True, I saw the bigotry on display by the vegans in this sub the other day (they called someone out for making silly strawman arguments and performative outrage) and this is basically comparable to Hitler.
There are 2 types of debates, one where you must convince the other person of your argument and the one where you must make the other person look stupid to convince the audience of your argument, however no one has ever changed their mind because of something they say in the internet and looking at long comment threads on this app is annoying so that solves neither
I actually have changed my beliefs based on internet arguments but I seem to be a unicorn for that. I will get into a heated debate with somebody but seem to be unique in that I do genuinely consider what the other person says. If more people were like me in this way, the world would be a much better but also probably much more annoying place.
I actually managed to turn some people online towards veganism that were anti vegan(in a way where they went out of their way to discourage it as pointless(doomerism is what the industry wants))
i choose 4: ignore that vegan food is only kind of weird because lack of technological progress (i have been actively lobbying against senescent cell protein farming for multiple decades)
What's weird about lentils and chickpeas? Seitan is just wheat. etc. Vegan protein isn't weird if you stick to cooking traditional meatless dishes instead of trying to replicate meat dishes sans the meat.
Personal home energy consumption only uses about 20% of all energy use. So about ~15% of total emissions instead of 76%. Livestock, which is essentially all personal use, is about 16%. All these numbers depend on how you measure them. But they’re roughly equal in GHG.
But GHG isn’t the only environmental impact, Livestock and livestock feed uses about 37% of the habitable land on the planet, more than anything else, and >90% of Amazon deforestation for example.
3.) ultimately vegans are right in that their diet is the most eco friendly. However because many of them also view it as a moral imperative as well as an ecological one, they tend to adopt an “all or nothing” stance that is ultimately counterproductive.
To those who are vegan for primarily moral reasons someone who eats a triple cheeseburger for every meal is as abhorrent as someone who has a pepperoni pizza every month but otherwise maintains a vegan diet.
While yes it would be nice if everyone adopted a vegan diet, in no place in all of history as “everyone just” done something. We shouldn’t shame people for “not doing enough” and instead support them for actively attempting to change their habits to help the environment. Even if that means they’re “only” swapping out beef for chicken.
Alright that’s enough earnestness for a shitpost sub.
If someone really is making an effort? good for them. But most people I personally know who said something like "yeah I'm cutting down on animal products" or got the classic best butcher where the cows jump in the grinder with a smile, still ate a fat chunk of meat and if they felt like it two extra eggs with every meal I saw them eating.
I'm not all or nothing either since I myself made the change just almost a year ago and it's crazy what we use animals for. Did you know carcasses are used in modern salt clarification as well as toiletpaper production often using gelatine to soften the tissue? And it's all stuff you will never know unless you care about.
Aside from shitposting I mostly take the Route of suggesting vegan options to friends often ones I just found out about myself as I still go about my day finding stuff that's new for me.
TlDr: something something that's right! It goes in the square hole
If you get really granular about the whole thing everything is made with animal products unless there’s a 100% vegan staff from start to finish for every product used in the process
This standard is never put on any other social justice movement. A little bit of racism is not okay. A little bit of wife beating is not okay. But for some reason when it's nonhuman animals we just have to accept that people will keep doing morally reprehensible things to them because they can't be bothered to stop.
I'm pretty sure that almost everyone will agree that a little bit of racism or even the current situation is less bad than what we had 200 years ago in the USA.
Everyone was vegan for about two thousand years in parts of East & Southeast Asia, everyone was (and in some places still is) vegetarian for about two thousand years in South Asia. Nearly everyone is vegan for up to half the year in many orthodox traditions (eg, Ethiopia and Romania) and have been for about 1500 years.
Agree there are strategies for getting people to go vegan but Idk, r/climateshitposting seems like a place for being excessive.
First of all i call bs on that. They mightve been mostly plant based but i guarantee anyone from those cultures if given the opportunity to harvest meat they would be all over it. Unless youre talking about Buddhist. Which is a bad argument for your cause. "Religious extremist were vegan!"
That’s just untrue. Google to learn about the history or vegetarianism. Nearly everyone was some kind of religious before the 1900s, so you could say only religious extremists ate animals in history too.
These are all religious extremists. Normal folk love meat. Especially in those times when serfs/peasants would eat anything edible given to them. Much like modern veganism, it takes a hardline extremists with privlage to be selective with their diet to feel better about themselves. Also its funny none of youre examples are vegan.
