our food comes from, so we do our best.\n   2. We are however, responsible for making sure that ethical consumption is ethical *in fact* and not just in principle. Picking the path of least suffering means being honest with ourselves about where our food comes from and how it is produced. It also means taking responsibility for the commercial pressures applied to the food chain & distribution by veganism taking off in popularity, and more people increasingly become interested in ethical consumption. In my view, part of that means saying no to so-called 'cruelty free' vegan alternative products like agave syrup, which pays lip service to the 'plant based' ethos of veganism, but swims over the actual ethics part where producing and shipping agave halfway across the world to meet the increase in demand in western markets, driven by veganism, is dreadful for the environment. Agave is not an ethical product and we should not embrace it as such simply because it comes from a plant. The distinction comes down more to semantics than applied environmental ethics.\n   3. Animal/insect/ecological welfare is a holistic, not individual process. There's no meaningful difference between a bee dying to harvest honey and a bee dying because it's been run through an industrial grain processor or poisoned by insecticides when carrying out agricultural pollinations. Either way the bee has died in order to produce food that you eat. Honey harvesting is less harmful to bees than pollination or agricultural harvesting; and does not involve habitat destruction, land clearance, and the thousands of small birds, mammals, lizards, and bugs that get killed en masse by combine harvester blades when harvest time comes. \n   4. If the idea of veganism is to take the best choices possible to avoid consuming animals or animal products (or products derived from animal harm) & otherwise promote those values in the world, then the most ethically consistent approach is the \"least harm + maximum good\" approach. If you are ethically OK with consuming an avocado, then you should be ethically OK with consuming something that involves an equal or lesser amount of animal harm in its production. Well, that's honey. \n   5. With respect to agricultural pollination (I know I keep mentioning it in a post about honey but it is very relevant), bees are carrying out all this pollination activity regardless as part of the agricultural lifecycle, and by just buzzing around doing their thing when they're not 'on the job'. Again, the primary business activity of most large scale apiaries is agricultural pollination, not honey production & sale. The honey is primarily a byproduct of carrying out the pollination activity. So - what do you do with it? Honeybees in agricultural rotations overproduce honey and this excess needs to be removed for the health of the hive **whether or not people buy it.** So the alternative is, what, just throw it out? Stockpile it (and pay the costs of storage) for no real purpose beyond topping up the hive's food supply during winter? That is enormously wasteful, and not realistic. So by consuming honey you're ensuring that the honey doesn't go to waste, as well as supporting apiaries and therefore bees.\n9. **Conclusion + why we should all start keeping bees: a note on community beekeeping**\n   1. Thanks to those who have stayed with me through my essay on bees and honey. When it comes down to it, it remains a personal choice but I hope that this has provoked some interesting discussion and maybe opened a few minds to honey as an ethical product which is consistent with the values of veganism, environmentalism, and eco-ethics.\n   2. Overall, I remain generally anti-industrial bee farming. However I appreciate that modern agriculture has rendered hive pollination of agricultural crops a necessity, and there is a demand that needs to be met (and a price paid by the bees) in order to keep producing crops to feed people. However, going into all this is easily enough for a separate essay so I won't dig in on this topic here. This is about the bees.\n   3. I appreciate that I've mentioned agricultural pollination quite a lot in a post which is primarily about honey, but it is important to mention them together because they are not separable. It used to be the case in most of Europe that almost every town and village would keep bees for honey and pollination. Wide-spread, decentralised beekeeping is the single best thing we can do for bee populations as a society (in addition to planting lots of native wildflowers everywhere - guerrilla gardening is good stuff.) Many apartment building roofs for example, are excellent locations for beehives that can help sustain local communities and improve biodiversity, increase local pollination and plant health, and also provide a sustainable food source at low cost. Using newer methods such as drip harvesting are even better, but not suitable for all locations. The more locally kept hives, the lower the pressure on industrial scale beekeepers and conservation groups to maintain bee populations; everyone's garden plants will be healthier; and it will encourage community support of environmental policies, & regulations on harmful pesticides. If bee populations are boosted up by community participation in beekeeping, natural pollinators will also lower our dependence on industrial scale agricultural pollination, leading to less industrial scale bee death in agriculture and a better world for all. \n\nThanks for coming to my TED talk!",
  "A human fetus is capable of feeling pain. They are, in every sense, a \"captive,\" every bit as much as an animal in a factory farm. Why aren't there more pro-life vegans?",
  "I am a moral error theorist. I don't believe we have good reasons to suppose that objective moral values exist. That is, objective morals are the kinds of thing that would have to be writ into the fabric of the universe by some sort of creator. Since I don't believe in a creator, I don't believe in objective moral values. Therefore, ethical veganism fails as a compelling reason to be vegan. I'm work-shopping this idea still, so any respectful criticism is welcome. Thanks, cheers!",
  "The recent [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4938) shows most philosophers think omnivorism, construed as the proposition that it is permissible to eat meat and use animal products under ordinary circumstances, is true. \n\nIf we narrow the demographic to ethicists, the margin between omnivores and vegans/vegetarians shrinks a bit, but omnivorism ultimately wins. It's also worthy to notice that even if veganism doesn't win, it still is six times more likely to be accepted by a philosopher rather than the average person.\n\nWhat do you think is the explanation? IMO there are very good arguments for veganism (e.g. marginal cases) and the best counterarguments all require very weighty assumptions (e.g. Carruthers' argument from contractualism+philosophy of mind).\n\nAre philosophers just unwilling to change their lives? I think this is a rather cynical (although honestly plausible) view. \n\nFurther, there are some very vocal defenders of veganism who weren't vegan themselves (e.g. Korsgaard was a vegetarian for forty years even while defending veganism from a Kantian standpoint). So maybe philosophers choose to live with cognitive dissonance rather than deceiving themselves, in which case the statistics remain unexplained. Or did I miss some extraordinary rebuttal of vegan points?",
  "I've been very passionate about the vegan lifestyle for 10 years, but recently I've been bothered by something....owning pets. Not necessarily the idea of having a pet, but that if you own a cat or dog, for example, you must feed them meat. This results in continuing the support of the meat industry. Can we start encouraging our fellow vegans to not own any carnivorous or omnivorous animals? It is just very hypocritical to speak out against the horrors of the meat industry when we have pets that eat those abused animals.",
  "How am I supposed to debate when 90% of the comments are angry people hurling meaningless insults? I cant scroll through 100 comments and reply to the good ones when I can\u2019t find them in the endless sea of anger. The folk who can\u2019t converse maturely really need to just be banned from commenting on any posts. It\u2019s way too toxic for me to try to have these meaningful conversations. And it\u2019s hard to not lose sight of the original posts point when you are being gaslit by an angry mob. Seriously, every single post I make here has to be deleted because I open my phone to 70 Reddit notifications and 60 of them are angry comments that don\u2019t add anything to the conversation.",
  "During dinners with non-vegans, its easy to end up answering repetitive questions (e.g. why, where you get your protein, supplements). The average reaction is that these people also started to eat less meat etc. etc. \nOf course it is nice that these people are interested, and that my actions could possibly have a positive impact on their lives. \nHowever, unlike others, I do not necessarily have the urge to tell everybody I\u2019m vegan, which make these questions tiring. On the other hand, ignoring the questions seems rude as well. Could you guys help me out?",
  "I'm certainly not a bamboozle (bamboozling is not universalizable!), so I guess [I have to do this now](http://i.imgur.com/VmTLhrc.png).\n\nSo it seems to me that a lot of the justifications for vegans here are [consequentialist](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/), and so I've come to assume that most vegans on reddit in places with a high amount of vegans are consequentialists. I thought we could have a casual discussion about that before someone with an actually interesting topic comes around.\n\nThe closest prominent theory to my view would be Kantianism, so I'll be putting forth a view for the sake of argument that's very close to it to start the discussion.\n___\n\n# Various reasons I think utilitarianism is wrong (a quick, simplified rundown to start the conversation)\n\nUnfortunately for anyone who was wanting a novel discussion, all my initial criticisms of utilitarianism are pretty mainstream and boring. Sucks for anyone who was under the impression that I'd somehow be interesting.\n\nAnyway, there's no need to read all of this if you have no trouble sparking a discussion yourself. I just don't want anyone to feel like they have to do all the work here.\n\n1. **Utilitarianism doesn't view anyone as inherently valuable as people**. A pig or your best friend or your dogs are only *instruments* to the well-being they cause. There's only moral worth to your existence to the extent that you can satisfy the pleasures or desires of the world. *Very* hot, but not very appealing. It seems intuitive to me that regardless of how much someone can feel pleasure or how much pleasure they bring others that they're inherently worth something. I don't see, say, an extrovert who brings happiness to many friends as worth more than a hermit who keeps to themselves and has a minimal effect on the pleasure of others and aren't *especially* happy themselves.\n\n2. Related to seeing people as worth more or less than one another based on their ability to create pleasure for more people, another counter-intuitive conclusion seems to be that **you should value people as mere sources of well-being**. A friend is a friend because they please you and nothing more. You can find other sources of pleasure. You can replace your friend with, say, a really good porn collection and the latter is at least somewhat a replacement for the former. And yet we like to think that our friends are more than better versions of porn collections.\n\n3. Without people being inherently valuable, **rights seem obsolete**. Someone can be tortured and killed as long as enough people derive pleasure out of it. In fact, given the subreddit, we're all quite aware that beings *are* regularly tortured, raped, and killed for the fleeting pleasure of others, though not to a degree that a utilitarian would consider justifiable. At some point though, if a killer is sadistic enough to enjoy killing a hermit more than the amount of pleasure that they would have had, it seems the utilitarian would have us support that killer as doing the righteous thing. It seems we can justify sacrificing people for the perverse satisfactions of large crowds all the time. You could end up supporting killing someone you know is innocent because everyone thinks they're guilty and will riot if you don't kill them.\n\n4. And related to *that* point, the difficulty in accounting for the distribution of well-being leads to some very strange conclusions, such as **the utility monster**. If we had a universe of two people with two conflicting sources of well-being, and the second person could gain more well-being than the first, then we'd accept that the second person's wishes ought to trump the first. This doesn't seem like a difficult pill to swallow until you take it to an extreme in which a being could gain ludicrous amounts of pleasure equal or greater than the amount of suffering they cause from torturing the entire species to no end. It is a net gain over the alternative of not torturing them if this utility monster gains that much utility from it, yet our intuitions tell us that this being justified is likely incorrect.\n\n5. At some point, once you add it up enough, **some small pleasure becomes just as valuable, accumulated, as some big pleasure**. For instance, the pleasure advantage of an immortal being not being tortured for thousands of years over being an immortal being tortured is eventually going to lose out to the pleasure advantage between a lot of people not having to brush their teeth every day and having to brush their teeth every day. This seems to suggest that given it affects enough people, you can torture an immortal being for thousands and thousands of years so that enough people don't have to brush their teeth on a daily basis. Certainly, not having to brush my teeth is a very small amount of pleasure, it'd probably be something like a quadrillionth of a quadrillionth of the amount of pleasure I would derive from not being tortured, but no matter what fraction that is, that seems to indicate unimaginable torture will eventually be fine as long as it allows a nonillion people to go about their day without brushing their teeth.\n\n***In short***, *utilitarianism seems to suggest that it is the well-being that can be tied to people that matters rather than the people themselves, that what we think our friends are is actually wrongheaded and they're nothing more than shallow sources of pleasure, perverse sources of well-being are justified, we can justify re-distributing well-being in a variety of ways that our intuitions scream are unfair as long as it still adds up to the same amount of well-being, and seemingly trivial things are capable of being comparable to seemingly very, very important things.*\n___\n\n# Various reasons [I think an alternative might be right](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/) (also quick and dirty)\n\n1. [**People are not instrumentally valuable, but valuable due to the very nature of what they are**](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#HumFor). I think the utilitarian account understands that what people want is valuable, but misunderstands this intuition. It comes from understanding that [our own desires are valuable](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#AutFor), but we consider all our desires valuable because they make sense to us. If it doesn't make sense, we probably wouldn't want it. Like if I thought \"I wanna cut my leg off so I can fly,\" I'd then immediately reject that desire because it makes no sense. Only rational desires are worth considering and insane desires are not on equal footing. Because there's nothing really special about my rational desires and your rational desires, it wouldn't make sense for either of us to say one is more valuable than the other or only one of our wills are valuable. If our wills are then equally valuable, then it would be a logical contradiction to give weight to the things I value and not give weight to the things you value, so just by being someone who can rationally value things, you are as morally valuable as I am.\n\n2. Aside from how intuitive it is to have everyone be inherently valuable, I think **the argument is pretty solid as well**. Just by acting, you are asserting that that which you will is valuable. If you didn't value your desires, you wouldn't act on them. Without anything to make your will the only thing that matters, everyone's will matters. This also resolves the issue of perverse desires, such as the sadistic killer who really, really wants to kill that hermit. It's a will that assumes the lack of value in a rational agent's will, which is self-contradictory. You're being illogical if you say something like \"I really value the fact that nothing is valuable,\" and in the same sense, you're being illogical if you say \"I really value my will to not value this person's will to not die.\"\n\n3. If everyone's valuable, then [**it's only rational to have universalizable maxims for our actions**](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat). This prevents any of our perfect duties to come into conflict the way utilitarians may find conflict when two people seem to desire two opposite things just as much as one another. The utilitarian is left unable to resolve a lot of issues that are very important to resolve for utilitarians whereas this theory would have no perfect, important contradictions of the sort. Kantians may have conflicting imperfect duties, such as the duty to increase well-being just like a utilitarian has to increase well-being, but they are not the foundation of the theory in the same way maximizing well-being is for a utilitarian so it doesn't pose as much of a problem.\n\n***In short***, *approximately Kantian views tend to value everyone inherently, has a solid argument that doesn't rely ONLY on its intuitive power (the way utilitarianism seems to just rely on more well-being for people being intuitive even if there's not exactly an argument that you'd lay out for it beyond that), avoids valuing perverse and seemingly immoral desires, is universal (and therefore fair), and doesn't end up with conflicts that are fundamentally troubling for the theory.*\n___\n\n**DISCLAIMER:** Please do not use this as a source. The view I put forth is not to be taken as exactly what Kant said or meant, and refuting it is not to be taken as actually refuting Kant. It is essentially a placeholder alternative view to have something to argue against along with arguing for utilitarianism in response to this post. If you'd like to know what Kant actually thought, I've provided links for you to read. Obviously if you wanna go full Kant, then I have full respect for your autonomous choice to do so.\n\nalso i will occasionally answer in poetry. i wont bother explaining why its kinda complicated i just have to right now, sry.",
