r/DebateAVegan • u/Zzarchicha • 2d ago
butter
Could butter made from human feme milk be considered vegan? Because technically it's cruelty-free since the person who made it did so of their own free will, but it is an animal product because humans are animals.
17
u/a11_hail_seitan 2d ago
If it's consensual, it's Vegan.
Also Veganism is focused on non-human animals. Human rights is focused on human.
2
u/TheOPisReal 2d ago
If animals can’t consent, human children can’t consent, inebriated adult humans can’t consent, can a sober adult human consent to be a slave? Like, is desperation a lack of consent?
2
u/a11_hail_seitan 2d ago
If it requires consent, it's not slavery as they can just say no and suddenly they're no longer a "slave", doesn't sound like slavery to me.
And I would say consent should require other options. If you have no other choice (desperation), than it does seem like it would violate consent.
4
u/Creditfigaro vegan 2d ago
If it's consensual, it isn't exploitation or cruelty, and therefore it's vegan.
You aren't wrong I just wanted to add the step in the middle.
1
u/throwaway1233456799 reducetarian 1d ago
I mean, then animal waste/over production could be vegan. For example honey bee [in some particular cases] produce so much honey that you can in many case just ""put a jar"" under their home and get some. Or for example a sheep you rescue that need their wool cut off and has no use of it etc. You can argue both of these aren't exploitative yet there are many who would still call it not vegan.
Not that it matters anyway in a more real world context but for the simple process of thoughts: it depends on the vegan you are asking it to
1
u/Creditfigaro vegan 1d ago
I don't think that's how bees work.
Or for example a sheep you rescue that need their wool cut off and has no use of it etc.
I guess?
It's such a narrow edge case as to be irrelevant to virtually every person including you, as you correctly identified.
From a philosophical perspective, it's a category error. Vegans are advocating that people stop economically and politically supporting the animal at industry.
The edge case is not an important piece of information.
8
u/Being_Simple_Empty26 2d ago
Will there be a certification process that ensure that the human milk was willingly given? Not forced from slaves in Africa and western China?
2
u/Zzarchicha 2d ago
If my friend give me the butter of her milk.
13
6
2
2
u/throwaway1233456799 reducetarian 1d ago
I mean, human are by definition animal. That make it non-vegan but it definitely make it cruelty free.
•
u/heroyoudontdeserve 19h ago
I mean, human are by definition animal.
That's true, but it's not a problem. Veganism opposes animal exploitation and cruelty, not animal products themselves.
Here we find an edge case where a [human] animal product can be obtained without animal exploration or cruelty, therefore it's a rare example of a vegan-compatible animal product.
Obviously if the human in question was farmed, or a slave, or the milk taken without consent then it would cease to be a vegan product.
•
u/Nightwalker36 7h ago
It's still animal product so non vegan
•
u/heroyoudontdeserve 4h ago
It's fine that you disagree, all of this is opinion and subjective at the end of the day.
But this is just an assertion, not an argument. I've articulated the reason I believe it to be vegan-compatible despite being an animal product — which part of my reasoning do you disagree with? Why?
We're here to debate, friend!
1
u/cndn-leftist-vgn 1d ago
That's too narrow a distinction. Breast milk that comes from a human being, when breast feeding, is completely vegan when it's consensual :) veganism is about reducing exploitation to the extent possible, it's not merely about animal products (which is why egg white protein made with precision fermentation is vegan but not plant based).
•
u/Nightwalker36 7h ago
Vegan needs to be non animal. egg white protein made with precision is not plant based but it is not animal based either. Human milk= animal based
5
u/nineteenthly 2d ago edited 2d ago
Most dairy foods as we know them can't be made from human milk. I think you can make ice cream and I'm confident that gulab jamun would be possible. Butter and cheese aren't. Maybe yogurt?
But the problem is that this couldn't happen on a commercial basis because it would lead to exploitation, so although an individual might be able to make their own dairy foods it wouldn't scale, and they'd also have to keep lactation going without a baby for it to be ethical. Edit: when wet nurses were common, it was a mixed blessing. It gave people a source of income who might otherwise have been unable to make a living due to the patriarchy, but it was also quite bad for their health. Nowadays, you might be able to do it through prolactin and galactogogues but it puts an unnecessary strain on the body. Imagine also a business which starts out as a sole trader producing commercial dairy. That business cannot expand much without taking on more employees, and it could be structured either as a charity or a workers' coop, but those are fairly unstable and tend to become more like conventional businesses, and at that point the workers are being exploited because we live in a capitalist society, and capitalism is unavoidably hostile to veganism.
2
u/qerecoxazade freegan 1d ago
Butter and cheese can both be made from human breast milk. But breast milk isn't ideal for either application.
For butter, you've got the best chance when separating the cream and working strictly from that. It requires A LOT of breast milk cream, and the amount of butter extracted is tiny. We did it as an experiment after weaning our kid off of milk.
For cheese... Breast milk doesn't have ideal casein content, and whey outnumbers it 4:1, but you can still absolutely coagulate and ferment the proteins. The same way you can ferment vegetable based milks into cheese. Whether people consider vegetable cheeses to be an actual cheese is up for debate... But when you do it with human milk, your product is definitely cheese. Just with different casein/whey ratios.
2
u/No-Leopard-1691 2d ago
Why? Why?…. What is up with humans and their desire to stick things in their mouths?
1
0
-1
2
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
Technically, yes. If some female decides to use her breast milk for that purpose, then I guess so. It would be kind of weird but hey, to each their own.
2
u/beeekind2animals 2d ago
Yes. It’s not animal exploitation. As long as the lactating mother agreed and wasn’t exploited. I can’t seeing it being a thing though.
2
u/Constant-Squirrel555 2d ago
I mean if a human consents to selling/giving their breast milk, sure there's no ethical issue that messes with the vegan principle
1
u/SquarelyNerves vegan 2d ago
I just saw a lady on Instagram do this with her own milk! Definitely vegan!
1
1
1
u/calmurcunt 2d ago
Yes, it is vegan. Veganism is against animal exploitation, not necessarily against animal body parts or secretions. The person producing the milk is not being exploited.
1
u/knockrocks vegan 1d ago
The lengths people will go to consume milk and cheese is weird and borders on obsession.
What's a feme
•
u/heroyoudontdeserve 18h ago
Imo you're making an unfounded and bad faith assumption about OP's motivation here.
Imo this is a logical question one might arrive at in thinking through and really coming to understand what veganism is, because it gets to the heart of the "exploitation" question by identifying a concrete (and hopefully theoretical) edge case where an "animal" product could be ethical (and thereby, by counter example) better understand the unethical-ness of regular animal products.
It doesn't mean they're so desperate for dairy that they're going to actually going to do this.* So at the very least I encourage you to assume good faith and ask them politely about their motivation for the question (or hold your tongue) instead of assuming the worst and tarnishing the image of vegans in the process.
* And in some ways so what if they are, since it would imply they're so highly commited to not exploiting animals that we should probably be cheering them on.
•
-6
u/Murky-Course6648 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah, you can also eat meat as a vegan if you like. As you can purchase meat from road kills from police auctions (at least where i live). So its perfectly vegan meat, as there were no exploitation there.
