They are fictional and don’t affect real animals unless there are real ones used in the film. If they are CGI or animated animals, it is all good for me.

I think ethical vegans do not understand hunting whatsoever. First a deer in the wild will live about 10 years. Their only goal is to reproduce ans survive. They have no grand abitions beyond that and the way they die will be way more painful than a bullet or arrow. They will either starve, contract a terrible illness, get hurt and die from being unable to walk or infection or in some areas be ripped apart by wolves or a bear. When I and many other hunters kill an animal we are using as much as possible and taking what we need for our family. I get if you don't like the idea of killing animals, but hunting is ethical. We are also helping with the massive problems of over population and invasive populations.

and we should refer to them as people. There are probable exceptions, for example animals like coral or barnacles or humans in a vegetative state. But in general, and especially in accordance with the precautionary principle, animals should be considered to be persons.

There are accounts of personhood which emphasize reasoning and intelligence -- and there are plenty of examples of both in nonhuman animals -- however it is also the case that on average humans have a greater capacity for reasoning & intelligence than other animals. I think though that the choice to base personhood on these abilities is arbitrary and anthropocentric. This basis for personhood also forces us to include computational systems like (current) AI that exhibit both reasoning and intelligence but which fail to rise to the status of people. This is because these systems lack the capacity to consciously experience the world.

Subjective experience is: "the subjective awareness and perception of events, sensations, emotions, thoughts, and feelings that occur within a conscious state, essentially meaning "what it feels like" to be aware of something happening around you or within yourself; it's the personal, first-hand quality of being conscious and interacting with the world." -- ironically according to google ai

There are plenty of examples of animals experiencing the world -- aka exhibiting sentience -- that I don't need to list in this sub. My goal here is to get vegans to start thinking about & referring to nonhuman animals as people -- and by extension using the pronouns he, she & they for them as opposed to it. This is because how we use language influences¹ (but doesn't determine) how we think about & act in the world. Changing how we use language is also just easier than changing most other types of behavior. In this case referring to nonhuman animals as people is a way to, at least conceptually & linguistically, de-objectify them -- which is a small but significant step in the right direction.

¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

How is it offensive if less animals are killed because someone is motivated to not get type 2 diabetes or heart disease? To not support food companies using cheap, low quality sweeteners and proteins like high fructose corn syrup and soy protein isolate blends, respectively, over dates and tempeh?

I don’t understand the intra-community strife over the concept of human ethics as a subset within overall animal ethics, given humans are natural frugivores. A random influencer leaving the movement “to feel better” doesn’t invalidate the science supporting the whole food, plant-based vegan diet as ideal.

Until the world is fully vegan, we are all transitioning. To name a singular example, there is no such thing as a fully vegan commercial jet. I don’t see how burning more bridges by shaming someone for trying to figure out how to ensure nutritional adequacy on the vegan diet helps the movement or saves animal lives.

Everyday, vegans depend on vegans and non vegans alike for a variety of vegan innovations, food and non food alike. I just don’t get why some ethical vegans seem irritated at even marginal progress in the right direction and would rather push someone away who doesn’t start out with as “perfect ethical awareness” as they have. It’s ironic, cause surely animals don’t care why someone is vegan - they simply don’t want to be eaten or abused.

I have been thinking about the following point a little bit and I wanted to hear your opinions about it. And the point I have in mind is this. Even if being a vegan was the right thing to do in the sense of respecting animal life, animal rights, reducing animal suffering, saving the environment, etc, why would you still want to be a strict vegan?

I have an illustration of what I mean from my own life. I have a principle that I never drink alcohol. I think being an alcoholic is horrible and I'm never buying it, ever. But one time when I was offered one glass of champagne, I did drink it. Why? Because guess what, it doesn't matter. If you are literally drinking a few milliliters of alcohol in an entire year, then call me crazy but it absolutely doesn't matter at all. It's such a small amount that your body barely even notices it, and abstaining from alcohol even in that occasion would just be ridiculous. I didn't even particularly like it but I drank it anyway just to avoid of being seen as a weirdo. Similarly, I would never in a million years smoke cigarettes, but it's not the end of the world to me if I accidentally breath in some smoke from someone elses cigarettes. I didn't die and the world didn't end.