  "Hello all, sorry I don't know if this is the right subreddit to place it - but I've been talking to an ignorant person who ONLY accepts peer reviewed studies (while not having linked any themself, they're just refusing to even acknowledge anything regarding veganism). So, anybody in here who has some peer reviewed studies in favour of veganism? I know veganism is the right way, but it seems like this person refuses everything I say simply because I haven't sent a direct link to a peer reviewed study (while they actually haven't either, pretty ironic). Would be nice if I could set up a list with links to peer reviewed studies in case I come across someone like this again :).\nSorry for my bad English, it isn't my main language. Thanks for reading!",
  "I\u2019m sure it\u2019s been asked but I haven\u2019t seen this and have been curious about it. What is the view of human life, it\u2019s conception, and the ethical framing behind abortion through a vegan\u2019s eyes? Is it a mixed subject among the community?",
  "You can skip the introduction but you will get an idea of how I found this crazy idea.\n\n**Introduction:**\n\nI've been an ethical vegan for 2 years now. In that time, and it was actually thanks to these things, I learnt critical thinking, bits about philosophy, and debate skills. In all that time, I was learning from it, and became better at debating veganism with others. Whilst I haven't really made anyone vegan, I know I've planted seeds, and that's better than nothing. However, it made me wonder, I'm always frustrated in debates because my opponents almost never answer the questions I ask. Which seems like an indication they probably agree even if only slightly. So how do I address that issue? How can I change it and make more effective arguments. Which leads to the crazy idea I had.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n**The crazy idea:**\n\nBecause my thinking as evolved drastically over the years, somehow. I've been trying to figure out ways to make life easier. It relates to veganism because I wanted to see if there are more effective ways to convince people to go vegan. In a vegan unrelated example, I've found small ways to debate things like LGBTQ+ rights with objective evidence. That leads me to the crazy idea. Being what I call \"Setting the goal posts.\" which I'm not sure if it's a real thing or not. The idea is that I can give my opponents in debates, an idea of what will convince me to not follow my position, and basically side with the opponent.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n**Using the crazy idea with Veganism:**\n\nThere's three questions I would ask opponents with this \"Set the goal posts\" Idea. The opponent has to prove the following are true:\n\n1. Animals can\u2019t sense anything\n2. Animals can\u2019t think and make subjective choices\n3. Animals can\u2019t acknowledge reality\n\n&#x200B;\n\n**I'm curious to know what everyone thinks about the idea and the questions.**\n\nThat about sums it up. I got around to this idea also because I wanted to take as unbiased and neutral a position as possible. But also argue as objectively as possible. I want to serve the greater good at the least amount of harm, with least harm being the most preferred.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;\n\nEdit: thanks for the comments. I guess I'm just too stupid. I don't really understand the issue with it exactly? I thought these were good questions to get a non-vegan thinking, which will plant a seed. \n\nAlso, I can tell there's some users here who just read the title and thought \"Non-vegan giving advice to non-vegans, ew!\" Read the post. \n\nI don't know anymore. I try to do things for animal rights, but I can't ever seem to make strong arguments for it. Not gonna lie, seeing a lot of these comments just, makes me ashamed. I'm not smart. I don't know why people want me to live. I'm useless. I punched myself in the forehead as I wrote this because I don't know what else I can do. My head won't work. Should I try again? ",
  "If everyone else dogmatically bought from factory farms would you still be vegan?",
  "So is the main difference between vegans and meat eaters the value we put on animals? I've been looking through this subreddit and others on both sides, and I just want to make sure I understand what the disagreement boils down too. Some vegans and vegetarians seen to believe that animal lives are equal to human lives or should be valued much more than they are now. Meat eaters on the other hand seem to believe that there is a distinct difference between human and animal lives or \"souls\".\n\nAm I understanding this correctly, or am I off? Because if we disagree about this basic belief, I don't see how we can logically debate.",
  "I don't think I could. Best case scenario, I'm with someone who's open to the idea and I convince them to switch. But it seems like a bad idea to begin a relationship with someone and hope that they'll change on such a fundamental belief. I've read success stories of people converting their SOs to veganism, but I've also read horror stories of people divorcing over incompatibilities that they tried to ignore or hoped would dissolve.\n\nOn the other hand, there aren't many of us around, and nobody wants to be alone.\n\nWhat do you think?",
  "So I've been reading up about how cutting out meat is a really good way to help the environment, cut gas emissions, use less resources, etc., and I think thats really cool! I've cut down on milk and cheese for similar reasons plus lactose intolerance is a thing. But I'm having trouble reasoning through why cutting out eggs is worthwhile. I've never been attracted to alternate food lifestyles to \"save the animals\" but I appreciate it from an ecological conservation standpoint. I've read a few articles about how introducing chicken flocks to rural communities can help cut down on eating bush meat and can help protect endangered species but I live a more cushy western lifestyle than that so its not an issue for me personally. Are there health benefits and/or environmental reasons why I should cut out eggs? ",
  "It's probably the main thing that keeps me from going vegan - protein. \n\nI know there are plenty of examples of protein sources in vegan diets for your average Joe, but what about weightlifters/bodybuilders etc like me that require a *lot* more than that? 50-60g a day isn't going to cut it. \n\nAt my current weight, height and exercise schedule, I need to be consuming about 120g of protein a day, but possibly even more if anything. Most vegan examples I tend to see are under 10g per serving, which just isn't going to be enough on a daily basis unless I then subsequently massively overeat.  \n\n",
  "I see posts like this all the time. \u201cEating junk food without hurting the animals\u201d that\u2019s just not true. You are not only supporting companies that destroy the planet (like nabisco) and consequently hurting a lot of animals, but you are also contributing to the trashing of the planet with harsh chemicals and all the plastic that is used. I respect you junk food vegans. But i don\u2019t think your diet is necessarily on the same level of ethics as a whole food vegan. \n\nAlso, I eat vegan junk food sometimes! Not judging anyone.",
  "To narrow the field of discussion: I am not talking about the ethics of keeping animals at the moment. I only intend to talk about the ethics of hunting and managing animals in the wild. I also do not intend to argue about the far future, just the immediate future. This discussion also does not include any real talk about \"stock\" hunting, by which I mean where deer or other animals are actively contained or maintained for the sole purpose of hunting separate from other ecosystems. I personally see no difference between hunting where the animals are fenced in and farming, thus I am not really going to try to justify it here.\n\nMy basic position is thus : we are in a position, in most places with internet, where there has been environmental damage, most noticeably there is less megafauna and large carnivores. Because there is no active predation, certain populations of animals, if unchecked, grow to a level at which they actively harm the ecosystem, and thus themselves and the other animals around them. This extends to animals which are not native to environments, the problem is just generally greater and more dramatic, with exceptions, most notably wild horses in America, which seem to mostly be alright if kept at a reasonable population level, which is not always the case.\n\nThe best solution to this problem is active predation and population control via hunting, be it to exterminate or simply manage population levels. This is because of the effects of overpopulation being more harmful in my eyes to both the species itself and/or other species than hunting. One of the more noticeable examples is the [abundance of invasive cheatgrass](http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff-burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/Bromus_tectorum.html) in the areas [inhabited by horses in the West of America.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331930442_Potential_Spread_of_Cheatgrass_Bromus_tectorum_and_Other_Invasive_Species_by_Feral_Horses_Equus_ferus_caballus_in_Western_Colorado) (link is primarily concerned with the spread of cheatgrass via consumption, but also mentions overgrazing by wild horses at the end. I am well aware that overgrazing is an issue, I just don't quite know what to search into google to get something that is specifically talking about the effects of wild horse overgrazing on cheatgrass). There are generally more wild horses in Western America than ideal for the land, because of the overgrazing and water concerns. [Here is a (admittedly non scientific) article talking generally about the problems of wild horses, so yall know im not making up the concerns](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/features/environment/wild-horses-part-two/). There is similar problems with other animals in other areas. I have argued with people in the past in this sub about [the problems caused by rabbits in Australia](http://www.rabbitfreeaustralia.com.au/rabbits/the-rabbit-problem/). Measures need to be taken in order to control their population, be they hunting or biological warfare. Biological warfare with species specific viruses is effective, but alone does not eliminate rabbits in a region. Hunting is necessary on some level to control the population, to avoid deforestation via lagomorph and increased damage to local ecosystems. Australia also has its problems with overgrazing equines, in her case camels in addition to burros and horses. There is currently and will continue to be problems around animals which reproduce quickly damaging the environment, I just wanted to make certain that we are in agreement about the reality of the situation, and are on the same page regarding the harm that will arise from doing nothing. My solution is hunting; my reasoning for using hunting as the solution is twofold, the animals would be being hunted if it were not for the intervention (understanding or not) of prior humans, just by animals and not humans, and if we take no action, we are passively letting animals starve, both the animals which over-graze or over-predate and the other animals harmed by the ecological devastation. \n\nSome times there is another solution to the problem, reintroduction and introduction. I am aware of theoretical introduction projects to bring large carnivores and megafauna to Europe, North America, and Australia, with most being centered around North America and Australia, but at the moment it does not seem realistic to count the reintroducing and introduction of large carnivores and megafauna everywhere that they need to be introduced to fix the problems resulting from the current lack of large carnivores and megafauna; we should be working on environmental restoration like this, but I do not count this among the immediate solutions. Additionally there is the problem that introduction programs always face regarding large carnivores, and that is that they tend to not stick to wild animals and go after pets, farm animals, and humans. I don't care so much here about the ethics regarding if we should let carnivores hunt us and or domestic animals, but just bring this up to say that most people would prefer to not be actively predated by large carnivores and thus an active management system to deal with herbivores is preferable in environments where large carnivores cannot be trusted not to kill people, be that barriers and further separation or some manner of hunting/trapping.\n\nAnother potential solution would be castration, which might be situationally useful, but is a lot more expensive, and potentially as cruel, depending on the method. Additionally, it is not necessarily effective unless done in large numbers, and capturing and castrating large numbers of animals is a lot harder than hunting large numbers of animals. I think that it has promise, especially as a means of controlling native predators, or of limiting the numbers of local invasive predators such as cats, partially because even small predators do not exist at the same population density as small herbivores and thus there is a realistic possibility of having a real effect. The amount of resources necessary to castrate humanely a large number of large herbivores is too high for it to be a truly effective solution from what I can tell.",
  "Since products like milk are not vegan, would products (such as vegetables) obtained through slave labor be vegan?",
  "I will admit off the bat that I am not personally vegan, nor am I close with many people who are. I'm not here to be rude or argue either, I'm just curious because this thought crossed my mind and I realized I don't know the answer. Google has been mostly unhelpful as well, and it seemed like this was the right place to ask (correct me if I'm wrong on that, and feel free to direct me to somewhere I might find a better answer).\n\nI have just been wondering what the general consensus is on eating bugs. There's been some discussion I've heard thrown around at work (I work in a kitchen) about how bugs are a more environmentally sustainable source of protein than livestock and it got me thinking about whether or not on an ethical level people might consider bugs better than typical meat.\n\nThis is entirely just a question I've been wondering to myself recently, and you can feel free to tell me why this is a stupid question and the answer should be obvious, but I just can't find a solid answer anywhere.",
  "I am not vegan but have recently been looking at all the horrors of the meat and animal product industry. And the only thing that interested me was the environmental benefits for the planet that going vegan would have. So based off that, I am considering maybe going vegetarian in the future or at very bare minimum simply making an effort to eat less animal product. However, I also saw many of the horrible, cramped conditions that animals are kept in and the way they are slaughtered. But I barely felt guilty at all. I think me not eating meat would make no difference to the lives of those animals. And that simply continuing to eat meat would make me much happier. It is a big comfort in my life that I don't feel willing to sacrifice for them. Does that make me a bad person? I think I am just a selfish person that only cares about myself. \n\nOn another completely different note I am also very curious about what the vegan lifestyle is like. And vegetarian lifestyle too. Is it as bad as some people say? Do you ever find yourself craving something like ham or shrimp? Also how good are vegan products like impostor meat? I've been meaning to try them but it can be a little expensive. So are there any recommendations for best brands? Thanks. \n\nSorry for combining like 5 different questions into one post lol. And sorry that this post basically boils down to \"convince me to go vegan\".\n\nEdit; There are lots of great and very useful responses on this post. Thank you fro everyone's recommendations, advice and general information. I think i'll be watching the documentary Earthlings mentioned which I haven't watched. Mainly because I'd like to be well educated and informed on this topic but also to see if it could push me to be vegab. I've done some thinking about what it means to kill animals and eat them. And i haven't come to a conclusion about what i'll do about it. But Ive already decided I will try impossible meat. And look at vegan recipes and options in restaurants, just to taste it. People on this post have told me the hardest part about becoming vegan is putting in the effort to research what products you buy and what recipes youll make. But that the comfort of meat is not a big sacrifice at all. So I will definitely try it, and maybe one day i'll begin my transition into veganism. Thanks again.",