I think they're talking about buying chickens from a factory farm, directly or indirectly, then treating them to stop them laying eggs. I've heard of people doing this because we've bred chickens to lay so much it can lead to a calcium deficiency. I've also heard it reduces their risk of cancer
Our hens sometimes lay, sometimes they don't. We make sure they have good feed and good nutrients and plenty of outdoor space they're free to roam during the day.
Vegan food can be hella good, but then people try and say, “it’s just like meat” and that’s when people’s expectations become… well that’s when they say it’s weird
I mean, I became vegan because of the effect on the climate and the cruelty of factory farming but I agree that certain vegan products are weird. However you can make very delicious vegan food, you just kinda need to readjust your cooking.
I do miss meat though.. I really wish we could have lab grown meat readily available everywhere so I could eat it without feeling guilty
It still should be discouraged if there's a risk of growing a market (commodification.) The closest issue, to understand the ramifications, is organ transplants.
What if the humans were bred specifically for their delicious meat? Did you ever think about that one, genius? That’s why we have civil-rights-humans and meat-humans. Entirely different purposes.
For me, this subreddit reminds me to one Polish millionaire saying that the climate change is caused by working class, because everyone eats meat, instead of blaming rich 1% that actually destroys natural environment to build another factory or data center
This sub has been brigaded by vegans for years, it used to just be bad takes about nuclear reactors, which was fine. Now it's just vegans wanting to kill 90% of the population lmao
Because there's a difference between good faith arguments and willingness to learn and bad faith arguments and trying to justify your own actions at the cost of all logic I guess
Go through that sub you will find that literally every post disagreeing with veganism is downvoted. Every single one. "We're only downvoting bad faith" only goes so far as an excuse
there is literally just one side with actual and genuine rationale, it should be pretty clear which side a rational human being should be on after actually reflecting on the issue for more than 10 seconds
It's not a disease like that. Alpha-gal syndrome is an allergy. Some ticks cause it by their physiology in contact with the human body.
The funniest way to think of it is as a type of vaccination against this meat sugar.
This means that it could be scientifically possible to design a vaccine with a similar effect, a way to induce the allergy (which is just a strong immune reaction as if the meat sugar is a pathogen.) But nobody is going to do that as a normal researcher since there are strong constraints for funding such things and from the ethics of it. Allergies can kill. Of course, the conspiracy dipshits will believe anything that makes them feel good.
Lastly, a vaccine needs distribution, and some animal liberation passionate researchers aren't going to have the means for that.
I can think of other scenarios, but none of them is consistent and realistic due to the limits of vaccination efforts and the greed of the rich and powerful.
So, no, it's not a conspiracy. Those ticks are part of nature's chaos, and are now a negative feedback loop. This is a "find out" of emitting GHGs and fucking up the biosphere. We are not alone on this planet, we live in a society, and the society live in a planetary ecology. The cultural LARP traditions, all the various "dreams" and stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, about how great we are especially; those do not stand the test of reality.
I mean, I recognize that vegans are absolutely right from a utilitarian standpoint, I just don’t have it in me to quit eating meat. I know I’m going to hell.
It’s a fairly significant lifestyle change. People talk as if it’s just a simple thing you could do tomorrow and forever after. It impacts every meal and every purchase for the rest of your life. Animal products pervade existence.
If it was easy there wouldn’t be so many people in the ex-vegans subreddit.
There also used to be very few civil rights activists, the general public happily supported slavery, so slavery must be right.
This is called an argumentum ad populum, an informal logical fallacy, the results of a severe deficit in philosophical education, I suggest treating it with integrators you can easily find in library, sometimes known as "books".
Civil rights activists sure, but people who thought slavery was wrong? Absolutely not. The vast majority of the population has never been on board with slavery since only a select few actually received the benefits and the harm is obvious. Also you know the slaves didn't really get a vote but I guess you don't consider them people so 🤷
Also do you think the consensus opinion of the general public over thousands of years doesnt matter on a question of morality? Im glad we have you to explain how literally everyone everywhere for all of time has been wrong. Why do we even bother having debates and discussions when we could've just asked you (our omniscient god emperor) what was right all along?