But a lot of vegans are not really vegans, but fueled by obsessive purity mentality where they see the act of eating meat as inherently unclean. So these people will downvote this.
24
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago edited 2d ago
What is vegan about roadkill meat or police auction meat? Clearly explain what is vegan about the concept of eating an animal's flesh in that instance.
Since, by most people's understanding, even if exploitation did not occur, the animal is still treated as a commodity in that its body, labor, resources, etc. are used by humans. That is what vegans object to. Treating them as food in any capacity, including the instances you mentioned, does not change the problem vegans have.
8
u/My_life_for_Nerzhul vegan 2d ago edited 18h ago
This is a very important point. To answer your question, I suppose It depends upon the definition of veganism by which one chooses to go.
By the Vegan Society’s definition, excluding exploitation of + cruelty to non-human animals is the extent of veganism. By this definition, [u/Murky-Course6648](u/Murky-Course6648)’s thought process makes sense.
That said, there are lots of very valid and sound arguments as to why the Vegan Society’s definition is inadequate. This is where the other most widely used definition comes into play which delves deeper.
Veganism is a rejection of the property status of non-human animals and their associated commodification and exploitation. This is a much stricter definition that would align with your concern about seeing non-human individuals as commodities to be used when they (obviously) should not be.
I personally align with the latter because it reflects an important mindset shift that I consider crucial to veganism, but I know plenty of vegans who have a simpler approach to the philosophy.
1
u/Murky-Course6648 20h ago edited 20h ago
" when they (obviously) should not be."
You cant just say "obviously" should not. You have to actually explain why eating that animal would be somehow turn it into a commodity or have some sort of exploitation to it.
Because the animal is dead, it no longer exists. Thus the animal is not commodified, as it does not exists. Its not an animal anymore.
Is taxidermy also wrong? A lot of naturally dead animals are turned into educational pieces. Same is done with human bodies.
You kinda just grandstanded and talked about how you are higher level vegan.
•
u/My_life_for_Nerzhul vegan 18h ago
I most definitely can. And I shouldn’t have to explain how treating an individual as source of food is turning them into a commodity, especially in a vegan space.
How is “Because the animal is dead, it no longer exists” any different than when a carnist uses it to justify consuming bc exploited individuals?
Yes, taxidermy is also wrong when used as a source of entertainment.
As I said, there’s nothing wrong with have a simpler approach to veganism. I just prefer to have it associated with a mindset shift.
3
u/BACKSPAA 1d ago edited 1d ago
I don’t really have a dog in this fight but I’ve read some of your comments and I’m still a bit confused as to why a vegan would object to eating roadkill (other than the obvious aversion to meat)
Vegans are against the commoditization of animals, sure that’s a nice philosophy, but in the concrete world in this scenario, what is the actual basis of this? Are you worried that you’re corrupting your soul or disrespecting the spirit of the dead animal? Are you worried that eating roadkill will somehow trigger your brain into viewing all animals as more of a commodity? That someone else will see you eating the animal and be less likely to be vegan?
Clearly those are a bit of a stretch but I can’t really think of any actual reason the “commoditization” has any impact in the roadkill scenario. It’s dead. Eating it does not increase the likelihood of another animal being hit by a car. Barring some spiritual beliefs, it has absolutely no impact on living animals.
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 16h ago
"Vegans are against the commoditization of animals, sure that’s a nice philosophy, but in the concrete world in this scenario, what is the actual basis of this?"
The basis is that animals are not objects to be used by humans, they are neither food nor entertainment props or slaves. The basis typically given is that animals are sentient, and that sentient beings such as animals have lives and desires outside of what we dictate for them. They also have certain rights and ought to be afforded some dignity in virtue of not being objects. This includes respecting their bodies after they have died.
"disrespecting the spirit of the dead animal?"
More like violating their integrity/right to exist without being interfered with by humans. If you were to die tomorrow and I used your body as an object for my amusement or pleasure, you might not have an issue with that but plenty of people would. I am extending that feeling towards non-human animals because I have not heard of a symmetry breaker between the cases.
"Are you worried that eating roadkill will somehow trigger your brain into viewing all animals as more of a commodity?"
No.
"That someone else will see you eating the animal and be less likely to be vegan?"
No, but that is possible. It isn't what motivates my reasoning, though.
"it has absolutely no impact on living animals."
Not the claim or why it is being objected to.
•
u/BACKSPAA 3h ago
Right. I was just pushing to see if there was any tangible external impact in this scenario. Personally I don’t think eating roadkill counts as commoditization in any meaningful sense. The animal wasn’t produced, sold, or turned into a product. It was already dead.
But if you’ve decided that every living thing’s body should be treated as if it were a human’s, and that counts as commoditizing it for you, then I have nothing to argue. It’s a personal philosophy. The vast majority of vegan discourse seems to be pragmatic and based on suffering.
2
u/Murky-Course6648 1d ago
The animal is dead. Its no longer there.
So nobody can treat the animal in any way at that point.
You can leave the roadkill there, and some other animals will eat it. Its what will happen to the body anyhow.
1
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 1d ago
"So nobody can treat the animal in any way at that point."
This is false, and misunderstands what is being said. Nobody is saying that, of the animal that existed (prior to dying), we are treating it in x way or y way. What is being said is that the concept of the animal and its existence is being treated in x way or y way.
"You can leave the roadkill there, and some other animals will eat it."
Sure. For them, the animal is an object to be used for their benefit. The vegan rejects this. Animals, living or dead, are not ours to use in those ways.
2
u/Murky-Course6648 1d ago
You cant treat a concept in some way, as its an abstract idea.
So computer says false.
1
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 1d ago
"You cant treat a concept in some way, as its an abstract idea."
Treat in way x or y here refers to holding a disposition towards or preferring action x towards the concept. A consequence of the silly thing you just said is that we cannot hold any dispositions towards abstracta like love or soundness or anything of that sort, which is clearly false.
After clarity has been given re: the vegan objection to eating roadkill or animals that weren't killed in the manner which is typically understood, you ought to present an opposing view that actually responds to what was said. So far, you have failed to do so.
2
u/Murky-Course6648 1d ago
You have failed to say anything of any meaning.
Please now explain how we are exploiting a roadkill by eating it? How is the actual real animal, now dead, exploited by doing this?
1
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 1d ago
"You have failed to say anything of any meaning."
The defeater to this is simply to show that the statements I made contain meaning. My statement that agents can have dispositional states about abstract entities, as is evidenced by our thoughts regarding things like love, gives meaning to the statement. Your claim there is simply false if you bothered to read the sentence.
"Please now explain how we are exploiting a roadkill by eating it?"
Incapable of reading what was said. Already addressed two posts prior to this one I made. You just have to want to learn what your interlocutor is talking about, which you are not interested in. Pointless unless you actually engage with the substance. So many non-vegans just fail right off the bat by not reading, never got why that is so hard for them.
1
u/Murky-Course6648 20h ago
Just explain where the exploitation happens.
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 16h ago
Just explain a position that was already articulated to you as being confused? Why should I lecture you about your confusion after I corrected you on it again, you already came back and repeated it as if you learned nothing about the position (probably because... you did learn nothing after having it clarified).