  "Hello! I'm someone with autism and I was curious about vegans and their opinions on people with intense food sensitivities. \n\nI would like to make it clear that I have no problem with the idea of being vegan at all :) I've personally always felt way more emotionally connected to animals then people so I can understand it in a way!\n\nI have a lot of problems when it comes to eating food, be it the texture or the taste, and because of that I only eat a few things. Whenever I eat something I can't handle, I usually end up in the bathroom, vomiting up everything in my gut and dry heaving for about an hour while sobbing. This happened to me a lot growing up as people around me thought I was just a \"picky eater\" and forced me to eat things I just couldn't handle. It's a problem I wish I didn't have, and affects a lot of aspects in my life. I would love to eat a lot of different foods, a lot of them look really good, but it's something I can't control.\n\nBecause of this I tend to only eat a few particular foods, namely pasta, cereal, cheddar cheese, popcorn, honey crisp apples and red meat. There are a few others but those are the most common foods I eat. \n\nI'm curious about how vegans feel about people with these issues, as a lot of the time I see vegans online usually say anyone can survive on a vegan diet, and there's no problem that could restrict people to needing to eat meat. I also always see the words \"personal preference\" get used, when what I eat is not my personal preference, it's just the few things I can actually stomach.\n\nJust curious as to what people think, since a lot of the general consensus I see is quite ableist.",
  "Morals do not lead to a convincing argument. Theres no good reason why i should believe that \"exploiting animals is wrong if it dosent meet X level of necessity\" or \"its wrong to deny animals the same rights as humans\" or really any claim for why something is right or wrong. \n\nVegans also argue that veganism can be beneficial for you, but those benefits (if they even exist) can be had without becoming vegan. To me it seems the foundations of veganism rest solely on the feelings of its disciples. \n\nIm looking for convincing arguments (even based on morals, if you can somehow produce one) for why someone should adopt veganism. Vegans definitely act like one exists due to constant proselytizing and activism.\n\n\n\nThings i considered:\n\n** A vegan diet is healthier **\n\nYou can adopt a plant based diet without being vegan. \n\n** Not being vegan harms the environment **\n\nAn environmentalist could adopt the parts of a vegan lifestyle that are environmentally beneficial, while rejecting the rest.\n\n** Its inconsistent to believe eating one type of animal (say a dog) is wrong but eating another (say a cow) is right **\n\nI (and many others) do not believe eating any type of animal is wrong, this argument does not apply to me.\n\nInconsistency is only a good argument to a non-vegan who's beliefs of whats right and wrong is already perfectly aligned with veganism.",
  "Yeh, take that, vegans! Just kidding. This question has been put to me and I want some eye opening dialogue on it because it's a good question, albeit a typical 'gotcha' type one.\n\nAnimals as in big land mammals. \n\nSo we'd need to kill considerably less animals than we do currently to eat meat.\n\nWe could use some kind of barrier system to prevent animals encroaching crops.\n\nAnything else? \n",
  "I don't mean it as \"Animals eat meat so it's justified.\" I mean it as what do you think of animals such as wolfs and bears who require meat? Is it wrong for them to consume other animals to sustain themselvses?\n\nEdit: I ask this because some vegans only feed carnivours plant based food.\n\nI'm not a vegan by the way.",
  "Four plaintiffs have complaints. What would the consequences be, do you think, if they brought their cases to court, and the court ruled either in favor or against them?\n\n&#x200B;\n\n|Plaintiff|Complaint|\n|:-|:-|\n|A|I ordered a plant-meat sandwich for lunch, believing it to be vegan. After I finished it, I observed that the same grill was used for both plant-meat and animal meat. The restaurant had been open for hours before I arrived so it is likely some animal-meat residue was on my sandwich.|\n|B|I was the first customer of the day. I ordered a plant-meat sandwich, believing it to be vegan. After I started eating, the second customer of the day ordered an animal-meat sandwich. I observed it being cooked on the same grill as my plant-meat sandwich. Although  there was no animal-meat residue on my sandwich, because it was prepared on shared equipment I contributed to the suffering of animals because the cost of the equipment is shared between plant-meat and animal-meat.|\n|C|At my request, my plant-meat sandwich was prepared in the microwave oven. The oven is not used for any animal-meat ingredients. However, while I was eating, I observed that the plant-meat and animal-meat ingredients were delivered from the same refrigerated truck, and stored in the same restaurant refrigerator. Due to this shared cost, I contributed to the suffering of animals.|\n|D|My plant-meat sandwich was delivered in the plant-meat-factory's own truck, stored in a plants-only cooler, and prepared with plants-only equipment. I observed a leather jacket on a wooden hanger in the employees' changing room. When I asked, the restaurant confirmed the leather jacket belonged to an employee, not to a visitor. Because my payment for my meal goes toward a single payroll pool, I contributed to the suffering of animals.|\n\nSecondary question: would it be good to build up a body of case law defining \"as far as possible and practicable\" from The Vegan Society's definition, so that food vendors and consumers would know what was entailed?",
  "like, i've never had a good argument with a vegan. it always ends with being insulted, being guilt-tripped, or anything like that. because of this, it's pushed me so far from veganism that i can't even imagine becoming one cause i don't want to be part of such a hateful community. also, i physically cannot become vegan due to limited food choices and allergies.  \nyou guys do realize that you can argue your point without being rude or manipulative, right? people are more likely to listen to you if you argue in good faith and are kind, and don't immediately go to the \"oh b-but you abuse animals!\" one, no, meat-eaters do not abuse animals, they are eating food that has already been killed, and two, do you think that guilt-tripping is going to work to change someone to veganism?  \n\n\nin my entire life, i've listened more to people who've been nice and compassionate to me, understanding my side and giving a rebuttal that doesn't question my morality nor insult me in any way. nobody is going to listen to someone screaming insults at them.  \n\n\ni've even listened to a certain youtuber about veganism and i have tried to make more vegan choices, which include completely cutting milk out of my diet, same with eggs unless some are given to me by someone, since i don't want to waste anything, i have a huge thing with not wasting food due to past experiences.  \n\n\nand that's because they were kind in explaining their POV, talking about how there are certain reasons why someone couldn't go vegan, reasons that for some reasons, vegans on reddit seem to deny.  \npeople live in food desserts, people have allergies, iron deficiencies, and vegan food on average is more expensive than meat and dairy-products, and also vegan food takes more time to make. simply going to a fast food restaurant and getting something quick before work is something most people are going to do, to avoid unnecessary time waste.  \nalso she mentioned eating disorders, in which cutting certain foods out of your diet can be highly dangerous for someone in recession of an eating disorder. i sure hope you wouldn't argue with this, cause if so, that would be messed up.  \n\n\nif you got this far, thank you, and i would love to hear why some (not all) vegans can be so aggressive with their activism, and are just insufferable and instead of doing what's intended, it's pushing more and more people away from veganism.",
  "  \n\nAny moral system (i.e. one based on sentience for instance) that does not have reciprocity as core principle turns a moral agent from an ends to a means, unjustifiably elevating the other animals above the human animal.  A justifiable moral duty cannot turn a moral agent into, essentially, a slave. All rights have responsibility attached that cannot be separated, those responsibilities are that which is reciprocal, if you can\u2019t have responsibility then you can\u2019t have a priori rights. \n\nMoral agents (human kind) have no reciprocal moral responsibility to non-moral agents (all other animals,) I do not have an a priori duty not to kill and eat animals, merely a moral requirement to perform a utilitarian calculus in justifying animal suffering balanced against my moral preference to minimize all suffering, for moral consistency.\n\nMillions of years of evolutional omnivorous fitted-ness in humans outweighs the suffering of animals as attested to by;\n\nEvolutionary science attesting to current dietary fitted-ness.\n\nThe requirement for supplements to counter the lack of micronutrients, attesting to the dietary unsuitability of a plant-based diet. (we did not have supplements when fitted-ness was being \u2018designed\u2019 by evolution) \n\nThe proliferation of fake meat (i.e. meatless meatballs, sausage, bacon, turkey, among many others) attesting to psychological unsuitability of plant-based diets.\n\nGreater than 80% Veganism \u2018recidivism\u2019 attesting to the dietary and psychological unsuitability of a plant-based diet for the majority of people.\n\nThe damage to health and wellbeing that can occur if the plant-based diet is not done \u2018right\u2019 (I would claim \u2018JUST right\u2019) attesting to the consequences of dietary mistakes, mistakes that are that are minimized on a diet containing animal products.\n\nThe George Carlin\\\\Harm argument; \u201cThink of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.\u201d\u2015 George Carlin. A well-educated, well-motivated, materially privileged and well-informed individual may, in fact, be able to thrive on a plant-based diet, but there is a vast majority that may not have the mental\\\\material resources to avoid significant damage to health and wellbeing. The poor would be particularly impacted, which is a huge moral concern. \n\nTherefore, killing and eating animals is morally justified\n\nAll animals pursue optimal performance of their evolutionary fitted-ness, and it would be wrong, without sufficient moral justification, to prevent them from this pursuit, including the human animal.",
  "Like, is meat defined by its flavour and texture or its origin? would not calling vegan meat \"meat\" by deprecating or help the vegan movement?",
  "Personally, I would do it. I would love to find a way to subject every person indiscriminately to a bite from the Lone Star Tick (it's enzymes and proteins will make a person allergic to red meats for the rest of their life. They can never eat them again.).\n\nMy justification is this: all they have to do is stop killing animals, and they can live. The choice is in their hands. It's an automated self-defense system for the animals. It only kills those that are too stubborn and selfish to comply. The rest become *basically* vegan (they can still eat non-red products like fish or something).",
  "I\u2019m an ethical egoist. I believe that I should do whatever leads to the most preferable life for myself, for why would I do something that is less preferable than something else? It\u2019s by definition most preferable. I think we are irrational creatures fundamentally, being compelled in everything we do by underlying emotions, desires, and preference. \n\nVegans generally care about the suffering of animals, but what if I\u2019m not bothered when I eat meat? I think it\u2019s possible for a vegan to be moral while a non-vegan is also moral, since they can both be seeking their best life according to their interests. Of course, this ignores other factors like health and, to a lesser extent, environment, which may be applicable to all agents, since everyone should want to be healthy and eat right. \n\nSo, suffering itself shouldn\u2019t be an objective issue, but a personal and subjective one. How can you tell me what makes me feel bad or good? And how can I tell you? So I think vegans and non-vegans make a mistake when they try to claim moral superiority or try to point out flaws in others\u2019 thinking. It all begins with our feelings, and people try to project their personal feelings onto the whole population and claim objective truth. \n\nWhen a vegan tries to persuade a non-vegan, he is operating under the feeling that he is doing good, which makes him or her feel good. And it\u2019s hard for me to blame them for this. However, vegans should take a more objective look at what morality is, and understand that not everyone has the same preferences and convictions.\n\nEdit: I\u2019ve noticed that vegans tend to accuse non-vegans of moral inconsistency. For example, eating chicken but not dogs. But if we consider that everyone\u2019s true basis of morality is what pleases them, and not the arbitrary principle of trying to reduce universal suffering at the cost of everything else, then these are in fact NOT moral inconsistencies. If dogs and cats were tasty, nutritional, heavily available as food, culturally accepted as food, then perhaps I would be fine eating them.\n\nI don\u2019t think the average person is aware of true morality, so they have a difficult time explaining their actions given that the forced narrative is that causing suffering is bad in itself. That\u2019s why they say things like \u201cI know it\u2019s bad but I just can\u2019t give up meat.\u201d They truly feel some level of suffering because of animal suffering, but it is far outweighed by the pleasure of eating meat.",
  "By succeeding I mean becoming an accepted and used part of mainstream society. \n\nMost people including myself have been raised to believe that what we are doing to animals is normal and just a part of the natural food chain (which I of course know is rather distorted). \n\nEven though all the ethic arguments are very real, it seems that the arguments that people accept are the economic arguments: how we as societies will be healthier and richer and will face less future environmental economic problems. How about sharing those arguments first? I believe this will cause a lot more people converting or changing their behaviour to eat less meat. It will become easier to create policies such as pigovian taxation of meat and removing subsidies to farms. Because people will eat less meat, supermarkets will get filled with vegan alternatives making it even easier (and cheaper) to convert. At a certain point people will be so used to it. Maybe at that point people won't be so defensive taking it so personal when you talk about eating animals as an ethic issue. \n\nI just believe it will be a more effective way of dealing with the issue. Even if you do it for ethic reasons, your desire for a future with less animal cruelty will still be satisfied. \n\nEdit: By controversial, it's not meant objectively, but to people in today's society it is very controversial, and people generally take it very personally if their values are stepped on, but when facing rational arguments, people can say \"oh I didn't know that, you are right\". ",
  "I acknowledge that veganism is the ethical way to live, but I find it hard to commit to it because it feels like a futile and inconvenient endeavor. I enjoy eating meat and I have learned how to balance my diet and health, so I don\u2019t feel the urge to switch to a plant-based lifestyle. I would gladly endorse a policy that made veganism mandatory, but I know that\u2019s very unlikely to happen. I admire vegans and their principles, but I wonder if I\u2019m a bad person for not being ready to sacrifice something that brings me joy for a goal that seems unreachable. I\u2019m open to learning more about veganism and its benefits, but I need some convincing arguments and practical tips to make the transition easier.\n\nI feel like my concerns boil down to the question: What is the point of being ethical when I struggle and nothing changes?\n\nI hope I don't come off as morally bankrupt?",