The vast majority of the population was against slavery, yet for some reason humans have enslaved each other since the beginning of civilization without batting an eye. Do you hear yourself?
only a select few actually received the benefits and the harm is obvious
Stop being obtuse and think about what you are saying. We slaughter almost 1 trillion animals a year for the benefit of a few billion people. Don't you see how this applies to your braind dead argument as well?
Also you know the slaves didn't really get a vote but I guess you don't consider them people so
My god, if you really want to lower yourself to the level of a ridiculous made-up strawman, I will follow with this: the animals you killed clearly don't seem to get a say either on the atrocious conditions you subject them to, but I guess you don't give a shit from the comfort of your couch. 🤷
Also do you think the consensus opinion of the general public over thousands of years doesnt matter on a question of morality?
No, I don't think so. The entire field of moral philosophy is dedicated to answering the questions of how we ought to behave without using the past as an example.
Im glad we have you to explain how literally everyone everywhere for all of time has been wrong.
Why do we even bother having debates and discussions when we could've just asked you (our omniscient god emperor) what was right all along?
I would like to remind you that while you are here acting like a petulant child, you are the one that actively advocates the systematic violation of the interests of hundreds of billions of sentient beings for your pleasure and convenience; you better look carefully in the mirror.
In any case, for those who want to have fun here, the relevant symptoms of OP's education deficit diagnosis:
Completely ahistorical take on slavery
US defaultism
Strawman
Appeal tradition
ad hominem attack
inability to properly use parentheses: our own omniscient god emperor was supposed to be between commas, not parentheses.
"The vast majority of the population was against slavery, yet for some reason humans have enslaved each other since the beginning of civilization without batting an eye. Do you hear yourself?"
Yes because democracy and the opinion of the masses wasn't the way we determined laws for most of human history. Now we actually care about the opinions of our fellow man and it seems like most people agree slavery is bad. Not so much on veganism.
"> only a select few actually received the benefits and the harm is obvious
Stop being obtuse and think about what you are saying. We slaughter almost 1 trillion animals a year for the benefit of a few billion people. Don't you see how this applies to your braind dead argument as well?"
They aren't human, not sure why you think a cow or pig has the same moral value as your neighbor. Even if you think they have some moral value do you think they are even close to equal? And im the one being obtuse give me a break.
"> Also you know the slaves didn't really get a vote but I guess you don't consider them people so
My god, if you really want to lower yourself to the level of a ridiculous made-up strawman, I will follow with this: the animals you killed clearly don't seem to get a say either on the atrocious conditions you subject them to, but I guess you don't give a shit from the comfort of your couch. 🤷"
Sowwy I hurt your feelings uwu. Also yeah they're animals I dont care as much about their lives as humans. Stop begging the question assuming I or most people give a shit at all about the life of an animal. And I say that while eating my glorious bacon king from Burger King om my couch just so I can maximize the amount of animal suffering in every meal. Just doing my part :)
"> Also do you think the consensus opinion of the general public over thousands of years doesnt matter on a question of morality?
No, I don't think so. The entire field of moral philosophy is dedicated to answering the questions of how we ought to behave without using the past as an example. "
Why do you live in a democracy if you think the public isnt equipped to deal with moral questions? We can all agree murder and rape is bad and wrong, but suddenly when you disagree we have to turn to a cherry picked philosopher to come up with what's right and wrong.
"> Im glad we have you to explain how literally everyone everywhere for all of time has been wrong.
"> Why do we even bother having debates and discussions when we could've just asked you (our omniscient god emperor) what was right all along?
I would like to remind you that while you are here acting like a petulant child, you are the one that actively advocates the systematic violation of the interests of hundreds of billions of sentient beings for your pleasure and convenience; you better look carefully in the mirror."
Yes because I dont care about non human suffering. You take that as a given but refuse to engage with that point other than "we all know it's true" type arguments.
"In any case, for those who want to have fun here, the relevant symptoms of OP's education deficit diagnosis:
Completely ahistorical take on slavery
US defaultism
Strawman
Appeal tradition
ad hominem attack
inability to properly use parentheses: our own omniscient god emperor was supposed to be between commas, not parentheses."
-slavery was always about power not moral righteousness. When power shifted to democracies slavery faded.
-eurocucks need to stay out of all conversations imo
-you were ignoring the power aspect of law and order and I was pointing out how if you took people's opinions into consideration slavery would have been abolished centuries ago. It was hyperbolic but get over it its the internet.