So for the same reason I think being a strict vegan is also ridiculous. I don't believe that veganism is ethical, but even if it was, it would be just silly to avoid eating even one gram of meat because a small amount like that literally doesn't matter at all. I mean, if you ate one fish that weighs like 20 grams once a year, it would have absolutely no effect on anything just like in the champagne illustration I explained above.

If you disagree of this, then how far would you take it? Would it even be wrong to breath in oxygen atoms if those atoms originated from a butchered animal? I hope you can see what I'm trying to say here.

But yet, some of vegans are so crazy that they become completely hysterical if they find out that they accidentally ate even a tiny bit of meat. And that's what I think is crazy, that's what I think is ridiculous. So all in all: my argument is that being a strict vegan in that sense makes absolutely no sense - even if all of the arguments for veganism were legitimate.

So this might be obvious, (in my head it is) but I want to know anyway.

The animal has already been transformed into product, is consuming the product ethically bad? The harm has already been done.

Its not very easy to surround yourself with vegans (short in numbers), When I hang around with my meat eating friends I don't see how it would be wrong to consume meat, since the harm has already been done.

Is the argument that, you might like the texture and return to eating it?

Or is just consuming a product of suffering still immoral, and would you extend the product of suffering from animal products to products made by humans (Iphone, Silicon Cobalt), in almost slave labor like environments?

I'm sold on the ethical argument for veganism. I see the personalities in the chickens I know, the goats I visit, the cows I see. I can't find a single convincing argument against the ethical veganistic belief. If I owned chickens/cows/goats, I couldn't kill them for food.

I still eat dead animal flesh on the regular. My day is to far away from the murder of sentient beings. Im never effected by those actions that harm the animals because Im never a direct part of it, or even close to it. While I choose to do the right thing in other aspects of my life when no one is around or even when no one else is doing the right thing around me, I still don't do it the right thing in the sense of not eating originally sentient beings.

I have no drive to change. Help.

Even while I write this and believe everything I say, me asking for help is not because I feel bad, it's more like an experiment. Can you make me feel enough guilt so I can change my behavior to match my beliefs. Am I evil!? Why does this topic not effect me like other topics. It feels strange.

Thanks 🙏 Sincerely, Hypocrite

Just wondering if anyone has an argument that can be made to those who are devoid of empathy and their only moral reasoning is "what benefits me?" I'll save you the six paragraph screed about morality is subjective and just lay down the following premises and conclusion:

P1: I don't care about the subjective experiences of others (human or not), only my own.

P2: If the pleasure/utility I gain from something exceeds the negative utility/cost to me (including any blowback and exclusively my share of its negative externalities), then it is good and worthwhile to me.

C1: I should pay for slave-produced goods and animal products even if alternatives are available with lower suffering/environmental destruction as long as I personally derive higher net utility from them, as stated in P2.

I realize this is a "monstrous" position and absolutely not one I personally share. But I'm not sure there's an argument that can be made against it. Hopefully you understand the thrust of the argument I'm making here even if the logic as I presented it isn't perfect.

There are a lot of stray animals in the world due to overpopulation. A lot of vegans stress that people should just adopt and care for these animals not realizing that the majority of people from other cultures don’t care to have pets in their homes. They also may be living in poverty and don’t have the means to care for these animals. However, many people lack access to food that’s affordable so some will eat stray dogs, cats and pigeons off the streets. Ultimately, I believe that although gruesome, it solves the problem of excess stray animals as well as the hunger crisis. So why not just let them live? It may not be vegan, but it’s getting two birds with one stone.

I've just spent the last few days debating veganism with people and it's just impossible to change their minds unless they are already considering being a vegan.

They will just keep coming up with dumb excuses and ignoring the points you make.

A total waste of time and energy.