  "Is it wrong to \u201crape\u201d an animal?\nMost people would probably answer yes.\n\nIs it wrong to eat an animal?\nMost people would probably answer no.\n\nWhy is \u201craping\u201d an animal worse than killing and eating it?\n\nBecause bestiality is illegal?\nBecause your parents told you it\u2019s gross?\n\nIs it wrong to rape a woman?\nMost people would answer yes, yet there are cultures where raping is neither illegal nor perceived as wrong by the society - maybe except the victim.\n\nWhy do so many people perceive killing or raping another human as wrong?\n\n1) The law\n2) Belief system such as religion\n3) It\u2019s what their parents have taught them\n4) They realize that murdering and raping is harmful to keeping a stable society. They don\u2019t want to live in a constant fear that they will be raped and killed\n5) Appeal to personal emotions\n6) Appeal to emotions of others (e.g. activism against minority oppresion)\n\nI am unable to find any other reason.\n\nWhy does the point 1 exist? Because of point 4.\nPoint 3 exists because of point 1.\n\nThe only purpose of anti-murder and anti-rape laws is to prevent our society from falling apart. If we removed such laws the number of murderers and rapists would skyrocket.\n\nThe general concept of killing an animal (especially a factory farmed animal) does not go against any of those 5 points listed above for most non-vegans.\n\nThe question is, why should that be wrong?\nI don\u2019t think it is.\n\nI want my mind to be changed.",
  "I'm really curious what the vegan opinion is on showing animals. I did some research online, but didn't find a lot. Is it done ethically? Could it be done ethically? Is it better or worse than other uses of animals for sport, for example hunting?\n\nPlease and thank you!",
  "Vegan plant enjoyer of multiple years here. \n\nI have recently been reading some of the posts and I fail to understand what is the big deal about calling veganism a \"moral philosophy\"?\nDon't You think that it would be much smarter to approach this whole thing as it is? Eating plant based is undoubtably much healthier, and we benefit the planet hugely by going this route. \nWhat I'm asking is is what is up with the obsession of trying to convince people by moral arguments when minimization of suffering is only one of the three huge legs (not a small one) this thing is standing on?\n(I do not buy the description of Veganism as solely a \"moral philosophy\", because it seems to fool people into forgetting the big picture).\n\nI therefore encourage us all to approach the term of \"Veganism\" with it being a way of living which combines minimization of suffering, healthier bodies and healthier planet.\n\nWhat are your thoughts my dear fellows?\n\n\nEdit: Thank you all for your replys. There seems to be abou two people who got what the thread was about. Rest of the replys seem to miss the point entirely. I suppose next time i should speak more clearly or abstain from posting in a sub called r/DebateAVegan if i don't want to engage in sensless debating with people who I generally agree with. \nRest of you need to do more research (myself included). Have fun.",
  "If your argument hinges on plants not being conscious please include what makes you think this is the case.",
  "For me a mosquito is just an annoying insect trying to get my blood. So when it gets in my room I kill it. I dont feel like its against my morals because it makes no sense to do so.\n\nDidnt morals start to exist because they help living together as humans. How come that you just say that they also include animals now?",
  "Doesn't the however many years of good life where they are treated right outweigh the one day of killing them against there will? While I do believe that if an animal wants to live we don't have the right to kill it, wouldn't giving it a great life and then killing it be better then never living in the first place?",
  "Will any vegans have an issue or reason to protest and oppose in any community that consumed all of its meats only from hunting with a priority of quick and sudden kills as well restricted its meat consumption to an average of less then 10 to 15% of any individuals diet while prioritizing the consumption of the obtained meat as fat stores during the cold infertile winter? Predominantly that the consumption of meat is relative to the amount of effort and time to obtain and process nourishment for efficiency for the people of this community, this is a community that also commits to conservation efforts to value calculated population control if needed to promote balance and ridding of invasive species, increasing \"greenspace\"/natural environment  and foliage canopy with a specific replenishment and reclamation policy limiting and unlimiting the amount of permitted hunted animals at certain times or intervals",
  "I\u2019ve been seeing a lot of meat eaters bring up regenerative farming and saying it\u2019s better for the environment. What do you guys say to this?",
  "I believe humans are the apex predators of this world, and possibly of this universe. We decide what is right and wrong, and who gets to live and so on. We bend to no one. And we are proud of that fact.\n\nAnimals simply play a supporting roles in merely helping us achieve our collective goals. Their sole objective for existence is for the benefit of humanity. We may derive use from them in different ways,such as food,skin, companionship etc.\n\n But they will never be anything more than secondary tools meant to assist us. Hence, I have no qualms about eating or killing them, or even if they suffer, because I do not place in them anywhere close to the value that human beings provide. We are gods. They are simply providers. \n\n Why should I care if they suffer or not?",
  "I\u2019ve been pondering this question recently, and I wonder how many people on this sub feel this way. I see lots of discussions of speciesism, for example; I personally interpret this as meaning that just because animals are a different species to us, it doesn\u2019t give us the right to exercise total dominion over their lives. But I also understand some people to interpret speciesism as meaning that all species are equal, and differentiating between them is wrong. \n\nFor me, animals are hugely important, and I won\u2019t eat them because its disrespectful of their right to life and their will to live. But if it came to an extreme situation, I wouldn\u2019t consider an animal\u2019s life equal to a human\u2019s. For example, if a house was on fire and I could only save a child or a dog, I would choose the child every time. If a dog was attacking an old man, I would kill the dog to save his life if I could. If I was evacuating from a wildfire with my children in the car, I wouldn\u2019t risk their lives by stopping to save a kangaroo. \n\nI don\u2019t see this as incompatible with veganism (especially as regards the definition of the vegan society), but I do think it conflicts with some people\u2019s approach to speciesism. \n\nSo - are veganism and speciesism two totally different things? Does one automatically require the other? Do you think vegans can still distinguish between the lives of humans and the lives of animals without compromising their beliefs?",
  "I know a few vegans and I was wondering what everyone's stance on honey was and how it's produced?",
  "I've tried to become vegan before. I agree with the philosophy and it all makes logical, ethical sense to be vegan.\n\nHowever, I start to have withdrawals for meat soon after trying to initiate a vegan diet. I literally drool thinking about meat.\n\nMy question is why does this happen? Why is this such a hurdle for me, or rather, for humans in general, to stop eating meat?\n\nI can't seem to find many scientific studies done on the matter, so I'm pretty much just speculating. If anyone can point to some studies that would be very helpful. I think it essentially boils down to is it something ingrained in us as humans or is it something we learned? Or both?\n\nI believe many vegans will argue that it is a learned behavior. But the issue is, meat almost seems like something that is addictive for humans. My father was telling me the other day that when he was growing up meat was such a delicacy that he could only have it once a year and it was great. Humans in general seem to get hooked on meat even if it is in scarce supply. It's hard to say they can ever really form a habit of eating meat in this manner. I'm of the opinion that it's a combination of learned behavior and natural behavior because someone who has never tasted meat in their life won't crave meat, but people who have tried it only very rarely still develop a strong craving for it.\n\nThe notion that humans crave meat so easily combined with the fact that meat is such a good, convenient source of nutrients really deters me from transitioning to veganism. And yes, I realize how selfish this sounds. However, these ideas also lead me to believe that the day where veganism is the norm will never come--because people are selfish. I just have trouble following a movement when I don't believe it's possible for it to succeed. Vegans seem to be people with extreme levels of self-control and sense of moral duty. I just don't expect that from the average, selfish human, and as such, I don't ever expect veganism to become the norm.\n\nAny help with this would be appreciated.",
  "I am personally not vegan, nor am I a vegetarian anymore. I was a vegetarian for a period of time only because of peer influence, though I do think there are good reasons to become vegan. I also do believe humans evolved to be omnivores, but through looking at indigenous tribes we can see humans can live long lives on a carnivore, vegetarian, vegan and omnivore diet. \n\nIf you approach veganism from a moral stand point only, is there really any difference between eating an oyster and a mushroom? Neither of the two are plants, neither have a brain, but mushrooms are probably more \"intelligent\". Mushrooms have the capability to transmit information through mycelium networks using the same neurotransmitters as our brain. Oysters just exist, they are not conscious at all. So it's alive but is it any more alive than kombucha cultures? Is there really a moral dilemma here, I means sure it's alive but isn't celery? Oysters are also very nutritional being packed with iron and protein, something a lot of vegetarians seem to need more of in their diet. ",
  "I call myself vegan, and this year will be my 9 year veganniversary. I do however have a few leather shoes (purchased second hand) and patches on the back of jeans. I don\u2019t usually wear wool because I don\u2019t like the feeling, but do have some socks. I often receive free samples from work (outdoor recreation) which explains away the down sleeping bag and jacket I have for backpacking. I\u2019ve been making efforts to donate all of these animal products because I personally feel guilt when I use them. I remember what they used to be. I also think synthetic fill is superior in a lot of ways. \n\nI also feel extremely guilty about synthetic alternatives, usually made out of plastic. These products won\u2019t break down like leather would in a landfill. I\u2019m just confused and can\u2019t make up my mind which is more ethical. I don\u2019t like the feeling of wearing an animal\u2019s skin but I don\u2019t like the idea of creating more demand for new synthetic products. Which has the greater footprint if leather is a byproduct of the meat industry (which I do NOT want to contribute money to) and synthetics aren\u2019t made of earth-friendly materials?",
  "a very close friend of mine has turned vegan as of a few months ago and i feel like i dread whenever the topic of food comes up because im always scared it'll lead to an argument. I'm not opposed to his beliefs or the things he says about it but i feel like he's charged with so much energy from everything he has researched and is just waiting to dunk information on me.\n\ntoday i he brought up how he was ordering pizza for himself and for my aunt, he chose the vegan option without her knowing and asked me what i thought about it.\n\ni told him that it's fine i suppose, but when he went on about why he did it, he mentioned a lot of things regarding how easy of a change it is and how its basically unnoticeable so why not choose the morally right option. i agreed with it all.\n\nbut then he went on to say how my aunt isn't that informed about the matter anyway so it was okay for him to pick that option. that didnt really sit comfortably with me so i told him that she's an adult who can make her own decisions and while this specific change is harmless, i felt like its a slippery slope to take charge of other people's diets without them knowing.\n\ni felt like the slight disagreement on that topic immediately invoked a strong reaction and he started justifying it with all different facts about the industry and how my aunt would never even tell the difference.\n\ni just felt like it would never want someone to get me something that i didnt sign up for. i was trying to relay that without feeling like im attacking his whole ideology.\n\nhe's very well articulated and its very tough to find the delicate wording that doesnt press on any of his buttons regarding this matter and the pressure of it all feels so high when personally i'm not invested in the topic at all and just want to avoid conflict with my friend.\n\nhow do i let him know that i would like to steer clear of that topic without risking losing the closeness we have as friends?\n\ntl;dr\n\nfriend picked vegan pizza option for aunt unknowingly to her, asked me, told him its risky to interfere with people's diets without their knowledge as a concept. \n\ndont know how to tell him that this topic is becoming tough to talk about with him without risking friendship",
  "I am vegan, but I have a question that makes me think twice. Can cows live on their own if not raised for food or are they too far domesticated to live on their own anymore?",
  "I think this will be interesting, because i completely agree with basically everyone that has to do with veganism and i practice basically all of it in my daily life. But here we go. I do not call myself vegan, because i am not. I WAS vegan for 5+ years until I realized that sometimes being non vegan is BETTER for the environment (with my lifestyle). Im 99% vegan but there are times where i feel it\u2019s doing more hurt than bad. Here\u2019s 2 situations that pushed me to believe this.\n\n1. I have given back more burgers than i can even count at restaurants because they forgot to take off the dairy filled sauce. My sister works in restaurants and told me that sometimes coworkers eat the sent back food but most of the times they don\u2019t. I\u2019ve decided that if i accept the veggie burger with the sauce on it, that\u2019s one less burger that goes into the trash. \n\n2. Leather. I stopped thrifting leather pieces because it\u2019s not vegan. However, this has caused me to contribute to fast fashion with fake leather pieces that do not hold up for more than a couple months- ON TOP of not buying second hand. Now, i have shoes, jackets, purses, all thrifted that are genuine leather that will last me for a lifetime. \n\nSome actual vegans will tell me i\u2019m awful because of this, but i disagree. I love being almost vegan. Just like all of you true vegans it makes me feel so good to give back to the world. this is just how I choose to do it and I\u2019m curious to know everyone opinions on it.",
  "So I used to be vegan for health reasons rather than ethical and eventually I went back to eating dairy and eggs products. But in that time I had read up about the ethical stance and I felt guilty eating animal products despite enjoying the taste and so I recommitted years ago.\n\nHowever, for the past few years I've been struggling with bulimia and when I binge, my more rational brain switches off and I eat dairy and egg products. But not meat as I see meat as the flesh of an animal and I know that to provide meat an animal 100% has to be murdered and so I never eat it. \nWhereas when I eat eggs and dairy while binging, I afterwards tell myself that the animals could be being treated well.\n\nPlease convince me why eggs and dairy should definitely not be eaten as I'm on the fence.",
  "people keep telling me that i cant survive in -40C without eating meat.what should i do? ",
  "Most things you do hurt others. Every thing you consume damages the environment or other living beings. I still prefer a car and cheap products over the \"good\" (local) ones. Why should I  stop eating meat then?",
  "Can this lab meat match the nutritional content of lamb or ox liver?\nVit A: 813%, B2: 250%, B3: 100%, B6: 53%, B12: 1083%, C: 28%, Iron: 77%\nOr even remotely close to these numbers? If you think so, please tell me how you know? ",
  "Now this is a hot topic for a lot people. I do not advocate for any particular lifestyle. I am only looking at the health effects and not so much the moral side of the argument. \n\nI would like to know if there is any research out there that shows that people who participate on a ketogenic or paleo diet actually saw benefits from it. It seems to me vague that a lot people say that meat is bad. Well in those studies are they taking in mind what are the habits of the test subjects? What are they eating with the meat? What kind of meat are they eating? What is the amount of simple sugars consumed? \n\nLike I said I am more focused on the health aspects and not so much on the morality. I do agree that factory farming is atrocious. ",