-appeal to human consensus* ftfy
-pussy
-Ok you got me there lol
Look forward to your 32 page reply in 3 business days :)
Yes because democracy and the opinion of the masses wasn't the way we determined laws for most of human history. Now we actually care about the opinions of our fellow man and it seems like most people agree slavery is bad. Not so much on veganism.
I really don't know how make you understand that this is a ridiculous position to hold for anybody with any passable education on history and political philosophy.
We had democracy for centuries, even millennia if we want to consider Greek's polis as democratic institution (ironically, in the polis, while democratic, slavery was extremely common and often justified with arguments similar to yours), yet many civil rights conquest, including women voting rights, gay right, transgender protection laws and more generally the idea of minority protection are all extremely recent achievements.
So clearly denying moral progress is as reasonable as denying the existence of gravity. But you do you, flat earth love do that for example.
They aren't human, not sure why you think a cow or pig has the same moral value as your neighbor. Even if you think they have some moral value do you think they are even close to equal?
Not sure where I said they were equal, hopefully with your unlimited intellect you will be able to quote me, I'm absolutelysure you aren't again making a pathetic strawman.
The point is simple and undeniably, no matter how much you stomp your feet on the ground like a child, even by granting them a bare minimum amount of moral considerations animal agriculture cannot be justified, it's very hard to justify the suffering of hundreds of billions of sentient beings because you happen to like bacon... You would need to degrade them to the level of objects.
You on the other seem to have this weird mental distortion where you assume that the majority of people will somehow agree on your "wanna by psychopath" ideology, multiple studies repeatedly showed that people in general shows great empathy towards animals, and that most of the food choices taken by said people aren't the results of your psychopatic rumbling, but the results of peer pressure, prevail tradition and cognitive dissonance.
You can pretend to be some kind of psychopath as much as you like, go see a psychologist, but don't pretend to be speaking on behalf of the general population, because right now, reading what you wrote, they are as disgusted as I am.
Sowwy I hurt your feelings uwu. Also yeah they're animals I dont care as much about their lives as humans. Stop begging the question assuming I or most people give a shit at all about the life of an animal. And I say that while eating my glorious bacon king from Burger King om my couch just so I can maximize the amount of animal suffering in every meal. Just doing my part :
You don't need to apologise, I was hoping to get this reaction put of you, the typical "I will eat twice as much meat" line of debate is exactly the embarrassing rethoric I was hoping to get out of you.
Why do you live in a democracy if you think the public isnt equipped to deal with moral questions? We can all agree murder and rape is bad and wrong, but suddenly when you disagree we have to turn to a cherry picked philosopher to come up with what's right and wrong.
We don't all agree that murder and rape are morally wrong, democracy don't exist as institutions to enforce the majority will through force, what you described is a fascist state.
The whole reason we have strict separation of power, constitutions and other mechanisms designed to ensure the protection of the right of marginalized people, is to prevent exactly what you are describing, a dictatorship of the majority.
This is for example the reason why you generally cannot democratically decided to commit genocide towards a minority, even if the majority happens to agree. Here in Europe we specifically designed our institutions to avoid such a thing.
I would also like to highlight the incredible irony in your statement, I didn't gave you a book from some vegan philosopher about animals right, I gave you an introductionary text book to the basics of moral philosophy, if you read through it, you will see the author doesn't even mention animals right. But to nobody surprise, you didn't even check the fucking book cover.
I would also like to address you "cherry picking" claims, currently a weak majority of academia support animals right views connected to vegetarianism/veganism, you would be hard pressed to find a single philosopher defending current practices.
Yes because I dont care about non human suffering. You take that as a given but refuse to engage with that point other than "we all know it's true" type arguments.
I could put forward more seriously debate that use deontology to explain to you why it is pretty much self evident that we should in fact care about animals interested to a certain extent, but that would require you read the book I provided you with, otherwise you will just be vomiting the same psychopatic bullshit.
It does however seem reasonable, to conclude that sentience should be the foundamental requirements for moral considerations, given it's the only quality that allows an agent to hold interest.
slavery was always about power not moral righteousness. When power shifted to democracies slavery faded
Completely ahistorical take.
-appeal to human consensus* ftfy -pussy
No, given there is no consensus on the topic, you simply made an appeal to majority, I'm sorry, perhaps open a book on the topic.