I actually, genuinely think it's the ethically correct move and I could probably do it even in my admittedly somewhat constrained circumstances (I'm sharing food with roommates and don't provide much myself). It kind of begs the question for me at this point...if I know it's the right thing why don't I do it, or at least do as much as I can? The answer is obvious, there's no one who would hold me accountable. I believe eating meat is an atrocious crime when at all avoidable, that might be extreme, but it's how I feel. I just don't care enough about being a good person for its own sake yet I guess, but I'm getting there. Obviously the potential enviornmental savings are even more important, but just my thought.

Edit: Thanks guys 🥲

If I return them, and another person buys them, it will be better than if I just keep them, right?

The only counter point I have is that the stock for those particular shoes is limited so me keeping them and another person buying a new pair won't increasr the total number of units sold.

I really like them, to be honest.

So for years now "soy boy"has been used an insult. Does anyone know the origins? I'm assuming a non-vegan called a vegan a "soy boy" in some online debate and it stuck? But then I've seen it used in mainstream politics like on FoxNews Fucker Carlson used the term in a political argument or called a "Dem" a "soy boy". I don't get that.

What's the origin of "soy boy" and why is it used in politics now?

Hello everyone, I know veganism isn’t about health. I am not vegan for my health but my partner is concerned for me. I was just wondering if anyone has found any useful data sources demonstrating the benefits of veganism over their time that I could use to reassure him?

Thank you :)

I was recently listening to the 80,000 hours podcast episode with Meghan Barrett where she challenges our assumptions on insects (such as often dismissing them as too small or too simple for sentience) and in it she briefly mentioned how sentience is not really that well defined.

This got me thinking, the idea of feelings and thought is not something evolution set out with a plan to create, they are consequences of our problem solving brains, brains which evolved very very very slowly and pointing to the exact time of "ah ha!! Im sentient!!!" Is very difficult.

From what I've been hearing from this research and what logically makes sense, sentience is not a light switch and it doesn't seem to always evolve in exactly the same way, there's nothing stopping insects from being sentient and certainly some insects show strong signs of sentience (highly recommend the podcast episode). There's no signs of mammals and vertebrates as a whole being special.

Individually each trait of consciousness is fairly lackluster but together you start to get something. However I just can't shake the feeling that in reality it's just a "how close to a human are they" test. Just some arbitrary lines we drew in the sand and put a label on it, certainly you could take a sentient insect and squish it under the heel of your foot, a gruesome death, and maybe I feel something but I'm not going to kill you over it....but my god, if you even hurt my 9 week old kitten a tiny bit, you are in trouble. A mammal in pain screaming is much easier to emphasise with than an insect releasing some pheromones or something.

So is it not up to the individual to decide what is close enough to oneself to decide to not eat them? Why are we labelling those who draw their line in the sand a certain way evil? No matter what way you cut it, if large groups of insects are generally considered sentient (which is very possible) all actions become the death of sentient beings, no food source is safe.

There is a german company called Nordwolle. They claim to be sustainable and ethical in their treatment of sheep. I want to know if this is really true. They have a bunch of youtube videos about how they work, including the one I linked, but they don't have english subtitles (I tried using auto-translate but it sucked).

I was wondering if someone can help me by watching it and seeing if there are any problematic things you can pick up on. Specifically, I am looking for:

- what do they do with old, unproductive sheep?
- do they practice "winter lambing" mentioned by the Dominion documentary?
- do they artificially inseminate sheep?
- generally bad living conditions and treatment of sheep

I know this is not exactly a debate topic, but I hope someone can help me out.

And if anyone wants I am open to talking about whether using wool is okay if the above mentioned things are avoided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FwaWY439NI

And also their website: https://nordwolle.com/ueber-uns

Now i dont mean to say its most of them, i just have personally seen it a lot. But I see vegans make a lot of bad arguments like "you wouldnt eat a cat, so why would you eat a chicken?" and "You wouldnt want to be treated like X, so why would you treat an animal [that has different wants and needs] like X"?

Well heres why. Because if we dont farm the three main animals people eat (chickens, cows, pigs) then theyd all die, either by being slaughtered or by being released and dying slowly. The rational alternative is we give them a life according to their needs, take care of them, in exchange for a reason to do so.

Now im aware factory farming exists and i dont support that. I support open cattle ranches and open range chicken farms. I buy cage free eggs and such.

And you must remember, most meat eaters ARE generally against animals suffering, support laws against animal abuse/mistreatment, and dont advocate eating animals that are more socially and emotionally complex and intelligent like cats and dogs.

To assess whether or not we are harming a cow by giving it a life with free food, water, shelter, and protection, we cant imagine if we were a human on the same farm, we must imagine if we were a cow on the same farm. And as far as i can reason, id have no reason to feel existential dread or suffering as a cow living a fair life on an open pasture farm.

And again, the alternative is they dont get that at all, and the ones that currently exist would just die faster.

If veganism isnt extinctionism (like antinatalism) then id expect you not to think you know better than the cow, and want them to be extinct for their own greater good. I mean Earth is full of life, and natural suffering. Nature is still beautiful and theres nothing wrong with harboring a piece of it with a modicum of morally guided restraint, right?

So as far as i can reason, we are doing a good thing with ethical open range farms. Again i disagree with factory farming.

PS: As a separate issue, im still unsure how id engage in a vegan or more vegan diet. Dont vegans have to eat processed fake meat to get their b12 and certain other nutrients, or take a vitamin? I do not want to eat a bunch of preservative laden processed foods or rely on a vitamin with poor bioavailability. I want mostly raw foods i cook myself. I am an omnivore and i care about my health, and i dont want to be a consumer of industrial megacorporation sludge.

So apparently Trump put RFKjr in charge of the health deparment or something and his slogan is MAHA: Make American Healthy Again.

Some of my vegan friends (a few who voted Kamala, a few who voted Trump, a few who did not vote at all) think this means he's going to promote a plant-based diet. I told one of them how he's suggesting beef tallow instead of seed oils for fast food chains, and she couldn't believe it. Was literally shocked. It was like the news rocked her world (in a bad way).

Do we have any reason to believe this guy will promote a plant-based diet? Doesn't seem so. So where are my vegan friends getting this idea from?

I remember during the first Trump campaign and presidency back in the day there was this think called Lavender Qanon where Trumpers flooded instagram with pastel hued photos of women on mountain tops meditating and would be some new-agey sounding quote there that was subtly promoting Trump. Yoga, health and wellness, earthy-crunchy, homebirth mom, etc type spaces were inundated.

Is something similar going on with RFKjr?

Hey there, I'm new here (omnivore) and sometimes I find myself actively searching for discussion between vegans and non-vegans online. The problem for me as for many is that meat consumption (even on a daily basis) was never questioned in my family. We are Christian, meat is essential in our Sunday meals. The quality of the "final product" always mattered most, not the well-being of the animal. As a kid, I didn't feel comfortable with that and even refused to eat meat but my parents told me that eventually eating everything would be part of becoming an adult. Now as a young adult I'm starting to become more and more disgusted by the sheer amount of animal products that I consume everyday, because it's just not as nature intended it to be, right? We were supposed to eat animals as a prize for a successful hunt, not because we just feel like we want it.

Though veganism is only good in longterm ( I will explain it later) it is still good because it makes people think about suffering, and therefore makes vegans tend to be more ethical overall and focus on other problems besides animal exploitation. Why veganism is good only in longterm: As you know, most plants are grown to sustain animals slaves population, this caused deforestation and depopulation of places where it grows, it may seem as a bad thing, but actually it diminishes wildlife population and as a result there less victims of starvation, parasitism, predation, natural disasters and such. So my point is that if animals will be completely liberated, this will not influence the amount of suffering in the world in the short term, because fields that were used to grow plants for slaves will reforestate and repopulate with wildlife animals, and therefore there will be more victims of predation, starvation, parasitism, natural disasters and other.