  "I believe we are all morally obligated to purchase plant-based fake meats as much as is financially viable. I'll lay my argument out as a syllogism for sake of clarity.\n\nP1: Humans will never quit eating unhealthy fast food products. Most people are so addicted to these products that they will never quit eating them, and they will never support legislation against them. \n\nP2: If more people consume vegan-friendly burgers, they will get cheaper and will take up more menu space. This will lead to other non-vegans being introduced to the burgers and trying them.\n\nP3: Every purchase of a veggie burger by a non-vegan is a meat purchase prevented, (as well as an extremely effective form of vegan activism, as it appeals to the natural egoism all humans have).\n\nP4: Every meat purchase prevented is a small contribution to the end of factory farming, as it decreases the market share of real meat.\n\nP5: We are morally obligated to do everything within our power to end factory farming.\n\nC: We are morally required to purchase vegan-friendly fast food and other vegan friendly meat substitutes as much as is practical.\n\n(Hope this is clear; I was gonna use a simpler syllogism, but decided to try and explain all of my assumptions in some detail for the sake of clarity).",
  "I would like some thoughts from the logic experts on the following premise: \n\n**Suppose that X [some evil action] is going to happen no matter what.  So one might as well do X and escape moral culpability for X.**\n\nWithin the context of veganism, X would be the violent abuse and killing of innocent animals through purchasing animal products to feed a carnivorous animal.  \n\nIn the wild, the actor for X would be the carnivorous animal. \n\nIn human society, the actor for X would be the owner/keeper of the carnivorous animal.  \n\nDebate question:\n\n**Does a vegan escape moral culpability/responsibility for X by engaging in X given that X is going to happen anyway?**\n\nPut another way, does committing an injustice against someone on the basis that the injustice would happen anyway free the person from the moral responsibility/culpability for the injustice?  \n\nMy thoughts: \n\nI would say that the logic is a non-sequitur and that it is better to avoid committing injustice regardless of whether the injustice is going to happen anyway or not.  \n\nAs an analogy, consider women and children who are being killed by Israeli bombs in Gaza.  If I were to travel to Gaza and kill the women and children myself, then I could claim that I was justified in killing the women and children since they would have been killed anyway in the bombings and it's on this basis that I could claim escape from moral culpability and place the blame on the Israeli military.",
  "As a non vegan (but somebody who does eat certain \u2018free from\u2019 foods for health reasons) I rarely see much enticing and convenient vegan food. \n\nNow Im talking here about convenience food, lunches quick dinners etc, obviously anything you make from scratch would be simple enough to make vegan. \n\nHow do you see the vegan movement continuing to grow without a significant increase in convenient vegan foods, but will shops increase their range of vegan foods without a clear indication of an increased demand? ",
  "I've thought of veganism ever since I've taken a tour of an industrial dairy/pig farm and shocked at what I saw. It's been in my mind for 10+ years. I think our society is utterly obsessed with consumption and pleasure and we eat shitloads of meat without thinking or considering the big picture. Industrial farming feels like one of the greatest sins of modern day society that the human race refuses to think about as a species, due to our unnatural, gluttonous, destructive, addicted, capitalist relationship to food.\r  \n\r  \nI feel like this viewpoint of me makes me prime to join a vegan group or be part of a community where I can learn how I can take action or make positive food-related changes in my life. It would be very nice to be part of a community of like-minded people. However, I've been turned off of the movement nearly every time I've encountered it.\r  \n\r  \nThere was a girl in HS who was a huge PETA supporter and did/said some extreme things that made me and everyone else in HS anti-vegan, or at least anti-PETA. I ran into some activists, they were wearing Anonymous masks and showed me this cow slaughter video that made me sick to my stomach, lost my appetite and felt horrible while hanging out with friends. I thought it was not fair for that person to be in public shoving disgusting images in people's faces, and reminded me of the tactics of anti-abortion activists with dead fetus images. I agreed with the vegan activist's general view, but opposed his tactic.\r  \n\r  \nI feel that a lot of vegan discourse is ungraceful and intolerant, and in fact creates a reverse psychology effect and turns moderates/borderline people like me off of veganism because I mentally associated the idea of not enslaving animals with these specific people. Talking to a vegan oftentimes felt like talking to a Jehovah's Witness or right-wing evangelical -- someone who considered anyone outside of their in-group as morally bad and believes EVERYONE should be converted into their way of thinking. Thinking in moralistic, black-and-white terms, and shames people for believing in the wrong thing.\r  \n\r  \nIf I were a vegan, I would not be proud to call myself one because the movement (at least in USA) is associated with radicals and extremists, people who are moralistic, think they are better than others, and are generally considered annoying/insufferable to non-vegans.\r  \n\r  \nI want to take a gentle, moderate, slow and easy path to veganism, aka be a \"chill\" vegan. I don't want my path to be one defined by shock/disgust/moral outrage, I want it to be defined by good food and health, is there a path for me? My first inclination is toward non-Western cultures, such as Indian vegetarians or Buddhist vegetarians, whose practice is rooted in culture, amazing cuisine, etc. moreso than political/moral view. Are there more groups like this? Can you please offer some viewpoints, if there are options for vegan-lites or moderates or people uninterested in shocking documentaries, etc.? I'm afraid if I join any vegan groups I'll be guilted by people who accuse me for being too wishy-washy and too open to pro-meat, pro-dairy viewpoints.\r  \n\r  \nIs there a place within veganism for someone who gets along great with pro-environmental meat-eaters and dairy consumers, but also wants a world with little/no animal enslavement, but also very much dislikes zealotry/moral outrage, is veganism right for me?",
  "vegans say that eating eggs is bad because they shred baby chicks. What doesn't make sense to me is that in order for a chick to be born, the egg needs to be fertilized by a rooster (male). So if they kill all the males, how does the egg get fertilized, and why do they need the roosters? Also when it comes to stores like whole foods, anyone have a perspective? I have toured the farm where they keep the female chickens and they are treated with absolute care.... Their eggs are not fertilized. Therefore who would I be hurting? Thanks.",
  "My choosing to stop eating meat will have no impact on the number of animals that suffer during the process of meat production. Giant meat corporations will, obviously, not adjust their supply of meat based on the changes in demand of one individual consumer. Even if tomorrow I were to renounce all animal products, the same number of animals will continue to suffer at the hands of meat producers.\n\nThus, there is no reason for me to stop enjoying a meat diet seeing as it improves my life and happiness.\n\nDiscuss.",
  "https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/opinion/an-english-sheep-farmers-view-of-rural-america.html?_r=1\n\nIt's not too long and it's a beautifully written opinion piece.  You'll be glad you read it.  \n\nI don't want to present this as a omni vs. vegan/veg debate, because our food system is much bigger and more problematic than that.  I see that fight like political parties fighting, with the real money and power changing hands while we bicker\n\nWe're all here because we care about where our food comes from.  There are huge problems with where all of our food comes from.  ",
  "Factory farming practices aside, normal pastured farm animals have security, safety, friendly human caretakers, and constant access to food, water, and medicine. They are also spared the pain of degradation from surviving into old age. Wild animals must live constantly in fear of predators or violent competition for dominance within the herd. They must search out food and water, sometimes in hostile territory. When their life ends, it is not painless or peaceful. They are either eaten alive by a predator, or violently killed first if they are lucky. If not killed in the wild for food, they are injured and left to starve to death or succumb to infection, or may suffer poisoning from eating the wrong plant or being stung or bitten by a venomous insect or animal. Slaughter by a human using best-practices seems preferable to any alternative in the wild. These animals will not be kept as pets if meat consumption suddenly ends. As a vegan, how do you justify wanting to release pastured farm animals from their cushy life and swift slaughter and instead subject them to the certain suffering that awaits them in the wild? I say having a human decide the length of your life is a small price for the benefits of being kept by humans. What say you? ",
  "All food groups have important roles in the body, and skipping any is harmful. Children need a balanced diet while growing, and skipping any food groups may hinder brain development.",
  " These places are theme parks/amusement parks but they have safaris or zoos inside that is included in the admission price or season pass price. The main draw there is roller coasters/water park  and thrill rides but the zoo/safaris and animal exhibits are automatically included. In the case of Hersheypark, it\u2019s a large amusement park with a place called Zoo America that is included with your ticket. At Great adventure they have a large safari that is also included. Even if you don\u2019t go to the Safari they\u2019re still Lion and tortoise flamingo exhibits etc. that you have to walk past to get to certain roller coasters. They also have shows like a sea lion show and a show with Parrots and another one with reptiles. Can you still call yourself vegan if you purchase tickets to these places? What is your view on this? Also Busch Gardens Tampa.",
  "Go back to the beginning of civilization prior to farming. In the USA for example, there was vast grassland throughout the  country. It supported a gigantic ecosystem of wild-type ruminants numbering in the hundreds of millions. Every single acre of land that could support ruminants, was supporting ruminants, before we interfered.\n\nFor humans to subsist on plants, we would have needed to clear land and convert it to plant agriculture. If we didn't put up a fence, ruminants would eat all the seedlings, so we put up fences. All of the wild ruminants that once used that land for subsistence grass eating were forced into a smaller area. Since they were already at equilibrium with the environment before we interfered, shrinking their available land area would result in net starvation for them.\n\nWhat do vegans intend to do about that? \n\nEDIT: because some don't seem to be seeing the \"argument\" in my original post:\n\n\"Agriculture results in positive net suffering on the planet. If vegans are in favor of reducing net suffering, one would expect that they would be in favor of reducing our reliance on agriculture and converting land back to wild uses (even at the expense of human population). Most vegans do not seem to advocate this. Therefore there exists a conflict between beliefs and actions which must be explained or justified. Vegan should therefore address the suffering caused by agriculture in a substantive manner, without resorting to moralist platitudes which skirt the issue. \"",
  "Interested in the opinions of people in this sub. This is a real life example that happened to me today. My question is: what would you do in this situation and why? Story below:\n\nThis morning a man in my village told me he had a New Years gift for me. I went to his house to receive the gift and discovered that it was two live rabbits. This man is not a man who treats his animals well and the rabbits were being raised in very unsuitable conditions. He is also very rough with his animals, to the point of cruelty.\n\nI did not feel that I could refuse to take the animals and leave them in those conditions so I accepted the gift, but insisted on catching them myself so that I knew they were being handled without cruelty.\n\nI do not have an appropriate space to keep rabbits right now - I used to keep a colony but had to cull it after a bad local outbreak of RHD and now my setup has been repurposed for other things. There are no animal shelters within reasonable distance of where I live (the closest is a plane ride away and definitely would not accept rabbits). There is nobody I know who keeps rabbits here who does not use them for meat.\n\nI decided to kill and eat the rabbits. I killed them with a captive bolt stunner (one shot with a capsule fit for sheep blew their eyes right out of their heads, the death was definitely instant and painless, completely destroying the brain).\n\nAdmittedly the rabbits did not have a very good day today, but it honestly seemed to me like the best course of action.\n\n\\~\\~\\~\n\nMy question to the redditors here is: what would you have done in this scenario? You go to receive the gift and discover the nature of the gift - you are being given custodianship of live animals and if you refuse you are consigning them to a life comparable to that of a pig in a cruel factory farm - lots of stress, poor housing and conditions and brutal handling. Was there a better route out of this scenario? I am genuinely interested to see if there was a preferable approach. I can't say that I'm opposed to eating rabbit, but I definitely don't feel entirely comfortable with the way the lives of those particular rabbits panned out.",
  "Hello!  I am not a vegan myself but do respect anyone that can maintain the diet.  Personally I find meat and dairy to be more like a soda, cigarette, or alcohol.  An indulgence? A vice?  Anyway, I also recognize the huge amount of resources necessary to raise live stock compared to vegan options.  It's something that relates to my question actually. \n\nRegarding the future question: Synthetic meat will be likely coming down in price and be of similar pricing to the real thing in the future.  I'm talking lab grown steaks that are indistinguishable from the real thing.  This is assuming no animal would be harmed.  I know a few things have happened in a lab but the price is astronomica currentlyl.  \n\nIs this something that would be acceptable to eat?  Why or why not?  I imagine the vegans that do it for health reasons wouldn't apply here.  I am likely wrong on that, too. \n\nLooking forward to some responses, thanks!",
  "Why do you think suffering is \"bad\"?",
  "I have come across several instances of opposition towards the usage of gelatin, manure and other by-products of animal industries from vegans. The way I see it is that these by-products would otherwise go to waste, but by using them instead as fertilizers and food additives they get a purpose. So does not consuming them and letting them go to waste decreases the demand for animal products and increases the amount of suffering that happens to animals?",
  "Firstly, yes factory farming is an issue and I am not talking about that. I'm talking about the moral dilemma of eating an animal.\n\nWhy shouldn't I eat an animal? If you look at the world, life eats life. In order to survive you need to consume other living organisms. We as humans are the top dog in the world because of our intellect. Personally I feel we are more valuable than an animal as we are a more complex species. In the wild there is a sense of racism between race of species. You almost always see the same type of animals hanging out with other animals. This is why humans are so close and we value each others life higher than we value another animals life. If nature is build this way then would it not be against nature's will to stop eating animals and mess up the food chain?\n\nMany people argue that animals deserve a chance to live. What about plants? Plants are living organisms too and I'm pretty sure if they can communicate to us they wouldnt want to be eaten either but it still happens. I read somewhere that some plants change their scent or taste when a friendly plant is being eaten by something in order to discourage the predator from eating other plants. This is clearly a sign they dont want to be eaten but we do it anyways. If you claim that eating animals is morally wrong then you better justify why plants is ok too because to me they are the same thing. Plants just dont have to opportunity to move around and Express their emotions. I would like to hear to opinions on this.\n\nRegardless of killing an animal, what is wrong about using special abilities of animals like eggs or milk? If I milk a cow, what is morally wrong about that? The cow has milk to offer, I am simply taking advantage of the opportunity just as we humans take advantage of other humans intellect. \n\nYou are not guaranteed anything in the wild. People claim animals should have rights but why? Rights were invented by people. We used rights to help govern how our society is run. Animals have their own version of rights, look at alpha males in packs of wolves. Their rights are drastically different than ours. Why should some animals get rights and others shouldn't. You wouldnt care about stepping on an ant but all of a sudden a cow is hunted and you lose your cool. What draws the line between an animals being ok to kill and it being morally wrong? It is purely subjective. \n\nI would also like an opinion on zombie cows. Let's say we can create zombie cows where their brains are only advanced enough to eat, shit, sleep. Is there anything immoral about killing them for meat?",