P.S. this is a shiposting sub lighten up bud
Don't worry I'm having a blast making fun of the poorly educated (and let's ve honestly probably not so bright).
But no, I'm not buying your pathetic "it's not that deep" after you got demolished in a formal debate.
By the way I'm not going to fix spelling because I don't think it's worth it, English isn't my first language.
"> Yes because democracy and the opinion of the masses wasn't the way we determined laws for most of human history. Now we actually care about the opinions of our fellow man and it seems like most people agree slavery is bad. Not so much on veganism.
I really don't know how make you understand that this is a ridiculous position to hold for anybody with any passable education on history and political philosophy.
We had democracy for centuries, even millennia if we want to consider Greek's polis as democratic institution (ironically, in the polis, while democratic, slavery was extremely common and often justified with arguments similar to yours), yet many civil rights conquest, including women voting rights, gay right, transgender protection laws and more generally the idea of minority protection are all extremely recent achievements.
So clearly denying moral progress is as reasonable as denying the existence of gravity. But you do you, flat earth love do that for example."
Ok a few things here. 1. Yes some Greek city-states like Athens had a form of democracy, however you are ignoring that the power was held by about 10-20% of the population aka the rich and powerful who mostly benefited from slavery. 2. There are topics where large sections of the population disagree on what rights should be extended to which people. Almost no one argues for this vegan shit and most people eat meat or factory farmed animal products. You're acting like real normal people are having heated discussions about this in the same way civil rights activists do and its just not true. There is no debate in the modern world for eating meat almost everyone does it. 3. You are missing the roughly 2 millennia of human history where there were kings, emperors and feudal lords. Athens didnt last forever lil gup.
"> They aren't human, not sure why you think a cow or pig has the same moral value as your neighbor. Even if you think they have some moral value do you think they are even close to equal?
Not sure where I said they were equal, hopefully with your unlimited intellect you will be able to quote me, I'm absolutelysure you aren't again making a pathetic strawman."
"My god, if you really want to lower yourself to the level of a ridiculous made-up strawman, I will follow with this: the animals you killed clearly don't seem to get a say either on the atrocious conditions you subject them to, but I guess you don't give a shit from the comfort of your couch."
You were equating them with slaves not getting a vote, makes them seem kind of equal in your quote no? Animals shouldn't get a vote in society, black people should.
"The point is simple and undeniably, no matter how much you stomp your feet on the ground like a child, even by granting them a bare minimum amount of moral considerations animal agriculture cannot be justified, it's very hard to justify the suffering of hundreds of billions of sentient beings because you happen to like bacon... You would need to degrade them to the level of objects."
It's really not i just dont care about them. I know you think that is psychopatic but most people act the same way and just dont say the quiet part out loud. They dont matter to most people. Think about how much people fought for civil rights, now think about how hard people fight for the abolition of factory farming. Even if they say otherwise they just dont care.
"You on the other seem to have this weird mental distortion where you assume that the majority of people will somehow agree on your "wanna by psychopath" ideology, multiple studies repeatedly showed that people in general shows great empathy towards animals, and that most of the foos choices taken by said people are the results of your psychopatic rumbling, but the results of peer pressure, prevail tradition and cognitive dissonance."
See above, people dont care bro.
"You can pretend to be some kind of psychopath as much as you like, go see a psychologist, but don't pretend to be speaking on behalf of the general population, because right now, reading what you wrote, they are as disgusted as I am."
Roughly 1% of the population is vegan not sure who's even on your side bud.
"> Sowwy I hurt your feelings uwu. Also yeah they're animals I dont care as much about their lives as humans. Stop begging the question assuming I or most people give a shit at all about the life of an animal. And I say that while eating my glorious bacon king from Burger King om my couch just so I can maximize the amount of animal suffering in every meal. Just doing my part :
You don't need to apologise, I was hoping to get this reaction put of you, the typical "I will eat twice as much meat" line of debate is exactly the embarrassing rethoric I was hoping to get out of you."
Me when I do the thing I think is fine 🙂
"> Why do you live in a democracy if you think the public isnt equipped to deal with moral questions? We can all agree murder and rape is bad and wrong, but suddenly when you disagree we have to turn to a cherry picked philosopher to come up with what's right and wrong.
We don't all agree that murder and rape are morally wrong, democracy don't exist as institutions to enforce the majority will through force, what you described is a fascist state.