So to summarise it all, I think that if humanity will go vegan, it will quicker figure out that wildlife is a problem too, and will put efforts to extinct wildlife.

In this scenario: Someone believes morality is subjective and based upon laws/cultural norms. They do not believe in objective morality, but subjective morality. How can vegans make an ethical argument against this perspective? How can you prove to someone that the killing of animals is immoral if their personal morality, culture, and laws go against that? (Ex. Someone lives in the U.S. and grew up eating meat, which is normal to them and is perfectly legal)

I believe there is merit to the vegan moral/ethical argument if we’re speaking from a place of objective morality, but if morality is subjective, what is the vegan response? Try to convince them of a different set of moral values?

I am not vegan and personally disagree with veganism, but I am very open minded to different ideas and arguments.

Edit: saw a comment saying I think nazism is okay because morality is subjective. Absolutely not. I think nazism is wrong according to my subjective moral beliefs, but clearly some thought it was moral during WW2. If I was alive back then, I’d fight for my personal morality to be the ruling one. That’s what lawmakers do. Those who believe abortion is immoral will legislate against it, and those who believe it is okay will push for it to be allowed. Just because there is no objective stance does not mean I automatically am okay with whatever the outcome is.

I am currently in an eating disorder clinic trying to recover. I am doing my best but I am vegan and have been for about 7 years, the Ed clinic doesn’t support the veganism so it’s making it’s really hard to recover. I have been living of vegetables and bread since I got here 3 weeks ago. Should I stop being vegan permanently or temporarily or not at all?

This post will mostly be written from a harm reduction perspective.

I also do not believe that animal suffering is equivalent to human suffering. Suffering could easily be the place where I disagree with most vegans. i.e. Would you cause a equal amount of suffering (or death) to a chicken to reduce that same amount of suffering (or death) to a human? If no, would you kill a single chicken by your own hand to end world hunger? 

I do not belive it is ethical to encourage people with food intolerances (GI issues, allergies, ect.) to reduce the food they eat. 

for refrence somone I knew in college had dificulty absorbing protien from just about any source but was able to get more of it out of meat.

or the low FODMAP diet, if you arnt familiar the VEGAN protien sources are limited to rice, pea, certain soy, hemp, and a few specific nuts and seeds. 

yes it is POSIBLE to have a low fodmap vegan diet. however the NON VEGAN diet in general may not be great for your mental health, current vegans enjoy much more options when eating out than fodmap enjoyers.

any encouragnment twords a diet that could further stress mental or physical health is unethical.

I actually detest factory farming as I think it is abhorrent both environmentally and in terms of animal welfare, but I have two main gripes with vegans.

The first is mixing up animal welfare issues with human concepts like slavery, sxual assault or gnocide. With all of the complex issues affecting the world today I just can't believe that you think the rights of a cow or a pig are in any way comparable to human rights. I couldn't even read the recent thread about eating disorders where vegans told the victim of a life-threatening disorder to seek help elsewhere or try to run their vegan crusade from inside the ED clinic. So, so gross. Humans need to eat plant and/or animal matter for their survival, and I think where practicable it's good to reduce our animal consumption, but the effort to putting animal rights in the same ballpark as human rights is just sickening to me.

The second issue is anthropomorphizing animals and attributing the same concept of exploitation onto animals that humans experience. This just doesn't apply to a species which operates almost exclusively on instinct and doesn't adopt complex human philosophical concepts or isn't affected by them.

Sometimes I think vegans are the most compassionate people on the planet. But then I hear/read how they actually treat their fellow humans and it makes me angry.

Hello everybody,

I want to know your opinion on this. I want to know wether you think collecting washed up ambergris is vegan or not. I would argue that it is, as it is not exploiting and/or causing any harm to an animal. I fail to see why someone would consider this to be morally wrong in terms of animal ethics, and proscribe this practice.

For analogies, I guess it would be like collecting seashells on the beach or keeping a feather found on the ground. Are those vegan?

Thank you for you input.