  "I'm a vegan but I honestly can't find a good reason why eating mussels is wrong. Here's a link going more in depth https://sentientist.org/2013/05/20/the-ethical-case-for-eating-oysters-and-mussels/",
  "I realize vegans acknowledge that they are not absolutists as 100% veganism isn't practical. Suffering will always exist and vegans seek to reduce that suffering. My question is, how do vegans decide how far they are willing to go to reduce suffering?\n\nHere's one example. Flying airplanes exploits animals, as the skies must be cleared of birds to make flying adequately safe for airplane flight. It follows that by flying airplanes, we contribute to the premature death of animals. Let's say someone is travelling from California to New York. It would certainly be practical to get to New York from California without taking a plane. However, it would not be very convenient nor pleasurable to do so without flying. So how would a vegan justify taking the plane if it is contributing to the premature death of animals?\n\nIn this regard, vegans are no different from meat-eaters as both classes exploit animals for their own convenience or pleasure. Let's talk!\n\nEDIT: My view has been changed. Vegans are still morally distinct from meat-eaters in that their degree of intentionality differs. Meat-eaters purposefully harm animals. Vegans do not. Thanks for the discussion!",
  "https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/5kwfps/dont_make_fun_of_omnivores_they_have_a_hard_life/?st=1Z141Z3&sh=f15c5351\n\nTell me which part are serious and I'll be happy to debate them with you :)",
  "My basic concern with veganism is this, that it stirs up so many great questions about our diets and inspires so much concern in responsible eating, but it all seems to stop at the involvement of animals. \n\nThe impact of what we choose to eat every day has a far greater impact.  Your money funds the company processing the food, growing it, contributing to that local economy or drawing from it unfairly.  The conditions needed to grow any product en masse cannot be guaranteed to be sustainable for the farmers, healthy for the soil, or healthy for the community because of any one label we have to put on them.  \n\nThis is why I don't understand basic vegetarianism.  If you consume dairy, you are complicit in the creation of animal life and should be so responsible as to consume meat.  What else do you tell the small dairy farmer to do with the calves born every year?  Keep raising and milking them, and just let the bulls hang out and get huge and aggressive and difficult to deal with?  Sell them off, where someone else will just slaughter them?  \n\nI just wish the energy directed towards responsible eating were equally focused all the way down the chain, and with concern towards the impacts of all foods, not just the ones with the most easily apparent bloodshed and pain.  \n\nsub-question, as I'm new to this forum- is the act of pollinating crops with the use of beehives considered to be against vegan ideals?",
  "I see this often online but also in person as well. \n\nOne vegan is okay using salvaged leather, to the eyes of the vegan across the table they\u2019re not vegan. \n\nOne vegan uses the non vegan hand soap at a friends house but their other friend packed his own because otherwise he\u2019s not vegan. \n\nOne vegan dates a non vegan who has meat eating pets and suddenly they\u2019re not seen as vegan because the snake has to eat and they\u2019re running to the store to buy a frozen mouse. \n\nOne vegan relies on medication that was tested on animals for health and to another vegan, they\u2019re not! \n\nOne vegan uses a food bank to feed themselves and their kids and can\u2019t afford to decline what\u2019s offered\u2026still vegan if there\u2019s cheese in the pasta sauce? \n\nAre you vegan if you pick products that destroy the planet over secondhand products made from animals? Depends who you ask. \n\nSo where does the line fall? Either everyone who self identifies as vegan is vegan regardless of their discrepancies or no one is. My boyfriend who identifies as vegan was told he isn\u2019t, because he\u2019s dating a non vegan. This community can\u2019t seem to figure themselves out!\n\nI\u2019m sure there are countless other examples. Culture, science, geographical location, living arrangements, religion, art, employment, and so on and so forth. \n\nAs far as I can tell, vegans are a myth outside of some very strict monastery somewhere.",
  "Hello people,\n\ncan anyone help me with finding sources that compare the amount of estrogen ( and other testosterone lowering hormones) found in animals vs. plants?   \nI heard many times about how soy contains phytoestrogen and is decreasing testosterone and so yet somehow no talk among people about the same case with milk. Have you seen some clear and exact comparison? I would appreciate all the knowledge regarding this topic.  \nThanks so much in advance.  \n",
  "\ud83d\uddde\ufe0f SATYRA NEWS - CAP\u00cdTULO 2 Como cada a\u00f1o por estas fechas, entrevistamos al representante de la asociaci\u00f3n de comerciantes festejos.",
  "I know this question essentially captures the entirety of this sub, but I want to ask the question and explain my overall reasoning.\n\nQuestion: how can you justify eating meat/food products that come from animals?\n\nFor the sake of argument, I will not be discussing nutritional benefits of being vegan (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.full), and I will not accept anyone's assertion that it is unhealthy to be Vegan. That is objectively false. However, it is also possible to be a healthy carnivore. So I am going to leave personal health completely out of the equation.\n\nLet's look at the pros and cons of choosing to be Vegan vs. not being Vegan\n\nNon-Vegan:\nPros:\n1. The inherently good taste of meat and animal products\n2. The convenience of consuming foods that are far more common and readily available\n\nCons:\n1. Being a part of systematic suffering of sentient beings. Beings with feelings and sensations, with the ability to feel pain. We don't need to discuss the spectrum of how different a Chicken's consciousness compared to a Human's. In this case, it doesn't matter. What we do know for certain, is that these animals feel pain.\n\n\nVegan:\nPros:\n1. Not being a part of systematic suffering of sentient beings..\n\nCons:\n1. Not being able to enjoy the good tasting foods that come from animals\n2. Less convenient food options.\n\nBefore anyone who would like to disagree with me responds, I would ask them to think hard about any argument that doesn't conflict directly with the pros and cons that I have outlined in this post. Any argument that deals with \"natural food chain\" or \"history of meat consumption\" or \"we are natural carnivores\" does not address my argument at all. We are humans who are 100% capable of living healthy lives without consuming any animal products at all. So, as humans in modern society, the single, only lasting pros of meat consumption are the pros that I have discussed in my argument.\n\nSo in summation, I ask, anyone who consumers animal products, how do you justify the pros of convenience and good tasting foods over the systematic suffering of millions of sentient beings? This is not meant to be a leading or aggressive question. I truly believe this is the heart of the entire debate.",
  "Do you consider these animals to be exploited? What about all the training and investment that goes into these animals? Would you be interested to see police and military become dog and horse free?",
  "My sense is vegans are more concerned with diet but still share the bulk of animal rights activists' views.",
  "Do you value all animals equaly or is there some animals that you would say is less bad to kill? Like i know a lot of people do eat fish but no other meat or maybe you are ok with insects(or just honey)?\n\nLikewhy do you reason killing animals is bad? Is it because you cause pain? Suffering? Would you eat a dead carcass thats realy already dead with no strings attatched of suporting the industry?\n\n\nAnd ofc i dont realy mean eating rotten carcas, this is just a theoretical question to understand where your morals are based off.",
  "My wife and I have been vegan for 7ish months or so for environmental and ethical reasons. I have been wondering this for some time now. For example, you are at a restaurant and the waiter accidentally brings you a plate that you didn't order that is not vegan. Knowing that that plate will go directly in the trash, would you eat it to prevent it from being wasted? Barring any dietary restrictions / allergies of course. Yesterday we opened our front door and a skip driver had left a deliver for an order we did not make. It was a bagel club sandwich and a butter cinnamon croissant. They had been there for a while and were cold (yay winter in Canada), so safe to eat, but I couldn't bring myself to throw them out as that would be even more sad and wasteful. Looking forward to some decent debate on this. Thanks all!",
  "**Type \"Matt Dillahunty vs VeganGains Atheist Experience Call\" into YouTube and watch the 18 minute clip for context.**\n\nI don't think I'm quite understanding Matt's argument against veganism. It's either a flawed argument on its own merit, or Matt is deflecting because he doesn't want his personal conveniences and pleasures called into question. I have a few big problems with the argument:\n\n*Is veganism a moral obligation?* I don't know, is it? Is not murdering someone a moral obligation? Define \"moral obligation,\" because I'm not following. Following the law is obligatory, otherwise you end up in jail or prison, so in that sense you wouldn't want to commit murder. Most people experience empathy, which makes murder immoral. Morals are based on empathy, respect, and law, predominantly, so in what sense is anything a \"moral obligation?\" Obligation implies authority, and to what authority should we refer to when discussing certain moral obligations? God? \n\nI don't think that objective morality and moral obligations are synonymous, but if Matt is referring to things that are objectively moral, then yes, veganism *is* objectively moral. I can't agree that it's an obligation, though, because I can't agree that not murdering someone is an obligation either.\n\n*Social Contract:* It follows that all laws are the result of social contract. We don't murder people because we don't want to cut short the life of another person, or to inflict pain on their family. We don't rape people because we don't want others to feel pain, fear, and experience trauma. We don't steal, threaten, harass, destroy, etc. for those same reasons. We are in a social contract with fellow humans, but why can't we be in a social contract with other animals? Matt doesn't address this. What makes our current social contract adequate? \n\nMany of our laws help to protect animals: laws against the abuse of animals, both domestic and non-domestic. These laws are in place because we *do* feel empathy for other animals and respect them. Does that not equate to some type of social contract? If there was no contract in place, we would have no reason to extend our laws to other animals, and we would most certainly not feel empathy toward them.\n\n*Well-being:* I'm at a complete loss on what Matt was trying to get at with this. If his entire morality is based upon well-being, then how does meat-eating make any sense? \"Well-being for humans, of course,\" is I'm sure what he would say, but *why?* Matt gave no solid reasons for anything; he was dancing around, avoiding questions and being purposefully vague.\n\nDoes anyone else have any thoughts on this piss-poor \"debate?\" Did I get anything wrong? I'm still not quite sure what to make of this stance, so I'm open to seeing other opinions.",
  "I see lots of vegans who eat vegetables that look like meat. I always wondered to my self \u201cisn\u2019t this just a simulation of eating meat?\u201d Cause why would vegans eat anything that looks, smells, and tastes like the stuff they are trying so hard to protect. If I was a vegan, it would gross me out that other vegans love the taste of meat. Even if it isn\u2019t real. So why do vegans eat veggie meat?",
  "Mainly for medical purposes, but also cosmetic. \n\nI wouldn't be alive today without animal testing. The advances that brought in both pharmaceutical and hands on medicine saved my life many times over. And the same for everyone currently alive. So I admit, there's bias here. (Not sure how much of a debate you can have here, but I'm curious to hear from others anyways).\n\nI think it's inevitable, at least until we eliminate health based suffering in the world. And who knows if that will happen before we go extinct. But I also think it deserved some respect. The animals may not choose to suffer or die to further the cause, but it's still a sacrifice.\n\nCosmetic testing can get fucked, though. Nobody needs cosmetics to live.",
  "So, I agree with many vegan talking points. The health benefits (although I don't think it is the healthiest diet it is better than the SAD), environmental concerns, and other stuff but mainly that factory farming and suffering is wrong and unnecessary.\n\nHowever, I am OK with killing most animals, which is a major difference and a reason I would not be vegan (I don't think that I would ever be completely vegan as I don't believe in being as strict as many vegans are, but I would stop paying for meat if there were other options).\n\nWhy? Because I don't think they have complex enough minds to \"want not to die\", or to even fathom their own existence. From what I understand, a complex language, even a basic language is required to form thoughts, otherwise all that is left is feelings.\n\nSentience/consciousness is a scale, not a binary value. I think it's easy to project human emotions and behaviors on to many animals, however that doesn't mean they actually think anything remotely close to how humans do.\n\nI've researched this quite a lot. Most studies cover emotional complexity, conditioning, or behaviors that could be instinctual or pre-programmed, or they set the bar so low to measure intelligence that learning that pushing a red button will bring food is considered significant.\n\nTo me, none of that is sufficient proof of mind.\n\nMany don't like this analogy, but for me, killing many animals is akin to turning off a lamp. Or perhaps a better example would be turning off an advanced robot. They are essentially organic machines, clones of each other, following instinctual programming to respond to various situations. They don't have distinct personalities, most didn't evolve a need for complex thought like we have, and honestly I think it is mostly the result of anthropomorphism that many vegans think they do.\n\nI saw a comment in r/vegan where people were talking about seeing a fish on land being eaten by a walrus, and how they could see the pain in it's eyes, the emotions it was expressing, how it was just wondering WTF. To me, that is pure anthropomorphism , and decidedly not backed by science. Fish eyes look the same if restrained in water but otherwise healthy, or suffocating on land, or being eaten into by a mammal.\n\nHonestly, I think this is why most of the world is not vegan and is unlikely to go vegan (growth of vegan products does not equal growth of veganism. See many vegan products being offered at restaurants in a non-vegan way). There is a reason most scientists, even those who work in fields relating to animal consciousness are not vegan, and it isn't because of indoctrination or fear to deviate or lack of education.\n\nI have a theory that many vegans are at the opposite end of the empathy spectrum than sociopaths, i.e., too much empathy, which I think explains a lot. But it's just a theory.\n\nSo...I am open to seeing actual proof, because in my own research I have not found anything convincing. If I am wrong about this, I would rather not be, but from what I can tell the question is far from settled, so it is currently a matter of belief, and I believe the evidence sides with my view. For me, this is what it really comes down to, and if I can be convinced of this, then my main objection to being vegan (or close enough) will be refuted.\n\nTwo caveats. Please don't mention the Cambridge declaration of consciousness. A near 10 year old declaration signed by 20 scientists saying we should be more cautious is not proof of what I am asking. Answers trying to use that as proof will be ignored. Also please don't bring up the argument from marginal cases. I'm very, very familiar with the argument, argued it a low, and I don't accept it. Even if you want to argue that, it isn't what I am asking for and isn't relevant to this very specific debate/question.\n\nFull Disclosure: I do post in r/antivegan. I am not here to troll, and have had good debates here with people in the past. I am respectful of the rules, and civil and polite. Many people have engaged me and thanked me for the honest discussion, so there is that. I am asking and discussing this in good faith. If you can't accept that, please don't bother responding. If it's a problem, I suppose you can just ban me and be done with it, but I am hoping for good discussion.\n\nEdit: Guys, not really interested in the attempts to provide your reasoning, and so far everyone is coming back to the marginal cases argument, which as I stated is not a good argument. Please provide proof, and if you can't provide that refrain from posting your own ideas and 'logic'. It simply isn't going to convince me.\n\nEdit2: **By most animals I mean commonly eaten animals except pigs. So cows, rabbits, chickens, fish, goat, etc.**",