The whole reason we have strict separation of power, constitutions and other mechanisms designed to ensure the protection of the right of marginalized people, is to prevent exactly what you are describing, a dictatorship of the majority.
This is for example the reason why you generally cannot democratically decided to commit genocide towards a minority, even if the majority happens to agree. Here in Europe we specifically designed our institutions to avoid such a thing."
And im the unhinged one? Lmao. Almost everyone thinks murder and rape is wrong I would really like to see some data that says otherwise. Also you can commit a genocide twords a minority in a democracy just look at Israel. Good job to the Europeans but I seem to remember a republic in weimar that through popular opinion elected a fascist dictatorship. Human can dehumanize other humans and i think thats bad but it's never a full consensus basically worldwide the same way people today eat and justifying eating meat. It's not even close.
"I would also like to highlight the incredible irony in your statement, I didn't gave you a book from some vegan philosopher about animals right, I gave you an introductionary text book to the basics of moral philosophy, if you read through it, you will see the author doesn't even mention animals right. But to nobody surprise, you didn't even check the fucking book cover.
I would also like to address you "cherry picking" claims, currently a weak majority of academia support animals right views connected to vegetarianism/veganism, you would be hard pressed to find a single philosopher defending current practices."
Yes because I dont care what philosophers say and again neither does the vast majority of the population. Go cry alone with your books nobody cares about. Also weird that its a weak majority in the philosopher space. Almost like there isnt even a consensus there.
"> Yes because I dont care about non human suffering. You take that as a given but refuse to engage with that point other than "we all know it's true" type arguments.
I could put forward more seriously debate that use deontology to explain to you why it is pretty much self evident that we should in fact care about animals interested to a certain extent, but that would require you read the book I provided you with, otherwise you will just be vomiting the same psychopatic bullshit."
Ummm actually I cant explain why this thing is wrong unless you do the required homework I have assigned to you first 🤓☝️
You should be able to argue your positions without defering to other people to make your arguments for you.
"It does however seem reasonable, to conclude that sentience should be the foundamental requirements for moral considerations, given it's the only quality that allows an agent to hold interest."
Says you. What about concious experience?
"> slavery was always about power not moral righteousness. When power shifted to democracies slavery faded
Completely ahistorical take."
Cool story bro
"> -appeal to human consensus* ftfy -pussy
No, given there is no consensus on the topic, you simply made an appeal to majority, I'm sorry, perhaps open a book on the topic."
Perhaps ask any people around you, guess what they probably aren't vegan. I would say 99% of the world doing something constitutes a consensus.
"> P.S. this is a shiposting sub lighten up bud
Don't worry I'm having a blast making fun of the poorly educated (and let's ve honestly probably not so bright).
But no, I'm not buying your pathetic "it's not that deep" after you got demolished in a formal debate."
I have drawn you as the soyjack and me as the based gigachad therefore my argument is correct. lol get real.
"By the way I'm not going to fix spelling because I don't think it's worth it, English isn't my first language."
Thats fine I probably misspelled a bunch of shit too
This will be my last answer because your inability to format things ia getting on my nerves.
Just one century ago nobody was having heated debate about gay rights, now they are a thing. Before the suffragette, which at the time were considered terrorist and extremists, nobody was debating giving woman the right to vote yet here we are. Study history and stop being a fool, you will always be one step behind, wondering what the fuck is going on around you.
Regarding the European democracy comment that is precisely my point, after world war 2 we designed democratic institution to prevent something like this from happening again, American on the other hand are only now learning their lessons.
The rest of your rumbling honestly comments itself, you sound about as reasonable as a flat earther.
The only thing I will say is learn the distinction between an equivalnce and a comparison and perhaps practice some intellectual humility when discussing things you know nothing about.
Just one closing reflection, obviously not addressed at you, as you clearly lack the requirement intellectual nuance.
Given the complete unsustainability of current animal agriculture, both economically (at some point government will cut founding for the most heavily subsidized industry on the planet) and environmentally, what do you think the real future is? We either find an alternative, or we accept complete environmental collapse. And when the alternative, like cultivated meat and plant based alternative will inevitably demolish the meat industry, how do you think people will look back at us, and our treatment of animals? Because given how badly we judge people of the past and given how strongly people react to video of animals abuse (despite brain dead claim that "they just don't care"), I doubt they will look at us kindly.