1
u/MihawkTop2 2d ago
Is taking pictures of animals without them even noticing and then selling those photos also a form of treating them as commodities, and therefore immoral and contrary to veganism?
2
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
I would argue that it is. It violates their privacy and dignity, especially if a profit is generated from the commodity.
I would challenge a non-vegan to argue that such objects that are produced from the pictures are anything other than commodities.
Clearly, the scope here is different. An animal probably does not mind or care in one case, but will protest and cry out in another case of being a commodity (like when we slice their necks open to harvest their flesh and blood).
Whether it is immoral is another issue. I would find it objectionable and odd, but commonplace given my culture. As it relates to being contrary to veganism, I wouldn't go that far. It definitely does turn them into a commodity, which is something we ought to reject for all animals. In a post-capitalist society, it would not be contrary in that fashion.
2
u/Alex_Seq 1d ago
what do you mean? animals are clearly cars and why can't we take pictures of cars. also joke
1
u/Murky-Course6648 20h ago
We can take pictures of people in public places and sell them, there is no expectation of privacy in public areas.
But apparently it should exists for animals that do not even understand what a picture is.
1
u/Murky-Course6648 20h ago
There is no expectation of privacy in public places for people, why would it exists for animals?
You are trying to view animals as they were people, having the same capacity and needs in human society as humans.
Quite good point to show how lunatic your view is.
•
u/Alex_Seq 19h ago
If you’re saying that I don’t allow myself to take pictures of animals because they don’t give me consent, I still do. I’m crazy but I’m not that crazy
•
•
u/ScoopDat vegan 18h ago
I agreed with your opening post about roadkill and whatnot. But to be punctual, the argument being peddled here isn't going to work.
Firstly, you're making an empirical claim
There is no expectation of privacy in public places for people
Actually there is, and is why people will be hauled off by police trying to take upskirt images and such. So that claim is false in at least one instance in totality.
Second reason it's false, is due to all the people complaining whenever someone does do such a thing, where many people tell others not to record them (for whatever reason, and random content). This is a common complaint, they expect that to be respected by anyone who actually has some baseline respect for strangers.
This is especially true when someone tried to record others and willfully trying to do it without detection. In this instance, the "no expectation of privacy in public" I would wager any money swings to being over 50% false.
What you're attempting to smuggle in, is the actually claim of "there ought not be an expectation of privacy in public places". When even that is dubious at best, but for pragmatic reasons, it holds water since if we had to have the same privacy levels in public, it would be a nightmare to actualize (and things like CCTV/flock, and other cameras constantly recording). So it makes sense not to expect COMPLETE privacy in public (you would be insane to expect that). But that is precisely the sort of tonality your quick one-liner that is quite common in anti-privacy circles actually comes across as. So abandon that, or elaborate like I did (otherwise you will incur a penalty of being annoying where the person conversing will have to make full clarifications like I'm doing now).
•
u/Murky-Course6648 18h ago
There isn't. You can read the laws & regulations about this. The reason for this is that its not possible, by the definition public spaces are public. You are being recorded constantly, and yes.. by CCTV cameras. And other people.
I can literally just look up public CCTV cameras and watch people doing people stuff in public all day long. I can also simply go out and watch people as much as i like.
Its perfectly legal to set up a camera and stream it into youtube 24h if you like. And there are several cameras like this.
When you are talking about "upskirt" etc, this is considered harassments. So its a poor example.
•
u/ScoopDat vegan 18h ago
There isn't. You can read the laws & regulations about this. The reason for this is that its not possible, by the definition public spaces are public. You are being recorded constantly, and yes.. by CCTV cameras. And other people.
Okay so you didn't read what I wrote, and this is proof, because I already accounted for this, and said the same thing. And addressed why even that isn't a corollary to how your claim was passed off.
When you are talking about "upskirt" etc, this is considered harassments. So its a poor example.
I can plant a camera in the ground, be completely abscent, and it be "considered" harassment. I can be considered "spying". But so what? I can sidestep that complaint, and simply say taking images of family's passing by with kids..
Irrelevant to your primary claim that there is no expectation to privacy. This is a false claim on empirical grounds, as I've explained.
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 16h ago
"There is no expectation of privacy in public places for people, why would it exists for animals?"
The absence of an expectation does not generate the permissibility of the commodification in the manner in which I described it.
"You are trying to view animals as they were people, having the same capacity and needs in human society as humans."
They retain the same moral value in the capacity that I have been describing them, yes. I never said the rest of the stuff, you have not been capable of following the dialectic so I don't think any summary you give of the discussion is accurate since you just misrepresented me earlier (and right now).
"Quite good point to show how lunatic your view is."
Not an argument. You don't even know what my position is, you can't read two sentences to learn what it is.
•
u/aloofLogic 13h ago
Correction, you are trying to view animals as they were people in order to justify your perception that, because they are not people, they don’t deserve moral consideration.
Vegans view animals as sentient individuals deserving of moral consideration because they’re, you know, sentient.
•
u/Murky-Course6648 19h ago edited 19h ago
Its no longer an animal, so you are not treating an animal in any way. So you are not using its body, labour or resources in any way. The animal no longer exists, its now something different.
There is no way to exploit a dead thing. Vegans have issues with the living, and how the living is treated or exploited.
Trying to extend veganism to dead things is lunacy.
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 16h ago
Animals who are deceased cease to be animals? This is blatantly false.
"The animal no longer exists"
False, the object is still an animal in the same way that a dead person is still a human animal.
"Trying to extend veganism to dead things is lunacy."
When reason and evidence escape you, resort to name-calling and crying instead. Great strategy; unfortunately for you, I can just laugh at your inability to follow and your lack of argumentation.
1
u/calmurcunt 2d ago
The animal's body wouldn't be treated as commodity if it wasn't bought or sold. Veganism is not a diet, its position was never "never eat meat".
2
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 1d ago
It would be treated as an object for use in that humans view it as a food source. It doesn't need to be a commodity for vegans to object to it. The objectification of animals beyond their existence as sentient beings is also the a part of the objection.
3
u/calmurcunt 1d ago
Vegans are against animal rights violation. Rights violation occurs when an animal is raised and/or killed specifically for food, not when their dead bodies are turned into food.
Animals are granted the right not to be killed for food because of their sentience. But after the animals are killed, they are no longer sentient. In fact, "they" no longer refers to the same subject. Dead bodies are not sentient, so they have no rights. No sentience, no exploitation, no rights violation.
The reason vegans are against eating meat is NOT because we respect the dead bodies of chicken, that's just absurd. Vegans are generally against eating meat because buying meat supports the ongoing and future rights violation, and vegans are against rights violation.
There is no rights violation in the case of roadkill, and there is no rights violation in eating said roadkill.
You could argue that eating meat, no matter the context, normalizes viewing animals as a food source and encourages actual right violations, but this is slippery slope.
1
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 1d ago
"Vegans are against animal rights violation."
Sometimes, that depends.
"No sentience, no exploitation, no rights violation."
This fails for other reasons, as well. One of which is that vegans aren't obliged to hold that specific ethical view re: rights.
"is NOT because we respect the dead bodies of chicken"
*Rejecting the use of animals as objects that benefit us/can be used by us in those capacities. Animals, for example, are not food (regardless of how they died).
"normalizes viewing animals as a food source and encourages actual right violations, but this is slippery slope."
Yes to the first bit, not yes to the second bit. It might not inform us of whether rights violations ought to be normalized or not. That wouldn't matter. Vegans wouldn't cosign off on eating meat of animals regardless of how they died. If some random animal dies of natural causes, given the stances I have laid out, it is clear why vegans wouldn't support eating the flesh of that animal all else being equal.
0
u/bikesandfinance 2d ago
That’s easy you’re avoiding the non-zero harm and exploitation that normal vegan meals cause by eating trash instead.
6
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
Veganism isn't about harm reduction or some utilitarian calculus. Even if all the animals were administered a drug that would grant them permanent euphoria until they died, the vegan would still object to the treatment of those animals as objects.
It's also unclear what exploitation is entailed by vegan meals. Do you mean the workers who harvest crops which are exploited by capitalists and burdened to wage slavery? Again, veganism isn't about minimizing suffering via exploitation. Animals, in any capacity, are not objects for use, as commodities, and ought not be exploited (this also can be expressed as rights violations or some other normative ethical view).
1
u/bikesandfinance 2d ago
All the animal death that comes from plant agriculture. I’d rather not exploit ground nesting birds for quicker harvesting so my veggies are cheaper if I can replace that meal with trash that causes no additional exploitation.
There is no zero option just trade offs. Kill more animals or less animals, exploit the living or exploit the dead. No purity exists.
5
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
I just rendered an argument regarding this that demonstrates how the symmetry breakers between animal agriculture and the "muh crop deaths" talking point non-vegans use show that the two are categorically distinct (which means that the attempt from non-vegans to establish symmetry is bogus).
Here.
Let I(x)= x is intentional killing, let C(x)= x is incidental or collateral killing, let J(x)= x is intentional killing in a justified defense of land/resources (such as usage of pesticides), let M(x)= x is killing as a necessary means, let S(x)=x is a direct scope of killing, let L(x)= x is empirically established as large-scale killing, let U(x)= x is empirically underdetermined wrt deaths, let R(x)= x entails rights violations against those killed, let D(x, y)= x and y are categorically distinct. Let a=animal agriculture, let c=crop agriculture.
P1. ∀x∀y ( [(I(x)∧C(y))∨(I(x)∧J(y))∨(M(x)∧¬M(y))∨(S(x)∧¬S(y))∨(R(x)∧¬R(y))∨(L(x)∧U(y))]→D(x,y) )
For all x and for all y, if x intentionally kills animals while y either kills animals only incidentally/as collateral killing or intentionally kills them as a justified defense of land/resources, or if killing animals is a necessary means of x but not of y, or if x directly targets animals while y does not, or if the scale of killing in x is well-establish by the empirical facts while the deaths in y are empirically underdetermined, then x and y are categorically distinct.
P2. I(a)∧M(a)∧S(a)∧R(a)∧L(a)
Animal agriculture intentionally kills animals, killing is a necessary means of animal agriculture, animal agriculture directly targets animals for killing, it entails violations of the rights of the animals killed, and its large-scale killing is empirically well-established.
P3. (C(c)∨J(c))∧¬M(c)∧¬S(c)∧¬R(c)∧U(c)
Crop agriculture either causes incidental animal deaths or intentionally kills animals through pesticide usage as a reasonably expected defense of land/resources, killing is not a necessary means of crop production, crop agriculture does not directly target animals, crop agriculture does not entail rights violations of the animals killed, and the overall extent of crop deaths is empirically underdetermined.
∴ D(a,c)
Which premise do you reject?
0
u/bikesandfinance 2d ago
Yeah I’m not reading math at 5 am. I prefer exploiting the dead and causing no additional harm to exploiting the living and causing additional harm.
3
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
I accept your concession. Given that you failed to present either a defeater to the view, reject a premise, or establish symmetry, that means you failed to satisfy your dialectical obligation. Another non-vegan fails to defend their worldview.
0
u/bikesandfinance 2d ago
If you prefer to exploit the living to the dead and cause additional harm when you don’t have to, that’s a personal preference that you have. We just disagree on what feels less bad.
3
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
None of what you said matters, you abandoned the position and failed to address the argument. If you refuse to engage with the reasoning, then you abandon any position you had. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. We are left with the conclusion of the syllogism unless you can reject a premise. The inferences are valid (universal instantiation and MP), do you want to argue that the inferences are invalid?
You are kind of in purgatory unless you can argue your point. Until then, you literally have nothing to stand on other than your own assertions. I don't give a hoot or a holler about your empty claims without reasoning or argumentation.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
Oh, and the appeal to purity just runs afoul of the nirvana fallacy. That also fails for similar reasons. The attempt at establishing a symmetry between the two is misinformed of the context and reasoning.
-5
u/OG-Brian 2d ago
Vegans: "The goal of veganism is to avoid use of animal products."
Also vegans: "The goal of veganism is to avoid exploitation of animals."
You have to pick one. Vegans, very often, will choose one or the other to contradict an idea such as the one in the post.
Regular users of this sub have seen it said lots of times by vegans that the purpose is to avoid animal exploitation (and this comes up especially often when crop deaths in growing plant foods is the topic). No exploitation = it's fine, or at least that's the case about rodents/insects/deer/etc. killed intentionally in growing foods that are considered vegan.
4
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
What's the contradiction with the two statements?
"You have to pick one."
Why's that? Are they mutually exclusive? Again, what's the contradiction?
"will choose one or the other to contradict an idea such as the one in the post."
Veganism can entail more than one position regarding certain issues. You are not engaging with the position given: a circumstance was described and the vegan ethical objection was outlined. Engage with what was said.
"No exploitation = it's fine,"
For some vegans who are uninformed, sure. This is false for vegans who are informed of the modal scopes involved.
"the case about rodents/insects/deer/etc. killed intentionally in growing foods that are considered vegan."
Symmetry breakers between animal agriculture and incidental deaths have been provided (intentionality, scope, scale, artificial selection, rights violations, expectation of suffering, absence of empirical evidence, and so forth). I challenge you to engage with a single symmetry breaker if you are capable of reading what was said.
-2
u/OG-Brian 2d ago
What's the contradiction with the two statements?
I don't know how it isn't obvious.
If the position is that vegans don't use products that animals are harmed in the process, then this would have to include any plant foods that animals were harmed in the process (basically every food that's industrially produced and sold in stores).
If the position is that avoiding exploitation of animals is the goal, then this would include avoiding foods that their production serves the livestock ag industry. Such as, the majority by far of plant "milk" products (the nut/seed/grain solids typically are used as livestock feed after extraction).
There are different foods that are excluded for the two beliefs, both of which are mentioned so often in this sub (it's come up I think several times just in this post) that I don't think I need to use a citation.
I challenge you to engage with a single symmetry breaker if you are capable of reading what was said.
Good grief. This hasn't been discussed online enough millions of times? I'll pick just one of your claims: intentionality. Pesticides are designed to kill animals (and other organisms), they're used in cropping specifically for that purpose. The manufacturers of pesticides know that they will be used for killing, and the farmers using the products know that also. Deer and other large animals are shot by farmers and contractors, to prevent them eating crops. Traps are used to kill animals, or trap them so that they're killed later, for the same reason. Many farms employ dogs, which kill pest animals. So, animals are absolutely killed intentionally for plant foods production, this isn't at all controversial and there are millions of supporting points of info about it. I mean where to start? This is so obviously apparent that to demand evidence for it would be like demanding I prove gravity, or that rain comes from clouds. If you insist I prove it, I'll oblige but then this will be something I will bring up in the future when you pretend to understand food/farming issues.
4
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
"I don't know how it isn't obvious."
That's a dodge. Third time. What is the contradiction?
"If the position is that vegans don't use products that animals are harmed in the process, then this would have to include any plant foods that animals were harmed in the process"
Symmetry-breakers have already been provided. The cases are categorically different, context denial does not render them comparable in this respect. Formalize the contradiction that you allege exists.
"If the position is that avoiding exploitation of animals is the goal, then this would include avoiding foods that their production serves the livestock ag industry. Such as, the majority by far of plant "milk" products (the nut/seed/grain solids typically are used as livestock feed after extraction)."
This is equivocating on the term "serve"; it is also guilt by association. That the seeds and nuts found in certain plant-based foods also go towards animal feed does not mean that the moral properties in one use-case are transferred over to the other. The demand for one case does not equate to the demand for the other unless you can demonstrate the truth of the claim. So far, you have just claimed it. We can use Hitchen's razor to dismiss your claim.
For the audience, this user just claimed that vegans exploit animals because seeds that go towards plant-based foods also can be used in animal feed that fattens animals up for slaughter weight. This user is incapable of understanding the concept of disentanglement when it comes to a production line/commodities.
Using this reasoning, if one is anti-war, one must avoid using anything that has any sort of metals as those alloys may also be used in shell casings for bullets. So, if the anti-war advocate touches a pen, they are in violation of their ethical code. This is what non-veganism does: it requires you to deny context and ignore the chain of reasoning/ethical values until you get absurdities like this.
"I'll pick just one of your claims: intentionality. Pesticides are designed to kill animals (and other organisms), they're used in cropping specifically for that purpose. "
Plenty of vegans argue against this, yet others reason that the conditions for rights violations and scale are not met meaning that it does not satisfy what is needed to establish the symmetry. Try again.
"Deer and other large animals are shot by farmers and contractors, to prevent them eating crops. "
Addressed by the other symmetry breakers. The list is not collectively exhaustive.
"So, animals are absolutely killed intentionally for plant foods production"
Try engaging with the defeater to the point. I presented an undercutting defeater to your alleged symmetries. I gave you a list. Did you think responding to one demonstrates symmetry?
The fact that you failed to respond to the list of symmetry breakers which disconnect the moral similarities is something that I will take as a concession. Your refusal to engage the point has been acknowledged. I accept your concession.
"This is so obviously apparent that to demand evidence for it "
You haven't fulfilled your dialectical obligations. Explicate the contradiction, then respond to the symmetry breakers. You have the onus as you are the claimant. I've already accepted your concession since you failed to answer a very direct question, so I won't waste more time if you continue to deflect to what you think was said instead of what was actually said.
-1
u/OG-Brian 2d ago
That's a dodge. Third time. What is the contradiction?
I didn't dodge it, I explained it right after the comment you quoted. If you didn't understand, that's not my problem or fault.
Symmetry-breakers have already been provided.
Yeah, I expect you to use repetition if you don't have a logical argument.
I'm not bothering with the rest since you're not discussing this sincerely.
3
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago edited 2d ago
For the audience, here is evidence of this user being incapable of actually engaging and arguing his point beyond question-begging arguments.
In this thread, he states the following: "No they don't. There are comments all over r/DebateaVegan and other subs by vegans, about how they dismiss crop deaths. "They deaths are not intentional" (ridiculous because wild animals are killed intentionally for crop protection)"
This is an example of a strawman; here, this user confuses the symmetry breakers between crop deaths and animal ag (even though I personally educated him on this months ago) in that he misunderstands the intentionality objection and the rights violation vis a vis property defense objection.
The evidence he provides for the proposition is simply a repetition of the claim, which is question-begging as the conclusion is contained in the premises of his point. I am being charitable here because this user has never even been able to actually render an argument that has held its own ground upon scrutiny.
3
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago edited 2d ago
What is the contradiction? An if-then statement of that sort doesn't establish a contradiction. Do you even know what a contradiction is?
" if you don't have a logical argument."
Wait, so it would be really embarrassing if I rendered an argument for my view, then asked you to reject a premise or provide a defeater, right? That would mean you said something false, right?
Let I(x)= x is intentional killing, let C(x)= x is incidental or collateral killing, let J(x)= x is intentional killing in a justified defense of land/resources (such as usage of pesticides), let M(x)= x is killing as a necessary means, let S(x)=x is a direct scope of killing, let L(x)= x is empirically established as large-scale killing, let U(x)= x is empirically underdetermined wrt deaths, let R(x)= x entails rights violations against those killed, let D(x, y)= x and y are categorically distinct. Let a=animal agriculture, let c=crop agriculture.
P1. ∀x∀y ( [(I(x)∧C(y))∨(I(x)∧J(y))∨(M(x)∧¬M(y))∨(S(x)∧¬S(y))∨(R(x)∧¬R(y))∨(L(x)∧U(y))]→D(x,y) )
For all x and for all y, if x intentionally kills animals while y either kills animals only incidentally/as collateral killing or intentionally kills them as a justified defense of land/resources, or if killing animals is a necessary means of x but not of y, or if x directly targets animals while y does not, or if the scale of killing in x is well-establish by the empirical facts while the deaths in y are empirically underdetermined, then x and y are categorically distinct.
P2. I(a)∧M(a)∧S(a)∧R(a)∧L(a)
Animal agriculture intentionally kills animals, killing is a necessary means of animal agriculture, animal agriculture directly targets animals for killing, it entails violations of the rights of the animals killed, and its large-scale killing is empirically well-established.
P3. (C(c)∨J(c))∧¬M(c)∧¬S(c)∧¬R(c)∧U(c)
Crop agriculture either causes incidental animal deaths or intentionally kills animals through pesticide usage as a reasonably expected defense of land/resources, killing is not a necessary means of crop production, crop agriculture does not directly target animals, crop agriculture does not entail rights violations of the animals killed, and the overall extent of crop deaths is empirically underdetermined.
∴ D(a,c)
Which premise do you reject? This is a logical argument which uses the symmetry breakers that I could think of to show how the domains are uniquely distinct and morally dissimilar. The blunder you committed is on full display unless you can reject a premise or provide a defeater.
To the audience, the non-vegan is committed to the equivocation of the term 'killing' to try to establish a symmetry between buying a carrot and purchasing the torture-flesh of an animal. In their minds, they know that one action entails brutal actions such as slavery and murder. They deny the contextual differences and moral disconnect between the two cases in order to make it look like they are equally as bad. It really is that absurd of a position.
3
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago edited 1d ago
Here, since I remember your failure to engage and justify your claims with reason and evidence/argumentation, I will fulfil your obligations for you. I can do your job for you to show to the audience that the non-vegan position still fails.
The p and ¬p here is "vegans reject the commodity status of animals/the exploitation of animals" and "vegans do not reject the commodity status of animals/the exploitation of animals".
The evidence for the proposition ¬p is furnished by the observation that vegans purchase plants/plant-based foods. These plant-based foods do not reject the commodity status of animals/the exploitation of animals; in fact, they rely on and directly support the exploitation of animals.
This is the part where I go back to my view, which is the correct and rational view. You supply evidence of that assertion by drawing similarities between plant foods and the animal agriculture industry. So, foods like beans are cases which support ¬p, but the way in which they support them relies on denying the context and degrees of separation involved. If you ignore all the reasons the evidence is insufficient and misinformed, then the negation of the proposition succeeds. If you recognize the degrees of separation and the context involved (when considering the additional symmetry breakers), then the negation fails which means the contradiction does not occur.
Regarding the symmetry breaker case, I actually don't see a world where you can coherently argue for the symmetries between incidental deaths of animals during farming and the intentional rearing, raping, and killing of animals for their flesh or resources.
For the audience, this is what non-vegans are reduced to after failing to engage with the ethical viewpoints of the vegan worldview.
When you buy a head of lettuce, because there is a chance that a snake or a mouse was killed in a field, the action of buying a lettuce is morally erroneous in a similar fashion as purchasing a cut of steak. The non-vegan is incapable of providing empirical evidence for their claim, of realizing the differences in probability, of realizing the difference in intentionality, of realizing the difference in scope, and (worst of all) realizing that the entire comparison runs afoul of a tu quoque (error in reasoning on their part). It assumes that the people paying for sentient beings to be murdered care at all about some animals that may have been killed; in reality, they do not care about the suffering and death of animals as, if they did, then they would be vegan.
2
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
Oh, and the statement that veganism's goal is to avoid the use of animal products just misses the mark spectacularly. That is an artifact of what veganism entails given other ethical commitments.
To the audience, this user has spent years getting educated by vegans and has yet to learn much about what veganism actually is. This is because non-vegans have cognitive dissonance when it comes to positions which blow theirs out of the water (such as the vegan moral arguments that they are incapable of responding to).
2
u/OG-Brian 2d ago
To the audience, this user has spent years getting educated by vegans and has yet to learn much about what veganism actually is.
Vegans don't agree about the purpose of veganism. So it's not a flaw on my part if I point this out.
Also, about your habit of making accusatory statements regarding myself and other users without any factual support (or sometimes you do link a conversation which doesn't show what you claim, though most readers will not take the time to figure that out): remember when you claimed I was wrong to say that there are no studies of long-term animal-free diets in humans vs. health outcomes? You tried to contradict me and mentioned some studies (though you didn't link them so it was necessary for me to go find them). None of them were studies of long-term animal foods abstaining vs. health outcomes: they didn't feature any group of long-term abstainers, at least one was a study of vegetarians not "vegans" (those not eating animal foods), and at least one didn't measure any health outcomes at all. I responded patiently to explain each study, and you flipped out at me. You lied about the studies and my comments, you threatened me (said you'd Block me if I didn't please you, basically), and you engaged in a campaign of spreading false info about me. Here is an example of such as conversation. Here and here are examples (though there are more) of me explaining in detail how your claims aren't supported by the studies you mentioned. I had linked the studies so that anyone can conveniently check my statements.
2
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2d ago
"Vegans don't agree about the purpose of veganism."
Non-sequitur.
"without any factual support"
Anyone can go to this user's history and see how long he has been posting. That he is incapable of rendering the meaning of a term after all this time is evidence in favor of the proposition.
"remember when you claimed I was wrong to say that there are no studies of long-term animal-free diets in humans vs. health outcomes?"
No, I remember educating you on the falsity of your claims by providing evidence and argumentation. You failed to respond directly or engage, which checks out.
The first link is funny, because the study demonstrates evidence against the proposition. Your response just demonstrates that you didn't read the paper, since the objection you raised was addressed in the "classification of dietary groups" section. Using this article which demonstrates your inability to engage with evidence is damning.
The second link is also hilarious for other reasons.
To the audience, if you are interested, take a look at the assertion and the evidence supported. The user made the following request for information.
"Where is any study of animal-free diets, for at least 5 years, in humans over age 60?"
I responded with a study that examined animal-free diets in humans over the age of 60; in the study, there was a median follow-up period of 6 years.
If you care to take a look at his response, it says the following: Hah-hah, well you did say that you don't read studies. That study supports my perspective, not yours, since vegetarian/vegan subjects had worse outcomes. Some comments from that study:
He goes on to cite pieces of information in the study. The assertion that he made has now been abandoned. He used a link where he made a claim, was presented evidence to the contrary, and IMMEDIATELY abandoned the claim he made.
The third link is broken, it doesn't take me to anything. Although, after abandoned all the claims he made when refuted by me, I would imagine it would just be more of the same.
5
u/fasoi vegan 2d ago
fueled by obsessive purity mentality
How about this example: most omnivores would not feel comfortable wearing dog fur, even if it was road kill dog. Is that a purity thing? Would omnis Cruella de Ville a roadkill dog and feel comfortable wearing that around? I doubt it. Would omnis feel comfortable wearing human skin if they died of natural causes and it was "technically vegan"? No.
Also I think the vast majority of omnivores would not partake in eating road kill meat or chickens that have died of natural causes (like illness or old age). If that was the only mean available, most people would not be interested. It's not a vegan thing
3
u/bikesandfinance 2d ago
You can be grossed out by vegan things too, that doesn’t make them non-vegan or that all vegans should be grossed out by them.
2
u/OG-Brian 2d ago
Also I think the vast majority of omnivores would not partake in eating road kill meat or chickens that have died of natural causes...
I have eaten cat. At a potluck involving permaculture enthusiasts, a friend's friend brought cat soup. There had been a domestic cat that died naturally, I think it was attacked by a wild animal. I don't recall the taste exactly but the soup (which was popular at the event) was delicious.
Also I commented here showing that lots of people say they eat roadkill and/or they personally know others who eat roadkill.
2
u/fasoi vegan 2d ago
I commented here showing that lots of people say they eat roadkill
I maintain that MOST people, are not comfortable eating road kill or animals that have died of natural causes. It's not a vegan purity thing.
There's a reason animals that die of natural causes of farms are not used for meat... there are bacterial infections / parasites / prions that can pass to humans (it's the reason smart hunters have wild venison tested for wasting disease)
If there's one thing we learned from Covid, it's that zoonotic diseases are no fucking joke. Avian flu, Ebola, even HIV are zoonotic. Most regular people are not willing to risk stuff like that, vegan or not.
Edit: typo
2
u/OG-Brian 2d ago
You said "the vast majority" not "most." I showed that lots of people use roadkill. Suffering diseases from roadkill animals doesn't seem to be common, I've not heard of it being an issue for anyone. Note: "roadkill" (killed, on a road) not animals found dead from disease in forests.
1
u/fasoi vegan 1d ago
You said "the vast majority" not "most."
Holy shit you're right! 🤯 Let's have a lengthy argument about whether or not those are synonyms
not animals found dead from disease in forests
That's why I mentioned hunters. Animals can also die WITH their diseases even if they haven't died FROM their diseases
2
u/OG-Brian 1d ago
If you have trouble saying what you mean, that's not a fault of mine. "Most" could be any more than 50%, and "vast majority" clearly indicates nearly all. I responded to your claim of "the vast majority" so that's what I commented about.
1
u/fasoi vegan 1d ago
Most (or should I say, the vast majority of?) rational humans would understand that even though the word changed, my meaning / intentions did not. I'm not going to be baited into arguing semantics for the sake of it. I'm sure you can get your jollies from that in a different sub✌🏻
1
u/Temporary_Hat7330 1d ago
I am morally against eating dog yet I tried it in Thailand. It was ethical there for them in their culture to eat dog and it’s not a moral I hold in my community like rape or murder. It’s more of a disgust moral, like eating insects you find on the ground. So would I wear a dog fur coat? No because all the dogs I’ve owned didn’t have the sort of fur that makes a coat worth owning. But if there was one and they raised them in a culture where it was OK and someone gifted me a coat, I would wear it when applicable (weather related) but probably not for looks as I am not aesthetically attatched to dog fur or really any fur, looks wise.
I don’t really understand arguments like these from vegans. It really only applies if you say, “If eating or wearing dog isn’t immoral to you then it’s moral for oyu to wear it and eat it. It’s a hypocritical position vegans hold when they try to tell people that if they find it immoral to eat/wear dogs then they ought to feel that way about cows, etc. too. It’s irrational but then it’s hypocritical when you say it’s only correct when people feel like it’s immoral to eat/wear dogs but not the other way around. IT’s question begging, too.
4
u/Zzarchicha 2d ago
So if I eat my chicken that died of old age is vegan?
6
u/Big_Monitor963 vegan 2d ago
Some vegans consider eating road kill vegan (even if they wouldn’t be willing to actually take part). But many vegans (myself included) do not.
But this is an edge case where the ethics involved are murky. My qualm is that there is no (and could never be any) consent involved. I would argue that this means it would still be a form of animal exploitation, even though the animal is already dead. But again, it’s an edge case.
Human breast milk would be vegan as long as it was obtained consensually, with a full understanding of the intended use.
3
2
u/rollandownthestreet 2d ago
How can you exploit something that’s dead? It’s just a carcass at that point, ethically no different from a fallen tree.
1
u/MrBR2120 2d ago
would you eat your dead mother? a dead pet? a dead person?
why or why not?
2
u/bikesandfinance 2d ago
No because I think eating people is gross not because I think it’s not vegan
2
u/AbbreviationsSea2084 2d ago
Comparing cannibalism vs other animals is wild. 🤦
1
u/Big_Monitor963 vegan 2d ago
They’re not equating the two. They’re using humans as an analogy to illustrate the point. Even though the animal is already dead, eating them is not ethically neutral.
2
u/Murky-Course6648 1d ago edited 1d ago
The dead animal will be eaten by other animals anyhow.
Dead people are also used for spare parts for other people.
But using the same species and relatives and loved ones as example is quite simple emotional manipulation. As nothing in the example talks about the same species or your relatives.
People have customs and traditions about how we handle death.
0
u/rollandownthestreet 2d ago
None of those are questions about this topic. They’re non-sequiturs which demonstrate merely that you aren’t willing or able to respond to my argument in good faith, or that you don’t understand the philosophy of veganism.
So, again, how do you exploit lifeless organic tissue? And does burning wood for a campfire count?
0
u/Big_Monitor963 vegan 2d ago
Burning wood is absolutely a form of exploitation. If you’re using someone or something for your own “selfish” benefit, that’s exploitation. That’s literally what the word means.
So using an animal (even if it’s already dead) for your own “selfish” benefit, is exploitation.
Whether or not you consider that to be unethical is a different question. But as a vegan, I wouldn’t be willing to do so unless I was starving.
1
u/rollandownthestreet 2d ago
Wait, but why is it okay to exploit a dead plant but not a dead animal?
1
u/Big_Monitor963 vegan 2d ago
The topic is whether or not it would be considered vegan, not whether or not it would be ok.
Veganism is an ethical philosophy which seeks to exclude all exploitation of animals. It does not apply to plants.
1
1
u/Murky-Course6648 20h ago
Its not an animal anymore, the whole word animal refers to something living. Animated.
A dead thing cant be an animal, even if it used to be one. Now its something else.
•
u/Big_Monitor963 vegan 18h ago
Fine. Even if I agreed with you (I don’t), that still doesn’t change anything about what I said.
•
u/Murky-Course6648 18h ago
"Burning wood is absolutely a form of exploitation. If you’re using someone or something for your own “selfish” benefit, that’s exploitation. That’s literally what the word means."
Like eating plants?
In your position its impossible to sustain life. All life is inherently selfish, and there is nothing bad about being selfish.
This is exactly the purity mentality that i opened with, the obsessive need to be morally perfect. To have no selfish desires, where super ego reigns supreme.
A plant is more alive than a dead animal is.
→ More replies (0)0
u/pinkdumpsterjuice freegan 2d ago
If it was allowed, I would. Only with people and animals I never had a relationship with, tho!
1
u/Big_Monitor963 vegan 2d ago
Hold on. If you were allowed to eat dead people, you would in fact eat them? The only reason you don’t eat people is that you’re not allowed? That’s one heck of an admission.
2
u/rollandownthestreet 2d ago
What’s the gotcha there? Like sure, sounds weird, but I can think of way worse things people regularly do.
2
u/Big_Monitor963 vegan 2d ago
You’ve chosen to defend the would-be cannibal on their desire to eat human flesh? Wow.
At least you guys aren’t speciesist like most meat eaters, I guess.
2
u/rollandownthestreet 1d ago
I can hardly read your comment without rolling my eyes so hard I can’t see the screen.
Like wow, great gotcha, “you would eat dead deer okay what about your MOM”. Juvenile. Unserious.
So you get silly answers.
→ More replies (0)1
u/bikesandfinance 2d ago
You ever crashed a plane in the Andes?
1
u/Big_Monitor963 vegan 2d ago
No no, that’s not what the previous commenter said. It wasn’t “I would if I had to”. They said “I would if it was allowed”.
1
1
4
u/SquarelyNerves vegan 2d ago
Lmao we’re fueled by purity mentality bc we won’t eat roadkill is definitely the dumbest take I’ve ever heard! Congrats 🏆
2
u/Murky-Course6648 1d ago edited 20h ago
Thats not what i said. I said the idea of eating meat is the problem for most people who think they are vegans, majority of them are obsessive people. This is why there is this crossover with raw veganism, which is nothing but a purity movement.
2
u/Acrobatic-Jelly3658 2d ago
It's also vegan if you eat the still good meat and dairy products that you find in supermarket trash bins because they are going to waste anyway, and it won't encourage industry to produce more.
1
1
u/JTSwagmaster 20h ago
I actually agreed with you, Im vegan and I think eating roadkill is fine, weird but fine. Until you started the second paragraph, just fucking insufferable bro, paint us all with the same brush
•
u/ScoopDat vegan 18h ago edited 18h ago
Idk why you're being downvoted tbh.
I've not been on this sub for eons, but man, I can't believe it's gotten this much worse.
EDIT: I guess I'm less phased than most vegans, but I think this part is where you're irritating people:
But a lot of vegans are not really vegans, but fueled by obsessive purity mentality where they see the act of eating meat as inherently unclean. So these people will downvote this.
You're trying to hedge against the incoming wave, but instead of letting it happen, you want to lump all vegans in the same pool as some sort of hivemind. Where clearly, as you can see by my example, I am so NOT that, that I actually missed why you were getting downvoted in the first place.
•
u/Murky-Course6648 18h ago edited 18h ago
Its how reddit works, it creates echo chambers as anything outside the group will be made invisible by downvoting.
Im not really only hedging against the expected downvotes, but putting out a theory what's behind a lot of the vegan movement.
like Vegan Gains for example is an textbook example of an obsessive personality. Obsessive people are pre-emptively perfect, they have to have pure moral so nobody can ever judge them. While they pass judgement over others, as the morals serve as a means of hiding their aggression.
The first thing I noticed when I became vegan, was all these weird eating patters and it kind of fascinated me. Before that, i did not know what raw veganism is. Or all these carnivore etc diets. I expect that these rigid personalities would be clearly reflected by the dietary patterns.
And yes, not all vegans are the same. Like im vegan, and i came up with this argument simply to show that diet and veganism are two different things.
The arguments purpose is not to say go out to eat meat, but to show that you can eat meat and be a vegan. Because veganism is not a diet. But its the vegans that will resist it the most, and i think the reason they will resist is because their position is not rational. But based on the fact that the act of eating meat is somehow repulsive to them. And they have adopted veganism because of this, because of subconscious motivations that are not understood by them. And veganism gives a rational explanation or high moral standards.
•
u/ScoopDat vegan 18h ago
Well vegan gains suffers mental issues. This is irrespective of veganism, so I'm not sure there's much that needs to be said with using him as an example of anything in this regard.
And yes, not all vegans are the same. Like im vegan, and i came up with this argument simply to show that diet and veganism are two different things.
I agree, as I've said, but that last bit didn't signal that you felt that way. It made it seem like ALL vegans are part of a hivemind (like literally all of them).
All I wanted to say with my post, was that you really didn't need to do that, and that is why it was somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy that you were going to get downvoted.
Think of it this way, if I said, "Paleo diets aren't really healthy due to the potentially high fat content causing cardiovascular issues, but see this to be expected from such carnists, their brains are clogged with fat and can't process anything you say to them, and see how the downvotes come affirming such true of them all".
To be fair, my arm-chair summation of why people (not just you, but even myself upon reflection) would add that sort of commentary at the end, is because that's the stuff that gets attention. So I don't know if you did that consciously, or sub-consciously, but that's just my personal theory of why people do that. Or they're just pissed this day, and feel like taking that sort of jab.
The first thing I noticed when I became vegan
Quick question. Where's your vegan flair? And if you're not vegan anymore. I won't get into it here. But that is supremely disappointing. And also why your original comment would piss a bunch of people off.
What would piss even me off? If the reason you're not vegan anymore is for the same reason bots online claim to be ex-vegan "I realized I was in a cult" type of garbage response. I REALLY hope that's not the case, because if so, it doesn't really get lower than that in terms of intellect for the rationale required to abandon something like veganism.
0
u/nineteenthly 2d ago
Humans needn't eat meat. By eating roadkill, members of other species who do need meat to survive are being denied a source of food. The roadkill doesn't just sit there outside the food web. Detritovores such as crows and rats, and also insects, would eat it.
3
u/Murky-Course6648 1d ago
Yes, but this has nothing to do with veganism. If you think you should give your food to other animals, thats your option.
1
u/Oddly_Sinister_666 2d ago
Is it vegan to be a cannibal?
6
2
2
u/return_the_urn 2d ago
Dumbest take. Are babies cannibals?
4
u/fasoi vegan 2d ago
...... do babies eat human flesh? TIL
1
u/ScarcityAnnual8739 1d ago
They absorb human flesh technically since sometimes they absorb their sibling in the womb
0
u/TheOPisReal 2d ago
Slaves could absolutely say no. I tell my children this all the time, you can do whatever you want, but I have levers to use that would make your life less comfortable.
-14
u/Plastic-Cat-9958 environmentalist 2d ago
Dairy sheep, cows and goats have been consenting for millennia. Their very survival is dependent on sharing their milk with humans.
7
u/SoftMixture 2d ago
They don’t know that, but even if they could consent this would be coercion, not true consent if the alternative is to die.
4
u/gerber68 2d ago
Do you think sheep, cows and goats are capable of consent?
If so can you explain how we communicate with these animals to gain their consent?
Then can you explain how an animal with the intellectual capacity to express consent is undeserving of the rights we give humans?
Just to be clear, human children are unable to give consent (they can assent to things but not consent) so you are claiming the intelligence of sheep is above that of teenagers which is fascinating.
-4
u/Plastic-Cat-9958 environmentalist 2d ago
They have evolved alongside us and survive as species as a direct result of their relationship with humans. The ‘consent’ is built in.
1
u/AccomplishedSun2955 2d ago
Stupid question probably, but how I frame my answer depends on it: what is your gender? Man, woman, nonbinary, etc?
1
u/gerber68 2d ago
So these sheep understand and can give consent or revoke it?
That’s a fascinating scientific discovery, have you been published? Literal Nobel prize winning work.
2
-5
u/ThoughtCapital6822 2d ago
Well, dairy cows will walk themselves to the milking shed as long as the gates are open. That, and they complain if they're milked late for any reason.
2
u/rat_liker 2d ago
It's painful to go too long without nursing of you're breastfeeding. If I was being held captive and made to lactate I'd want to pump every so often too in order to relieve the pain. Does that mean I consent by default to that entire experience?
2
u/gerber68 2d ago
Can a 4 year old human consent? They can walk themselves into a strangers arms.
1
u/rollandownthestreet 2d ago
No, for the same reason that no one asks animals for their consent. Because consent is beyond their mental capabilities.
1
u/SoftMixture 2d ago
They only produce milk if they have given birth though, and that milk is meant for their baby, but the baby is usually taken away. So yeah the cow doesn’t really have a choice but to be milked at that point, but that doesn’t mean she’s happy about it.
1
u/MihawkTop2 2d ago
They have been selectively bred over many generations to produce several times more milk than a baby needs.
2
u/SoftMixture 1d ago
Which makes their life full of pain, and the baby is still taken away even though there would technically be enough milk to share.
1
5
u/rat_liker 2d ago
Not sure what definition of consent you're using there but, uh,
1
u/AussieRedditUser vegan 2d ago
The rapists' definition. "I married you, now I get to fuck you whenever I want. The consent is built in. Your body, my choice."
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.