  "\u201cThe Vegan Society defines veganism as \u201ca philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude\u2014as far as is possible and practicable\u2014all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals\u201d. Yet, there are those who only follow the diet aspect of veganism, by having a plant-based diet without animal products. They are known as \u2018dietary vegans\u2019 (or simply \u2018plant-based\u2019) and when they choose this diet for health reasons alone, they are known as \u2018health vegans\u2019. Moreover, those who follow The Vegan Society\u2019s full definition, to encompass lifestyle alternatives (such as clothes, entertainment, household products, cosmetics, hobbies, etc.)\u2014not primarily for their health, but for the animals, the environment or social justice\u2014are known as \u2018ethical vegans\u2019. I am one of them and, like many, I entered veganism by the \u2018animal rights\u2019 gateway, but now embrace all the other reasons too.\u201d\n\nhttps://www.vegansociety.com/news/blog/foundations-ethical-veganism\n\nIt doesn\u2019t matter what someone\u2019s reason for being vegan is or how vegan they are compared to someone else. \n\nIf someone is acting in accordance with the Vegan Society\u2019s values and definitions, they are vegan. \n\nIf this upsets anyone they\u2019ve already lost sight of the core idea of veganism:\n\nIt\u2019s about the animals.\n\nEdit: Added quotation marks.\n\nUpdate: Not ignoring the comments. Busy today. I promise I\u2019m not breaking a rule.",
  "First: Happy New Year! \n\nI'm a freshly baked vegan of roughly 9 months now and I am in therapy for different reasons. I talked to my therapist about veganism because it was unsure how to communicate with omnis and how to react to people who eat a lot of meat.   That especially concerns a few friends and family members who apparently memorized the 10 questions with which to anger a vegan. \nAnyway, my therapist and I talked and amongst the first things she said was that veganism is a tough to talk about topic because it is emotially charged. And I was very confused in that moment, because if anything it is very factual for me. Or rather I try to be very factual. (I'd personally never say that being not vegan makes someone a bad person e.g.) If anything I'd say that the omni interpretation is always emotionally charged and fast defensive. Even my therapist was soon in the mode to explain why she eats meat and well... I guess I want to find a way to discuss the topic without evoking that reaction every time. \nSo: to vegans and omnis what makes the topic veganism so emotional for you? And how can a discussion be made less emotional charged?",
  "What rights should the AI be afforded? \n\nWould it be immoral for a vegan to \"switch it off\"?\n\nShould a sentient AI be afforded the same rights as any other sentient being?",
  "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27813678/\n\nAnimal Proteins as Important Contributors to a Healthy Human Diet\n\nNot sure how to get passed the paywall. \n\nIf this isn't the best place to debate meat vs plant nutrition please redirect me, thank you.",
  "Hello, my spouse and I are thinking about going vegetarian for our New Year resolution. We stuck to our resolution last year of no frozen / fast food ( I can make a mean pizza now!) and we're looking to step it up again and cut meat out of our diet. But, we're not fully convinced yet.\n\nOur current beliefs: we're not ethically against eating animals in moderation. Our problem is the quality of life of animals leading up to their deaths and an unclean death. Lately, I've been seeing more and more about the drop in standards of the meat industry in America. I've read, as comments here on Reddit so nothing solid yet, that poultry is essentially washed with chlorine, that pigs can be killed with steam, and just a general lack of a good life and poor meat processing.\n\nAlso, there's the issue that we simply eat too much and it's not great for the environment, from what I hear. We're talking about giving ourselves one cheat meal a week (hey, it's a start) because that, at the very least, will greatly lessen our impact on the environment.\n\nWhat we're looking for: some good news pieces, documentaries, or articles that will push us over the tipping point. We're wanting something balanced and well researched like a John Oliver. Hopefully there is some stuff out there that is grounded in science and research. There's a lot out there that gets too close to alternate medicine for my taste, no pun intended.",
  "If the goal of veganism is to reduce suffering and/or deaths, then the way to reduce this to zero woukd be to kill all life, thus eleminating suffering, or to commit suicide, thus taking a single life more and causing the fewest deaths. \n\nIf we accept that killing the planet and suicide are not a morally or ethically feasible goal to have, as well as wonton destruction and killing for the sake of it, as is the opposite extreme, then I do not think that one can argue that what causes the least amount of harm or death is the most moral option. So because of this, wouldn't arguing that veganism is morally superior because it causes the fewest amount of suffering and death, which is arguable for consumerist veganidm, not work unless you accept one of these extremes since the defense of veganism is harm or death reduction?",
  "Recently I learned of the growing trend of regenerative agriculture. For those who haven't heard of it, basically folks are buying land that has been deemed \"unsalvageable\", and due to decades of poor farming practices is incapable of producing any food upon purchase. By carefully implementing ecological restoration techniques and allowing natural succession to take over, farmers are turning desolate fields back into wild, natural places. Slowly, large populations of free-roaming, free-living bison, deer, cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc. are introduced and managed by the farmers. The animals live out their lives in the wild as animals would, and once they reach a certain age/have contributed enough to their population, the farmers go in and hunt them to harvest their meat. You can read about one of these farms here:  [http://roamranch.com/](http://roamranch.com/) \n\nTo me, this seems like a really awesome system. This would be immeasurably more environmentally friendly than any system of farming animals we've ever seen before, and seems extremely ethical as well. Animals live free and wild their whole lives, are swiftly dispatched by skilled hunters, and all of their meat is put to good use. At the same time, the land that's been restored is providing valuable habitat to other non-game species as well as providing all of the other essential ecosystem services that natural, healthy systems would provide. Voices in the environmental/conservation/ag world are increasingly touting this plan as possibly the future of sustainable food production. What do you guys think of this?",
  "http://i.imgur.com/QFUBMcy.gifv\n\nbtw i'm vegan myself but really wondering. please try to see the principle in my question and don't attach too much to this very example. thanks ahead. \n\nEDIT : animal a eats animal b - what do i gain by not eating animal a in terms of not killing animals ? \n\nEdit 2 : cows eat chicken https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPa-NetXeUk \ndeer eating bird https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQOQdBLHrLk\ni could add more. ",
  "What is wrong with using animals for food, clothing, etc. if it is done humanely?",
  "Some 99.9% of sugar beets in 2013 which is 55% of USA sugar, 2018 cotton made up 94% of all cotton planted, and 92% of corn planted. \n\nDenying other insects that prey on these pests food as well.\n\nTitle to try and hide from the brigadiers..\n\n*\n\nhttps://www.agric.wa.gov.au/biological-control/know-what-beneficials-look-your-crop\n\nBeneficial insects need the insects g crops wouldn't have.",
  "This is a question on the definition of \"vegan\".  Excuse my ignorance on this topic, but it is why I am here.  And apologies if this has been asked a thousand times before.\n\nI switched to a plant-based diet in 2021.  I began buying cheese and sausage with the word \"vegan\" on the label.  I began ordering items at restaurants with the little \"v\" next to it for vegan.  I don't really own any leather products and I don't plan on buying any.  I don't have any pets and in fact I don't totally support the idea of people having pets.  I haven't been to the zoo in years and don't have any plans to go.\n\nI have told people that I am vegan but was recently corrected by a friend of mine.  I am happy to learn and immediately stopped calling myself a vegan.  That is not a problem.  I have adopted this lifestyle for environmental reasons.  This same friend, however, does claim the tag of \"vegan\", but it seemed to me like she has some traits that might not be in line with a vegan lifestyle.  Her car has leather seats.  She has a rescue dog.  She takes vitamin D capsules with gelatin (I looked at the bottle).\n\nCan she still be considered \"vegan\" with her lifestyle?  Does it all depend on her moral beliefs? If so, where is the line? Can a vegan technically still eat animal products if it is mostly about the belief system?\n\nThanks for your help.  I come in peace.",
  "I know a lot of people that do reiki energy work, and some of them do this for animals. They heal pets and horses, but turn around to still eat flesh of non-consenting beings. I can\u2019t understand the disconnect, I get we all compartmentalize and are desensitized but if you\u2019re that close to animals & spending time entwined with their energy how can you go home and eat meat???",
  "I often feel clueless, what I should do when someone hands me non-vegan food, even though I ordered it to be vegan and they made a mistake. If I refuse it, they will just throw it away and the animal suffered for nothing, but if I take it, I would feel really bad regardless and I am mainly vegan, because I want to reduce animal suffering.\nHow do you deal with these situations?",
  "Not sure if this fits this sub, since for context, I'm vegan. But like some others, my journey to veganism wasn't overnight. I went vegetarian for a little over a year before watching Dominion and going vegan. \n\n\nWhile vegetarian, I kinda knew I living a bit of a fallacy by still consuming some animal products and avoiding others, but like many, I justified it to myself with the whole \"at least dairy products don't require the death of the animal like meat does\" line of reasoning. \n\n\nLooking back though, I sometimes feel like my path was a bit crooked from an ethics standpoint, and even more so from a health standpoint. I know it's always tough to compare the suffering of different animals, but I'm now of the opinion that the life of a dairy cow is one of the most tortured existences on Earth. Far worse than that of fish killed for seafood, and slightly worse than that of poultry farmed for food. And obviously dairy is less healthy than poultry/seafood. \n\n\nSo nowadays when I'm talking about steps towards veganism with my friends, I often find myself pushing back harder on dairy than seafood and poultry, and sometimes making more progress there since it's so unnatural. Maybe this isn't really a new idea, but I would love to hear any thoughts.",
  "This is a conversation I've been having back and forth with myself and I'm unsure where I stand. Now I know it's a stupid question because people don't just sit around and wait for animals to die of old age or sickness and I'm sorry for momentarily shifting from the seriousness of animal cruelty.\nBut would eating an animal that died of natural causes be unethical? My biggest issue with people who eat meat and dairy is that they are knowingly contributing to an industry that forcefully TAKES lives and benefits off of animal cruelty and suffering. I believe all life is sacred and no one should have the right to take another life (except on the rare occasion that it is absolutely necessary and unavoidable), but if one were to eat an animal that died of natural causes (no human interference) then I think that would be fair. I was raised plant-based so I've never eaten meat and don't see or understand the appeal but I really wouldn't object to someone eating their dog after it died of old age or succumbed to an illness (far-fetched hypothetical, I know). The most important thing is that the animal did not die or suffer at the hands of a human being. Once that life force is gone animals(humans included) really are just hunks of meat and flesh, it's how the animals are treated while they're alive that matters to me.\nThoughts on my very random and admittedly stupid ramblings?",
  "Hello,\n\nI would like to ask a question mainly about \"militant\" veganism and gatekeeping, from both a pragmatic and philosophical perspective.\n\nIt seems that unlike with vegetarianism (for example) - where there is not some sort of approbation or ex-communication for occasionally eating some fish or meat - many vegans (defined by what I have seen on the subreddit and in person) treat veganism almost in an Alcoholics Anonymous manner. It seems like if you slip up or \"relapse,\" you're back to day 1 as a vegan - and if it is a habit even of the greatest infrequence, you relinquish claim to the vegan title.\n\nPragmatic issues with this attitude arising from \"how far\" one ought to go to be properly vegan (like living totally off the grid and growing only one's own food etc) notwithstanding, this sort of attitude seems to confuse the ethical aspirations with a certain sort of religiosity, making the notion of going vegan appear more daunting to others even if no one gets in their face about it.\n\nThis sort of thinking also seems to put an undue amount of responsibility on an individual to deal with a food economy they did not ask to be born into - yet acknowledging the vegan vision while struggling to adhere to purity meets them with accusations of hypocrisy or insufficient dedication from the community.\n\nI don't think anyone expects veganism to happen overnight; while there is an understandable motivation on the part of \"full time vegans\" to bring that world into being as rapidly as possible, the status quo is so thoroughly ingrained into and intertwined with our culture, economy, and infrastructure (far more so than slavery ever was in any society, for example) that it seems beneficial to establish some way of thinking about this that isn't quite as hardline.\n\nWhat it comes down to is this - *if you agree with the vegan vision, agree with vegan ethics, want to support vegans and the vegan community, and in general will select vegan options when available, but often find yourself needing food in a situation with limited options - electing to eat a balanced meal rather than junk food or go hungry - what should such a person call themselves?*\n\nIt seems like it may be useful to have some kind of category for people who are mostly vegan, but aren't perfect about it - and not because they think it's \"ok to cheat now and then.\" It also seems like it would be prudent to recognize the current state of food availability, and acknowledge that while it is certainly very possible to be vegan, it is nevertheless still significantly more logistically challenging in today's food economy than being an omnivore.\n\nThoughts?",
  "Humans evolved the way we are because of meat. Without it, we would not exist. Why should I stop eating meat now? It provides a majority of the nutrients my body needs to function in one convenient package. (I am using package loosely, I know meat comes from animals.)",
  "I seem to find that vegans typically become vegan for either three reasons; Environmental, ethical, or for health.\n\nI'm not looking to discuss the health reasons, but I'm curious to know about the other two (or other reasons). My question is, how does your view of modern, controlled hunting fit into this?\n\nIt's well known to ecologists that hunting provides benefits the the environment. Species like deer take up more resources than their environment's carrying capacity allows, which is where population control is necessary to prevent long-term harm.\n\nI would personally argue that overpopulation also creates ethical issues. It causes more starvation and competition over resources, and causes a wider spread of disease, leading to an unhealthy population.\n\nWhat are your thoughts on this?",
  "I've been thinking a lot about this idea of backyard eggs lately.\nI would love to hear what you wonderful animal lover think of it.\n\nSo here are my point. Hopefully you can read all of them before commenting and giving your opinions on the issue.\n\n1. Not all chicken were selectively breed so much that they lay 250 eggs per year. Some old breed actually lay around 150 and even less. You can even mitigate the amount of eggs they lay by keeping fake eggs where you took the edible one from. Hens in the wild usually lay eggs until the clutch is the appropriate size. If you take them they keep laying eggs to form a clutch of eggs that will never form.\n\n2. Most chicken alive right now suffer from calcium defficiency because they lay too much eggs , have a poor diet and were selectively breed to death like some dogs actually kinda are (pugs?). It can be avoided tho with feeding them a high quality diet like some people do with their backyard hens.\n\n3. Eggs are one of the best source of nutrients and complete protein. They contain selenium, vitamin D, B6, B12, zinc, iron, copper (which are some of the less common/hard to get for vegans even tho personaly i track my macros more or less and i'm often fine with supplementing). I won't talk here about the silly stance \"LDL is bad muh\" because nutrition is pretty complex and there are a lot of paper on the issue\n\n4. You can actually make your hens life pretty good by having high standards regarding their diet/environment/care. And i think we could honestly say as we can say for cats and dogs that they live a happy life protected from the harshness of nature. If you are ok with people owning cats i don't get why chicken aren't ok. Cats consume meat, you feed the shitty animal abusing agriculture industry. They destroy birds population, intoxicate gardens.. \n\n5. As i said earlier if you take their eggs but substitute them with fake one they'll still take care of them and have this natural behavior going on so you can dial how many eggs they lay.\n\n6. If your chicken get enough calcium they usually don't eat their own eggs because too much calcium does the same to them as not enough and give them bones issues (same as for us it seems).\n\n7. Eggs are really ideal for vegans because of their nutrient profile content and if you don't actually consume them you have to get thoses nutrients/protein somewhere else which directly create suffering/pollution/cost. Because the crops have to be transported, processed, put in plastic, they have to be grow so they kill rodents/diversity and harvested and it's known to kill many rodents with the machines. (All food have a cost right ? it's not an argument against veganism but regarding everything we consume)\n\n8. It's hard to calculate in an utilitarian sense how you aren't actually doing better for yourself and for the universe by consuming ideal backyard eggs. It's not like an easy calcul and people saying it is probably didnt made the math. \n\n9. That's subjective but damn eggs are amazingly tasty i've been vegan for almost 2 year and it was one of the best food i was consuming before switching it goes well into a lot of dishes and can be consumed all day in almost every meal without being \"off\"\n\nThe real downside is that\n10. If you want female hens to lay eggs for you it means a lot of male rooster have actually been eaten/killed for you to profit from the female you own. Tho again it's hard to compute because you have to kill rooster but can enjoy eggs for years. I know personaly that hens can still lay eggs after 6 year which is a lot of eggs consumed over the period (600eggs? how many tofu/bean is that) It makes the calculation not so easy right ?\n\nWhat do you think of this ? :)",
  "I've been researching on veganism and vegetarianism, and to me, they really don't make sense. First of all, isn't veganism still killing plants, which are living beings? And what about the fungus and bacteria being killed in bathrooms while they are being cleaned. And isn't the natural order that meat should be eaten. For example, omnivores eat meat as well as plants. Carnivores eat meat. This is the natural order, isn't it? These are just thoughts, so please, be civilized.",
  "Hey I just wanted to ask an open question and just see what the accepted consensus is among some vegans. I personally am not a vegan but have been doing my own research on several elimination diets. Just to be clear what I\u2019m labelling as elimination diets are Carnivore, Keto, Vegetarian, and Vegan. Something that I wanted to address was the fact that, despite all of these diets being drastically different, many of the promoters of each of these diets report the same benefits. For example, anecdotally, I have seen many people on each of these diets unanimously state that their weight, blood sugar,  blood pressure, diabetes (if they had it), energy levels, and cravings have all improved. In my opinion I think it\u2019s because all of these diets, regardless of their differences, are simply better than the typical extremely processed, simple sugar and trans fat heavy North American diet. I personally think that the best approach is a whole food diet that incorporates unprocessed meat, unprocessed animal products such as eggs, whole grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables. I just wanted to see if anybody could give me any evidence that would indicate that a vegan diet is better than this sort of whole foods diet, or any evidence that shows indisputably that a vegan diet specifically had different health benefits from these other elimination diets that are directly linked to the nature of veganism. I don\u2019t mean to criticize anybody, I just would like to see what some of you would have to say to this.",
  "If they come from my own chickens? I look after a bunch of chickens and get at least a dozen eggs a day. I only eat a couple, but I give the rest away to friends and family. They are well looked after and if I don't take the eggs they just go rotten or snakes/lizards will be drawn to them.\n\nCan someone explain? ",
  "Vegan here and not really looking to debate myself but I'm interested in what others have to say about this.\n\nI see a lot of vegans talk about reducing or removing elements of capitalism from our society. I totally get some of this as the profit-above-all-else business model in animal agriculture is obviously responsible for  increased abuse such as in factory farms.\n\nHowever, I personally have some hope with our current system as it feels like supply and demand give me the power to vote with my wallet. It feels like if we increase the market for vegan/plant goods, and decrease the market for animal products, then fewer animals will be bred into a torturous existence. We can see this effect with the rise of tons of vegan milks, processed and junk food which wasn't available too long ago.\n\nCould someone explain how our ability to help animals with our wallets like this works with Socialism or Marxism? From my current perspective:\n\n- Farms being owned instead by the workers in socialism wouldn't result in much difference from capitalism as we would still have to reduce demand. Wouldn't it be the same farm and abuse just with different owners?\n\n- I worry a little about state or community owned farms in Marxism, where the collective produces what they believe is necessary, rather than this being decided by the market. Could this mean that despite reducing demand for animal products, they are still produced? Would this reduce the average person's ability to change what is produced using their wallet?\n\nI've not got a strong opinion on any of this but I feel it is definitely an area which I lack knowledge on. I'd love to be educated by people who have obviously thought about this more than I have :)",
  "Many people claim something along the line of 99% of livestock are raised in factory farms. This originates from an estimate done by [the Sentience Institute](https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates). This is incredibly misleading because they apply the criteria (to be considered CAFO) from [the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-afos) which only focuses on the amount of animals per farm in accordance with the Clean Water Act. In other words, EPA regulates waste production/management from these farms, limiting their environmental impact. It has nothing to do with the animal welfare aspect which is the primary concern when people discuss factory farming. Just look at the above estimate, nowhere have they considered how much living space does livestock get or how are they treated. \n\nNow, you may ask that if those farms house thousands, tens of thousands of animals, then they must be crammed together so what\u2019s the difference? Well, if you actually look at the [source data provided by the USDA](https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf), you would see that these farms are massive, averaging more than hundreds of acres (Table 75 pg 199). Depending on the certification you want to look at, for example according to [this one]( https://certifiedhumane.org/how-we-work/our-standards/), it seems that on average, most of these farms can provide enough living space, i.e., low enough stocking density to be considered grass-fed or free-range. Are there farms too small? Definitely, look at Table 71 pg 106-109, about 20% of the more concentrated farms fall in the 1-49 acre range. But the less concentrated farms and other larger ones don't have this problem.\n\nWith that, I don\u2019t see how the 99% estimate makes any sense. Are there any other evidence to support this?",
  "I recently made a [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/x2jqez/vegans_for_the_environment_and_health_do_not/) about why only vegans for the animals exist. Half the comments agreed with me, a few gave details of why I was wrong, and the rest were comments in the neighborhood of \"This isn't helping anything, stop gatekeeping. I can be vegan for the moon if I want to be.\" \n\nThe conversation made me realize we should clarify the intention of what we are talking about. My post was meant to be a philosophical conversation about what it means to be vegan and about one's internal intentions. Yet half of the commenters took the post as a net negative because my suggestion had no practical benefits. They (rightly) thought I was only going to alienate other vegans or people that like to pretend they are vegan because they care more about the environment or their health.\n\nI agree that if I walked around town being the Vegan Police, I'd lose more than a few friends. However, in the realm of philosophy, we are very interested in definitions, details, and everything they entail. Philosophical conversations do not necessarily have to have a practical benefit. Similar to a pure mathematician discovering theorems for the sake of discovering theorems vs an applied mathematician using math to discover new laws of physics. Both are important, and both have different intentions.\n\nSo as we talk, we should be clear about the purpose of our conversations and writing. Are we talking in the realm of academics or in the realm of applying ethics to achieve an end result?",
  "True or false?",
  "So I was reading about how snake antivenom is created. Basically it's the result of milking captive snakes for their venom, and then injecting some of that venom into a healthy horse. The horse produces antibodies, blood is taken from the horse and antivenom is produced from the plasma. If done correctly this is deadly to neither the horse nor the snake and saves countless lives. \n\nI was just wondering if vegans oppose this process.",
  "Between being vegetarian and vegan on and off, I\u2019ve spent eight and a half of my twenty-seven years not eating meat or other animal products. A lot of my stricter vegan friends argue that humans are not \u201cmeant,\u201d to eat meat because our canines are small compared to, say, a tiger. I disagree. Other omnivorous animals have similar teeth sets. I believe ethically and environmentally, eating vegan is the right thing to do. However, arguing that it\u2019s evolutionarily correct is a fallacy. Mating by clubbing your potential partner over the head and dragging them into your cave is \u201cnatural.\u201d So is eating meat. That doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s the \u201cright,\u201d thing to do. Sure, we definitely weren\u2019t \u201cmeant,\u201d to produce the horrors of animal agriculture or over consume meat until we\u2019re riddled with heart disease or cancer, but I am yet to see a convincing, ideology-free argument to suggest that humans were not \u201cmeant,\u201d to eat meat and likewise appealing to nature is a logical fallacy. Nature is cruel. We\u2019ve evolved far enough to choose NOT to be cruel and that\u2019s the point. Are there any vegans willing to acknowledge that the common vegan trope of \u201cyour canines don\u2019t look like a wolf\u2019s,\u201d does not help the argument?",
  "Was man created to be vegan?  Why?\n\nIf so, why is supplementation recommended with B12?\n\nWhat are the consequences of the b12 deficit?\n\nCan supplementation be dispensed with?",
  "So I've had this come up in a debate. I'm a vegan and I believe that animals are sentient. What's your rebuttal to a farmer who says animals are not sentient? ",
  "If every single human in the world was living on a solely plant-based vegan diet, I would assume that there would be an increased demand for vegetable and grain products. In that case, wouldn't unethical big-industry plant farming practices continue, and maybe multiply to an unsustainable level? For example, I've heard that almond farming uses a huge amount of water in places that are prone to drought.  If everyone who came from countries with a large amount of cow milk consumption like the UK and Ireland began to drink almond milk instead, relying on the milk from places like Australia and California because they couldnt grow their own, wouldn't that become quite unsustainable?",
  "A little dose of fun. 5 things why Vegans are awesome",
  "Mocking meat eaters will not help them to become vegans but rather they become more disgusted to become vegan because of the association and the community acting holier than thou\n\nif you really want to make this world vegan instead of mocking meat eaters do this instead:\n\n1. a lot of people will convert to veganism especially the financially struggling families if all of the vegans would actually sponsor all their groceries for life or give them a large lot and training to grow vegetables ( i mean who wants to turn away from free food)\n2. make vegan food cheap and accessible but doesn't sacrifice the taste and variety (even in artic places or deserted places or anywhere where vegan options is expensive and inaccessible) and let us be honest i am not paying Php300 for a salad when i can have a 1pcs chicken and rice for Php100 and not only that 1 out of 20-30 restaurants offer vegan menu ( it is not even affordable and there is no variety )\n3. Volunteer to cook for a meat eater ( even better if you can cover the cost) , show them that it is actually easy to make a vegan alternative of their favorite food.\n4. Propose a feasible plan how will you transition livelihood of the people working in the meat or non vegan industry (if you can offer them a higher paying salary to grow vegetable, a lot of people will be working in the vegan industry) -- imagine how many people will lose their jobs if everybody in this world turned vegan.\n\nif you manage to convert 50-60% of the population into veganism then it is much easier to convert the rest of the population after all majority of people would just want to blend into the society ...  \n\n\nI am willing to become vegan if anyone wants to pay my grocery ( even if is just for one year) while i experiment for different vegan dishes .. if I did like it then I will pledge to sponsor 2 people in marginalize area with the same grocery deal \n\nThen if i fail to become vegan in the span of year just give back the money that you sponsor me \n\n\nof course no vegan wants to take that risk and it means they are not actually serious with actually helping but instead veganism is just a way to feel holier than thou... imagine how many animals you can save if you actually pay for that persons one year of grocery",
  "I've been battling brain fog for a long time and while I feel physically healthier being a vegetarian for the past year with only a little milk in my coffee, my energy levels are low and I have been battling brain fog for quite a while. My brain fog may have been there from before I started veganism and I may have not been aware of it. I've had moments of clarity where I felt alive, energetic and clear headed but do not know what to attribute that to, whether it was dietary or other changes.\n\nMy question is to former vegans and vegetarians who have found that their brain fog is eliminated by eating meat. Is there a minimum amount of meat that your body requires to lift the mental fog and/or increase energy levels?\n\nMy parents would eat meat once a week growing up and they never mentioned having mental health or physical problems. I've also met foreign born co-workers who said they would also eat meat once a week growing up so I have a hard time understanding why we need to eat it with every meal or even every day. But at the same time, I need to find out why I am having so much difficulty functioning.\n\nAny input from those who were formerly non-meat eaters that have learned to balance their body with the right amount of animal product. Thanks in advance for your stories."
]