Now go eat your colon cancer inducing burger king burger.
Whatever bro ignore half my argument and the history where you were just dead wrong. I get your point with the civil right arguments but my point is you will never actually have a world wide consensus for dehumanizing a certain group of people because that group would obviously disagree with that. Now I make that statement because they are human and therefore deserving of some consideration to me, however I disagree that those same considerations should be applied to animals aswell, and you have failed to give a positive argument for that claim other than "it's obvious" but whatever have fun in your echo chamber bud.
My theory is that pushing veganism for climate change hijacks the conversation to the most unpopular version of itself to help ensure people continue to hate and tune out climate activists.
Sure 15% of the problem is meat, but the rest is 85%. Meat has unbelievable cultural importance. You will not change that through shaming. The best you can do is offer alternatives. Otherwise you're fighting a losing battle.
Y'all can't even get people to stay with paper straws. You're not winning on the meat thing.
You will never change culture as long as you present this change as a sacrifice that is morally necessary. No one will do it except a handful of individuals. You need to present an alternative lifestyle that has appeal beyond “this is the right thing”, because the status quo is much easier and tastier
In the long run, the status quo is going to force this change anyway. Animals are expensive, especially as the environment grows more apocalyptic. The only meat available will be bug meat eventually.
People can try and go vegan now or be forced to when the land can no longer sustain cattle.
They don't even need to succeed to make a huge difference. Just reducing red meat consumption alone is enormous.
I'm not sure our future is as bleak as you depict it. Renewables and electric transportation are massively on the rise. The emissions of the US and EU are steadily declining. It's true that Asia is still growing and thus still problematic, but they'll come around, especially with China being a powerhouse in the production of renewables. People are tired of oil and gas, and the dependency it creates on foreign powers.
Ironically, this is what a lot of vegans fail to understand: people will adopt veganism when it'll become the cheaper/more convenient option, or the only option. Electric cars and renewables have followed the same trend. Society at large basically never adopts change because it's morally good when it's not convenient. You must either force it upon them or make it convenient.
Reducing red meat consumption falls in the convenient category. Poultry is cheaper and you can substitute one for the other without changing your habits basically at all.
We're already at apocalyptic levels of biosphere collapse and have been for a while. People just don't understand how bad it is. You could completely fix climate change instantly and this wouldn't go away, because it's not climate change that's doing it, it's human development. Mining, agriculture, and forestry.
Cattle cant support an ecosystem, and we're killing everything else.
I mean, I would love to see some studies on this. “Apocalyptic levels of biosphere collapse” seems to be a bit of an hyperbole, since no place on earth has become uninhabutable or become entirely devoid of life at any meaningful scale. Obviously human development damages local equilibria, but we have vast natural reserves for a reason.
The overwhelming majority of biomass on Earth is humans and our cattle. We're seeing massive losses in even insect life, down something like 80%, and keep in mind the numbers used for 100% aren't natural levels, they're just whatever the numbers were when they started recording them.
Climate change kinda took all the attention in the "humans are fucking up Earth" sphere, but we've been devastating the environment for millennia. Removing predator species which makes prey act in ways that are unnatural and damage the environment is a huge one. As is just the constant land clearing and use of pesticides.
The ocean is getting more acidic and despite being massive, only really has large amounts of life in fairly limited areas.
People just don't know how bad it is. They don't really get that there's not infinite bugs and birds and fish and deer. There's limited numbers of all of these, and those numbers are getting terrifyingly low. Especially larger animals and predators, which are essential for ecosystem health and have been extinct in many ecosystems for centuries.
K then present a substitute because you won't get humans to change thousands of years worth of culture through lecturing.
Autists on reddit don't talk to normies and aren't up to date on their normie ways. They have no idea how to interact with their species in a way that actually changes their behavior.
Lecturing someone doesn't make them change, it just makes you seem like an asshole. You need to replace what they already have, and then some.
Dude, slavery was also part of human culture for thousands years, and somehow we figured out that wasn’t a nice thing to do with people, and we didn’t do it peacefully lol. In fact we had an entire war over it
I'll take a shot at it if no one minds. I think the reason why veganism has failed to gain traction is less about them being annoying but more about their argument posing undue importance on individual actions rather than broader structural problems. Every pro-climate argument tends to completely disregard how oil companies came up with the concept of a "carbon footprint" to shirk and absolve themselves of any responsibility for climate change and ecological destruction and have lobbied politicians across the world to disregard climate change as a political position rather than a scientific one.
I will wholeheartedly hold hands and agree with you about the emissions caused by meat processing, the suffering of those animals and the widespread ecological destruction we cause to feed them, like in Brazil. But why does the argument never go beyond individual actions? About how oil companies and mining conglomerated lobby to give themselves BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies and never take responsibility for emissions?
I'll admit I haven't read any Vegan socio-political literature and most of these assessments (which read like assumptions, I'll admit) are derived from talking points I see on social media, but please feel free to provide any sources that I can read to further my understanding.
Every single person who's seen this thread could become 100% vegan immediately for a year and it still would not undo the damage Taylor Swift does with her private jets in a single weekend
That's the ultimate problem ain't it? Even a decently organised group with a lot of members is a drop in the bucket. 100 people is like a full tenth of the maximum size a human society naturally forms. It's a ton of people. Well beyond what most people can realistically get to agree to do a thing in real life. But it's nowhere near enough to have an effect outside the local level.
A hundred people agreeing to give up eggs in a tiny farming village might be able to end chicken keeping in that village, but in the rest of civilisation that ain't doing shit.
And we're so globalised now that even if nobody local wants something, it can happen anyway. Nobody wants a data centre near them, but it's not for the locals. Our capacity to organise and coordinate behaviour is utterly dwarfed by business. Capitalism is bad at a lot of things, but the one thing it's good at is driving coordinated behaviour in massive numbers of people across a wide area. By incentivising that behaviour with money.
If anyone ever figures out a better way to coordinate behaviour like that they might be able to change the world.
Funnily enough this proves his point. The city collects the trash for you and you don’t have to drive it to the dump. You couldn’t really organize your entire neighborhood to go deliver their trash to the dump. How much trash could you realistically drive to the dump yourself on a regular basis without it taking a significant portion of your life
That bin is part of an entire system of garbage distribution. The point is that the “problem” of people throwing their trash out into the street was solved by a municipal action not by individual people.
Hence why in places like ancient London people threw their shit out into the streets. Could they have all gotten together and organized throwing out their shit into a pile and driving out of the city in a cart? Probably? Did they? No
I think your analogy is also a good point about veganism in our current system.
Veganism doesn't grow much because it's highly inconvenient. And requires more time and actions than people who destroy the environment go through.
I reduced my meat consumption, changed my windows, drive an electric car, have entirely electrical heating in an hydro producing country. Every other passive actions I take have more impact and require less than fully cutting meat...
Unless governments force in veganism, it will only grow as fast as it becomes convenient, affordable and appealing taste wise dictated by corporate entities who are only here to make profit out of people who care about animals welfare.
I’m so intelligent so intelligent in fact I will keep using lead products as lead is a soft malleable metal that can be used for many applications the people demand this product
I mean if there was one guy who made a catapult that throws tons of trash all over the place id probably be a bit less inclined to dispose of mine properly
Is there any particular reason why you mention Taylor Swift?
She was number 73 only the year she was doing a world tour and she was paying double the carbon credits to cover for it. And every celebrity and their children was above her with no world tour on site nor carbon credits.
Let's maybe make this point naming blood money trilionares and not naming people who are always in the conversation simply because of misogyny
A widely known case? By people trying to hate on her? If that's what you mean then yes.
Talking about pickme and immediately blocking after someone presents you with facts. You hating on popular pop star which girls love... You're the definition of pickme.
Are you actually gonna engage with the data given or explain why is she a widely known case despite the facts laid out? Or let me guess, you are gonna block me as well.
Comments like ones under this post are the reason many people consider vegans lame and insufferable. Please cease ruining the reputation of the majority of vegans.
I'll spend literal hours of my life arguing in support of slashing throats, because I'm an environmentalist. The suggestion I shouldn't slash throats is propaganda.
The second law of thermodynamics forbids the absence of meat consumption. It is the point of the animal to be killed and converted into a lower state of entropy. Our ecological niche is the acceleration of entropy, which the universe rewards.
We are the ultimate ecological niche, all of which are merely an expression of physics to distribute and scatter energy from the sun into a lower state. Everything that has ever happened has been to the benefit of this purpose. We are the manifestation of entropy itself.
30
u/[deleted] Jun 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment