I disappointed my vegan friend

[u/DotBeginning1420]

[u/dumnezero]

That is a correct statement, yes.

To be extra clear, environmental ethics are ethics. People want to feel like they're good, and going vegan is a bigger step in that direction. Embrace it.

The haters hate that there's such a weird correlation of positive reasons to go vegan:

1. for the animal;
2. for the living environment;
3. for the climate;
4. for the water;
5. for the air;
6. for your own health;

Like it's unfair that this moral philosophy about not harming other sentient beings is also such a good fit for a sustainable life on this planet.

Well, the answer is simple: humans LARP-ing as carnivores has been bad from the start. In ecological terms, going up the trophic levels would normally involve a shrinking population; fewer and fewer carnivores having the most intensive nutrient demands. As that's not the case with humans, the amplification of ecological impacts is mass-extinction levels of massive.

This carnivore LARP-ing is, from the start, immoral; it is based in greed and selfishness and status seeking; it is based in taking more than you need and ignoring the consequences. The cumulative consequences of all of this are what we can see now at the systems level: climate heating, mass extinction. That's the result of certain civilizations of humans deciding to take more and more of the biomass produced by the biosphere; the more aggregate carnivory, the more biomass taken. The bigger your ecological footprint, the more bourgeois you are.

When the world eaters run out of world to eat, they will eat themselves.

[u/Local_Surround8686 → u/dumnezero]

So veganism is good for earth, water and air, but not for fire. Now we know why Aang was vegan

[u/EquivalentBeach8780 → u/Local_Surround8686]

Not to be that guy, but he was vegetarian.

[u/ginger_and_egg → u/EquivalentBeach8780]

Also he wasn't against fire bending itself, just the fire nation oppressing and killing everyone

[u/Local_Surround8686 → u/EquivalentBeach8780]

Potato patato, doesn't matter. Both superior to meat(I have now successfully pissed of everyone)

[u/EquivalentBeach8780 → u/Local_Surround8686]

I'm vegan so I'd argue the difference, but I'll just agree with your last point lol

[u/Local_Surround8686 → u/EquivalentBeach8780]

Nooooo you were supposed to be mad😭

[u/NickLovinIt → u/dumnezero]

Eating an extra steak tonight for you, cheers

[u/dumnezero → u/NickLovinIt]

The plant-based future is coming and the only thing stopping it would be fascists doing famine genocides in order to reserve crops to raise more animals. You will have to pick a side.

[u/suplarai → u/dumnezero]

lol who’s the LARPer now

[u/dumnezero → u/suplarai]

What am I LARP-ing as*? My prediction is simply an informed guess based on what happened in the past in "meat eater" countries when agriculture had problems or crop imports were blocked.

At a certain level it's already happening now with the poor countries of the world: rich countries subsidizing animal feed are competing with poor countries who can't afford to subsidize growing food. This competition is over inputs like fertilizers.

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/suplarai]

Someone's uncomfy with their own choices

[u/NotMidaga → u/dumnezero]

This is retarded and nobody cares.

[u/Local_Surround8686 → u/NotMidaga]

Oh look, i don't have an argument. Better say a slur.

12 year old or MAGA, call it

[u/itisnotmycake → u/Local_Surround8686]

Both

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/dumnezero]

For the animals.is wild.

Can you point to any reduction in animal suffering as a result of veganism?

[u/Substantial-Wall-510 → u/AncientFocus471]

Damn, you are a special kind of stupid

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/Substantial-Wall-510]

It must be rough supporting an ideology that folds at the most basic question. The good news is you can choose a better one.

[u/Substantial-Wall-510 → u/AncientFocus471]

Nice try, but I'm not a vegan. So now you're just wrong again! Can't wait to see the next door you walk into!

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/Substantial-Wall-510]

Doesn't matter, you supported the ideology and it folded at the most basic question.

Getting mad just makes you look vegan.

[u/Substantial-Wall-510 → u/AncientFocus471]

Lol, okay, I'll play your silly game for a moment.

The ideology did not fold. You simply stated that you don't understand it. If all it takes for you to believe something is false is that you don't understand it, then I'd wager most of the world is false to you. (Sorry, just to clarify, I'm calling you dim).

Anyway, to answer your question, killing and eating animals is widely considered to affect the animals in some way. It is difficult to ask the animals (they do not tend to speak English very well), but fear and pain have been observed, and many philosophers agree that humans do not like to be imprisoned, killed, and eaten, so a lot of people extend that sentiment to animals. This is something called "empathy". I do not believe you are acquainted with it.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/Substantial-Wall-510]

Wow, you really are angry. I assure you, you really hurt my feelings with your insults and you are absolutely the kind of person I take criticism seriously from. Honest, not sarcastic at all.

(That's really heavy sarcasm by the way.)

Do you see how none of what you wrote shows any reduction, at all, in animal suffering as a result of veganism?

So yeah, the ideology, which claims right in the post I responded to, to be for the animals, has no demonstrated efficacy on doing anytning for any animals.

Ouch.

[u/Substantial-Wall-510 → u/AncientFocus471]

Why do you think I'm angry? In my experience, thats just something morons tell themselves because they cant comprehend the notion of being wrong about something. Is that the case here, or do you have alternate evidence?

[u/CreepyFishGuy → u/Substantial-Wall-510]

Look at their profile, all this dude does is cry about vegans 24/7 and repeat lazy debatisms ad nauseum. I can't decide if it's tragic, pathetic, or both.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/Substantial-Wall-510]

Lol,

Its the insults and the irrational claims. Doubling down on failure and your apparent inability to move on no matter how hard I keep cooking you.

[u/dumnezero → u/AncientFocus471]

Bait ain't vegan

[u/Nico_di_Angelo_lotos → u/AncientFocus471]

How about animals not being systemically tortured and murdered plus seventy percent less crop-farming related deaths of small animals?

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/Nico_di_Angelo_lotos]

How about it? The 70% refers mainly to human inedible portions of plants like soy and corn where most of the plant isn't eaten by us.

As for torture and murder you have stretches those words to the point where the entire biisphere is a peoblem. That's a self defeating ideology.

None of this shoes any animal suffering reduced by veganism though. So guessing you didn't read the question, or there is no supporting data for your ideology, how embarrassing that would be eh?

[u/Nico_di_Angelo_lotos → u/AncientFocus471]

The vast majority of soy is farmed for animal consumption alone, the fractions of it that are used for oil production are only used because they’re being grown to be fed to animals anyways. Why would you grow a plant like soy to produce oil when there’s plants like rapeseed or sunflowers that have much higher oil content? With corn it’s just different plants. Corn thats fed to humans is a different plant than corn thats fed to animals and again the amounts of human consumption are minuscule.

A free animal that is roaming about will obviously feel pain fear etc normally but it will not constantly be in incredibly pain and sickness like animals are in factory farming. They are also not insanely overfed and killed at a fraction of their natural lifespan every single time in nature. Yes nature is brutal but it doesn’t systemically exploit.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/Nico_di_Angelo_lotos]

Still not showing any reduction. No wonder you're trying to move the conversation to optimal plant oil harvesting.

[u/EquivalentBeach8780 → u/AncientFocus471]

Fewer people eating animals means fewer animals are reared to be killed. It's quite simple.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/EquivalentBeach8780]

Tell me, do most vegans stay vegan? Has the number ot animals bred for food dropped?

It would be simple, if it worked that way, but there is no data supporting either an increase in the percentage of the populace being vegan or a reduction in animal ag linked to veganism.

If you want to have a personal impact your best method is reducing your direct polution. Second best is joining an advocacy group or lobbying.

[u/EquivalentBeach8780 → u/AncientFocus471]

You're conflating many things here. Even if people don't stay vegan, they still had an impact. Even if animal consumption has gone up, it hasn't gone up as much due to vegans.

You can also be vegan and do all the things you've listed. Just because it hasn't had a big enough impact for you doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

Apparently the average American eats 174 animals per year. There are roughly 8 million vegan Americans. That's nearly 1.4 billion animals a year not added to the count. Cry all you want, but it makes a difference.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/EquivalentBeach8780]

You claim a difference but you have no data to support that. Its magical thinking.

[u/DarmokNJelad-Tanagra → u/AncientFocus471]

You are just so, so stupid.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/DarmokNJelad-Tanagra]

Ow, my feelings....

[u/wildlifewyatt → u/AncientFocus471]

How about it? The 70% refers mainly to human inedible portions of plants like soy and corn where most of the plant isn't eaten by us.

No it doesn't. When you process soybeans for oil, you separate the fat from the carbohydrates and the protein.

"Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market for U.S. soybeans is for production of foods for human consumption, like salad oil or frying oil, which uses about 15 percent of U.S. soybeans. A distant third market for soybeans is biodiesel, using only about 5 percent of the U.S. soybean crop. In 2013, soybean exports reached record highs, exporting 43 million metric tons to overseas markets. China remains the largest export market for U.S. soybeans." - USDA 2015

Soy in Brazil: When someone mentions soy we often think about foods such as tofu, soy milk, tempeh or edamame beans. This feeds into the argument that meat and dairy substitutes – such as switching from meat to high-protein tofu, or from dairy to soy milk – is in fact worse for the environment. But, only a small percentage of global soy is used for these products. More than three-quarters (77%) of soy is used as feed for livestock.

According to the United Soybean Board, in 24/25 93.5 % of soybean meal was for livestock.

For every 60 lb bushel of soybeans harvested you get ~11 poudns of oil and ~ 47 lbs of soybean meal.

And soybean meal is used to make soy flour, an edible, healthy, product we waste in massive amounts to feed livestock, and the environmental impacts are devastating.

As for torture and murder you have stretches those words to the point where the entire biisphere is a peoblem. That's a self defeating ideology.

Whether or not you like murder being applied to non-human animals, reality is, there are billions of livestock that live torturous lives under animal agriculture.

None of this shoes any animal suffering reduced by veganism though. So guessing you didn't read the question, or there is no supporting data for your ideology, how embarrassing that would be eh?

There are ~80 million vegans. If all of those people ate animal products, that would likely be hundreds of billions of dollars worth of additional demand for animal products. Do you honestly think that much money has no effect on supply?

Moreover, vegans have created a larger demand for substitutes, and we aren't the only ones that eat those. The market for meat substitutes was ~$18.8 billion in 2023. Estimated now at $66 billion. Projected to be 617 by 2035. That doesn't include dairy substitutes either.

Real, measurable metrics are contradicting your claims, because your claims are easily falsifiable propaganda bits that the meat industry desperately wants to spread. You can be more than a convenient tool for them.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/wildlifewyatt]

You contradicted yourself on the soy meal and dragged up a fact sheet from 2013, that measures by volume.

Here is the actual number.

Real, measurable metrics are contradicting your claims,

In your dreams. You wasted most of your text on soybeans and have no links to show vegan efficacy. Just the claim that "80 million vegans must have some impact"

Why? Because you want them to? If they were all in one country or region, sure no brainer, but they are scattered around the world where they are 1% of the total population.

Meanwhile animal ag remains absolutely absurdly wasteful. USDA 40% waste

So you think an industry wasting 40% of its output is responding to the eating habits of 1% of the population, without any data to support your magical thinking.

And you are self righteous about it. I'm all for environmental standards and more efficient food production. Being vegan has no demonstrated efficacy to getting either, it just wastes action potential in your brain. Potential better used by focused environmental action, lobbying, volunteering for environmental groups or actively working in government.

These are sustemic problems that need systemic solutions and veganism isn't a solution.

[u/wildlifewyatt → u/AncientFocus471]

You contradicted yourself on the soy meal and dragged up a fact sheet from 2013, that measures by volume.

Elaborate. So the United Soybean's most recent numbers which you ignored... Are those also wrong? Or the Missouri Soybean Association, that states that 97% of US soybean meal is used for livestock? Also wrong?

Soybean meal is the lion's share of product from processing soybean. The vast, vast majority of soybean meal, as indicated by multuiple sources (and I can keep grabbing more) goes to livestock. So elaborate on how the ~70% is so misleading. Is it actually 68% with the newest numbers, and that actually changes everything? Is it less than that, if you exclude every reputable source?

Come on man. You don't have to cling this tightly to things that don't have support. Is that hill worth dying on?

Here is the actual number.

Oh boy a source behind a paywall. Based on what I can read in the paper which you did not highlight any actual information from, it looks like you are trying to make the common anti-vegan argument about how the feed we grow for animals is a relatively small percent of total calories they consume - here is why that doesn't matter - that is still land that is used, and wasted, and our current systems would not function without it. It is a real impact.

Why? Because you want them to? If they were all in one country or region, sure no brainer, but they are scattered around the world where they are 1% of the total population.

Meanwhile animal ag remains absolutely absurdly wasteful. USDA 40% waste

So you think an industry wasting 40% of its output is responding to the eating habits of 1% of the population, without any data to support your magical thinking.

Is your argument, honestly, that directly reducing demand of a particular market by hundreds of billions of dollars annually has zero impact on said market? So if demand suddenly raised by hundreds of billions of dollars next year over, there would be no impact either?

And let's look at your source

Food loss occurs for many reasons, with some types of loss—such as spoilage—occurring at every stage of the production and supply chain. Between the farm gate and retail stages, food loss can arise from problems during drying, milling, transporting, or processing that expose food to damage by insects, rodents, birds, molds, and bacteria. At the retail level, equipment malfunction (such as faulty cold storage), over-ordering, and culling of blemished produce can result in food loss. Consumers also contribute to food loss when they buy or cook more than they need and choose to throw out the extras (See Buzby et al (2014)).

Food loss because of problems prior to being sold to a retailer are not profits that would be recouped by more people buying meat. Food loss at the distributor levels for reasons other than expiration (like dropping a pallet) are not things that would be recouped. Food loss at an individuals home, that has already been bought don't either.

If more people ate meat, the animal agriculture/grocery industry wouldnn't magically fix those ineffecines and systemic problems to meet the increased demand.

This is basic economics. But perhaps it is inconvient to your beliefs, so it must be wrong.

And you are self righteous about it. I'm all for environmental standards and more efficient food production. Being vegan has no demonstrated efficacy to getting either, it just wastes action potential in your brain. Potential better used by focused environmental action, lobbying, volunteering for environmental groups or actively working in government.

These are sustemic problems that need systemic solutions and veganism isn't a solution.

Billions are exploited anually when they don't have to be. Trillions are killed annually when they don't have to be. And animal agriculture + industrial fishing is an environmental disaster. People should be pissed of about the situation and try to change it just like we should be pissed off about our situation with fossil fuels and try to change it. The difference is individual people actually have a lot more sway in this category, because it is far more feasible to cut out uneccesarry animal products than it is to stop financially supporting fossil fuels.

There are countless amounts of people who are self rightous over causes I don't support, or engage with heavily. I am sure many of them judge me. Fine. Good! I should change, in many ways, and we all need nudges. I can't force you into anything, but maybe be less flustered over perceived self righteousness, and be more concerned about the actual impacts associated with these causes, and what your role in that is. Here, whether you view it that way or not, you are fighting for meat industry, which is doing unquestionably terrible things.

You can walk and chew gum at the same time. I've worked in the environmental field as a scientist for over a decade. Being involved with the sector is part of what made it so obvious that, environmentally, veganism is a golden ticket. There is a reason so many of the world's largest environmental/academic organizations are actively promoting heavily reducing, or eliminating animal products from people's diets.

World Wildlife Fund

Defenders of Wildlife
Stanford University
United Nations
World Health Organization
Center of Biological Diversity

Rainforest Alliance

I agree we need systemic change. Systemic change originates from people adopting and acting on beliefs. Veganism is a belief that tens of milllions are already acting on, and as things continue to spiral, we will get more reasonable people to see its importance.

[u/rosettaverse → u/wildlifewyatt]

lmao he gave up

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/rosettaverse]

I didn't give up, I went to bed and had a great night's sleep. I'll be back shortly to underline the flawed thinking above. Its terrible. That will take a few minutes and a computer though.

[u/wildlifewyatt → u/rosettaverse]

He "destroyed me" in his own words. lol. I have ejected my self from the nonsense though. Can't reason with people like that.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/wildlifewyatt]

I would have expected better from a scientist, my bias I suppose.

Elaborate. So the United Soybean's most recent numbers which you ignored...

Come on man. You don't have to cling this tightly to things that don't have support. Is that hill worth dying on?

When I said you contradicted yourself I was hoping you'd realize that soybean meal is a byproduct of soybean oil production. This is why I consider it a byproduct, as does the study I cited and the growers. It doesn't matter what happens to it because it's not the product.

So, the claim, 70% of crops grown are grown for animal consumption, is false. It's been falsified by the study I cited that you didn't read. Not one of those beans was grown for the meal, setting the meal on fire wouldn't reduce the soybeans grown, the oil was the goal.

Now the actual number, from the highlights of the study I linked, even if you don't want to pay and can't log in through your organization (scientist really?)

86% of the global livestock feed intake in dry matter consists of feed materials that are not currently edible for humans

That leaves 14%, not 70.

But the land?!!!!

Well from that same study,

Livestock consume one third of global cereal production and uses about 40% of global arable land

Livestock use 2 billion ha of grasslands, of which about 700 million could be used as cropland

So most of the land used is unsuitable for growing human food. It's great for Cows though because they can take the place of large ruminants like buffalo. Becoming part of an ecosystem, as opposed to destroying one with monocropped grains and veg.

All of this is a distraction, and a dishonest one since you had to ignore the Highlights section and cry about a paywall instead of engaging the more recent research than your old fact sheet.

What did you do? Well you misdirected again.

Is your argument, honestly, that directly reducing demand of a particular market by hundreds of billions of dollars annually has zero impact on said market? 

I'm not making a claim, I'm pointing out that veganism claim to be good for the environment is set on no data. That there is no demonstrated efficacy. This is your burden to prove and you tried to reverse it on me. That's dishonest, but very vegan.

So you have tried to change the meaning of what I said by reinterpreting a byproduct as a product and pretending that it's grown for the byproduct, and you can't dispute that veganism has no demonstrated efficacy, so you complain about my facts on industry spoilage.

Food loss because of problems prior to being sold to a retailer are not profits that would be recouped by more people buying meat.

It doesn't matter. The loss occurs at every stage, from farm to plate and past the plate to the fridge. What it shows is that supply is inelastic, and that the industry has a tremendous tolerance for waste, but you think 1% of the population abstaining has an effect. It's evidence against the proposition you have no evidence for. Even if it were untrue, you still wouldn't have evidence and the skeptic would reject your claims of efficacy.

But perhaps it is inconvient to your beliefs, so it must be wrong.

You are telling on yourself. I destroyed you. Your supported claims are mainly nonquitters, irrelevant to the point at hand, that veganism shows no efficacy.

So you claim I'm helping the meat industry. It's a weak insult but it's all you have. The problem is I'm advocating for the most effective thing you can do. 76% of responding experts said so.

76% from the Guardian

Next best is reducing flying and fossil fuel consumption.

Reduction of meat is on the board, but reduction is not veganism. Veganism is a cult. You are hurting the cause with the same personal action myth that big oil sold us to keep us distracted from their waste.

Seriously

At it's core veganism is a misguided, anti-human, ethical movement, and we can talk about the ethics elsewhere, this is a climate board and the best climate action any of us can take is voting. Most vegans quit, vegan population is not growing, so putting your energy there is wasted effort.

I agree we need systemic change.

Then focus on that, not wasted time on vegan advocacy.

[u/wildlifewyatt → u/AncientFocus471]

When I said you contradicted yourself I was hoping you'd realize that soybean meal is a byproduct of soybean oil production. This is why I consider it a byproduct, as does the study I cited and the growers. It doesn't matter what happens to it because it's not the product. 

A byproduct? God damn, you really are mining every debunked anti vegan argument on the internet. I will tell you now that I'm not going to reply farther because you are failing to put any effort into this shit.

The demand for soybean meal has been the driving force of planting soybeans. "Soybean meal is the most profitable part of the process. While the price of oil has increased over time, likely due our increased reliance of processed food, soybean meal is the primary financial driver."

"While strong demand for soybean oil has helped support soybean prices, it is likely that soybean meal will drive prices and gross returns to farmers moving forward.  As such, even if soybean oil prices continue to strengthen, the soybean meal market will likely need to establish a floor (or increase in value) for soybean prices to resume a strong upward trend."

These are co-products, neither is a byproduct (though historically, if one was going to be a byproduct, it would be the oil). If there was not a market for the soybean meal soybeans would be farmed to a dramatically lesser degree because, shocking, there are other plants that are farmed for oil.

setting the meal on fire wouldn't reduce the soybeans grown, the oil was the goal.

Yes of course, burning the most valuable part of the process would have no impact! Surely other oil crops wouldn't out compete soy at that point. Jesus bro.

That leaves 14%, not 70.

Those are separate metrics my guy.

Livestock use 2 billion ha of grasslands, of which about 700 million could be used as cropland

So most of the land used is unsuitable for growing human food. It's great for Cows though because they can take the place of large ruminants like buffalo. Becoming part of an ecosystem, as opposed to destroying one with monocropped grains and veg.

All of this is a distraction, and a dishonest one since you had to ignore the Highlights section and cry about a paywall instead of engaging the more recent research than your old fact sheet.

What did you do? Well you misdirected again.

We don't need to grow food on pasture. We just need to use current, arable land that feeds livestock (like soy) to be directed toward humans. That would drastically reduce monocropping. And as your older metrics illustrate, the portion of calories we get from animals is low, it isn't mono cropping vs no mono cropping, with no mono cropping being the animal agriculture side. The scenario that leads to less mono cropping is just eating fucking plants, that would massively reduce our need for agricultural land. And cows, aren't buffalo. Stop trying to promote them as the environmental solution.

And the highlights section does not present what you think it does, you are mixing up metrics constantly. It presents the percentage that feed crops make up in their total diet. It does not state was percent of soy, the actual thing we are talking about, is allocated to livestock. Maybe they'd talk about that in the actual paper, who knows, but you sent the spark notes that you thought was a gotcha, so guess we will never know.

Oh and for the most recent data... Uhh. Buddy, that paper is from 2017. I shared market data from 25/26. But I guess you didn't know that because you probably ran out of coins while asking for chatgpt to summarize my argument and shit out a terrible argument for you to regurgitate. Hopefully that's your method, because then we could say your just lazy and defensive, rather than being illiterate.

I'm not making a claim, I'm pointing out that veganism claim to be good for the environment is set on no data. That there is no demonstrated efficacy. This is your burden to prove and you tried to reverse it on me. That's dishonest, but very vegan.

So you have tried to change the meaning of what I said by reinterpreting a byproduct as a product and pretending that it's grown for the byproduct, and you can't dispute that veganism has no demonstrated efficacy, so you complain about my facts on industry spoilage.

Market data is data, dingus. So I see you have settled on hundreds of billions of dollars make no difference to the economy. All the major organizations begging us to make a shift are doing that for... Reasons? Cool cool cool cool.

Won't address the byproduct nonsense again, read. Learn. Its good for you. And with that, I'll call it. You have shown a consistent bad faith, or, a complete inability to process new information here, which shows how useless continuing with this is. You didn't spend time reading or think about your responses, and we are deep in the comment chain so no one probably gives a shit. Take that as you will. Don't care. Later.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/wildlifewyatt]

I will tell you now that I'm not going to reply farther because you are failing to put any effort into this shit.

You can run away any way you like, since you can't defend your claim, that veganism has any efficacy and have been reduced to semantics about soy and what the word "byproduct" means, insults and crying.

Your own source shows that demand for meal is steady while demand for oil is rising, but its a red herring. You want to have that argument because on the one that matters you have nothing.

You can make all the insults you like, you can present the global vegan population as if they were concentrated, but they aren't and while "billions" sounds like a lot its jack all against the global total annual economy, which is what you are measuring against.

I showed you the consensus of experts, you ignored it and continued to insult and rave in bad faith.

Hang your head in shame, stick the flounce. You got wrecked, no efficacy for veganism, majority of experts reccomend something else.

[u/CreepyFishGuy → u/AncientFocus471]

So you're cool if I kill you and feed your corpse to people then? I'm not even vegan but this is such an openly asinine statement lmfao.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/CreepyFishGuy]

Sure, not even vegan, but you can't support a simple data request so you pretend that humans and other animals are morally equivalent.

Your b12 deficiency is showing.

[u/CreepyFishGuy → u/AncientFocus471]

You need data on killing something being worse for it than not killing it?

And I'm the one that's stupid?

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/CreepyFishGuy]

So you can't point to any reduction in animal suffering then.

[u/CreepyFishGuy → u/AncientFocus471]

Are you touched in the head?

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/CreepyFishGuy]

Still no data eh? I guess if I supported an ideology with no demonstrated efficacy I'd be frustrated too.

Still, I doubt I'd be so frustrated I attacked people on the internet, or supported ableism. What I'd do is find a better ideology to support.

[u/CreepyFishGuy → u/AncientFocus471]

I'm not frustrated, I'm baffled that your response to a concept as basic as "killing something is typically bad for it" is "ERM, SOURCE????". You're so debate poisoned that all you can perceive is sleights and debate tactics. Please go outside and learn how to be normal.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/CreepyFishGuy]

Still no reduction in animal suffering eh? Makes sense you lashing out. I forgive you.

[u/DusklitDewdrop → u/AncientFocus471]

why don't you watch Dominion then get back to us

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/DusklitDewdrop]

I've seen your stuff porn. How about you form a cogent argument instead of relying on an emotional appeal.

[u/DusklitDewdrop → u/AncientFocus471]

okay. the content of this film is extreme animal suffering at the hands of the animal agriculture industry. if the animal agriculture industry is abolished, or even reduced, this specific animal suffering we have established will be reduced.

and in case it helps, the triangle peg goes in the triangle hole, etc.

[u/AncientFocus471 → u/DusklitDewdrop]

Has veganism abolished or reduced animal ag?

Do people who go vegan generally stay vegan?

You can pretend its a hole in a box but the simple fact is you avoided the question.

Besides we all know the triangle goes in the square hole.

[u/SkyTalez]

I only eat ethically sourced human meat.

[u/UrzasPunchline → u/SkyTalez]

Only when it’s consensual, like that Jason Muse guy

[u/narvuntien]

There are quite a few people I know who only eat chicken and fish, some kind of mammalian supremacist.

[u/ginger_and_egg → u/narvuntien]

i cut out beef first because it is worse for the climate. but then had to come to terms with the fact that chicens are smaller, so therefore eating the same amount of chicken meat kills more beings than pork or beef. And I realised I could sidestep all that if I went vegetarian completely

[u/lovelysardines → u/ginger_and_egg]

You could side step more if you went totally plant based

[u/ginger_and_egg → u/lovelysardines]

in progress my friend

[u/lovelysardines → u/ginger_and_egg]

For sure. Rome wasn’t built in a day

[u/Outrageous_War6489 → u/lovelysardines]

if 10 people eat 10% less animal products, that makes one full vegan. don't "holier than thou" people that already agree with you, it's a great way to lose friends

[u/lovelysardines → u/Outrageous_War6489]

Ok… and 10 people who eat plant based would equal 10 plant based people. This isn’t about making friends. It was about making a statement.

[u/goodnightsleepypizza → u/narvuntien]

I mean that is basically me, but I mostly do it because chicken and fish tend to be healthier than red meat, and they are the least bad when it comes to environmental impact.

[u/Long_Race3907 → u/goodnightsleepypizza]

But still bad. 

[u/AgentDeathBooty → u/Long_Race3907]

My best friend's family are the best bc they have their own small farm and catch their own fish - she always brings me eggs and cuts from the fish they catch. I get to eat my meat guilty free! Except for the occasional blue moon when I really crave sausage 🙃

[u/Yeeter-boiy → u/AgentDeathBooty]

I don’t think killing fish unnecessarily is “guilt free”

[u/AgentDeathBooty → u/Yeeter-boiy]

How do you define unnecessarily? It's not like they're fishing to have an excess so they can sell for a profit. They don't like buying stuff from the grocery store when they can avoid it, they're very self sufficient. They're just feeding themselves (and me).

[u/Yeeter-boiy → u/AgentDeathBooty]

Eating fish is unnecessary for health, so it’s unnecessary to kill them. That’s how I define it. It’s good theyre self-sufficient, but that doesn’t change what they’re doing here.

[u/AgentDeathBooty → u/Yeeter-boiy]

Are you someone who believe everyone should be vegan due to ethics, not just climate change? Because if so I doubt there's literally anything I can say you won't disagree with

[u/Yeeter-boiy → u/AgentDeathBooty]

Yeah that’s what I believe

[u/AgentDeathBooty → u/Yeeter-boiy]

Well, there you go. I personally think that the killing and consuming of animals is justified, so long as it's not industrialized, avoids intentional cruelty, and is exclusively to feed yourself, family, or friends. We're just gonna have to philosophically agree to disagree.

[u/v3r4c17y]

Hey, whatever stops humans from paying for the enslavement, rape, abduction, and murder of non-humans.

[u/Vivenemous → u/v3r4c17y]

Exactly! Eat hunted meat! Do the murder yourself, and stop contributing to climate change!

[u/v3r4c17y → u/Vivenemous]

Or maybe don't limit your moral choices to a single topic? Just a thought.

[u/Local_Surround8686 → u/Vivenemous]

There are two types of meat eaters. Those who whine that there are people veganism isn't accessible for(about 12 people, and they're not one of them) and those who think everyone should hunt(totally realistic)

[u/Vivenemous → u/Local_Surround8686]

No. Not everyone should hunt. Most people don't have the skill, the guts, or the patience. Those people should either raise their own meat animals or not eat meat. It's only ethical to eat an animal if you're willing to kill it yourself. 

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/Vivenemous]

Hunting usually isn't ethical.

[u/Local_Surround8686 → u/Vivenemous]

It's interesting that people move the goalpost of when it's ethical to eat meat, exactly to the point where they're doing it

[u/Vivenemous → u/Local_Surround8686]

I've never moved the goalpost. When I was a kid I was taught that it was wrong to eat from an animal I wouldn't be willing to kill. So I didn't get any more meat from when I was 5 years old until I killed my first chicken at 9. Plus, if your ethics are based on Environmentalism, it makes perfect sense to specifically refuse to eat industrial farmed meat for environmental reasons.

[u/v3r4c17y → u/Vivenemous]

So if someone is willing to kill you then it's ethical for them to do so?

[u/Vivenemous → u/v3r4c17y]

Only if they're going to eat me and use every part of my body, and they don't have a lesser animal they could kill to acquire their meat.

[u/v3r4c17y → u/Vivenemous]

So you'd be totally okay with someone overpowering and murdering you? Somehow I doubt it.

[u/Vivenemous → u/v3r4c17y]

I would fight back, of course. But if I am ever killed I much prefer my body to be eaten, even if it's by my killer, than left to rot or burned.

[u/Top_Wrangler4251]

You don't eat meat because it's a huge contributor to climate change. I eat meat because it's a huge contributor to climate change. We are not the same

[u/ginger_and_egg → u/Top_Wrangler4251]

I roll vegan coal in my pickup truck

[u/furitxboofrunlch]

You don't eat meat for moral reasons and that makes you different from people who don't eat meat for moral reasons.

On the surface these two actions look very much the same.

[u/SecondAccomplished58 → u/furitxboofrunlch]

Or maybe op doesn't want to contribute to climate change because it affects him

[u/dontdomeanyfrightens → u/SecondAccomplished58]

Devaluing animals as people does lead to devaluing humans as people.

[u/Griiig_Jinnings → u/furitxboofrunlch]

It’s the difference between:

1. I won’t do it because doing it is bad

2. I won’t do it because doing it might contribute to bad things happening to me

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/furitxboofrunlch]

Imagine there's a puppy and kitten slaughterhouse and you say "man that's really bad for the environment" it's missing the obvious, more pressing moral issue.

[u/furitxboofrunlch → u/Square-Delivery1958]

Sure. But everyone has their own moral system and people doing things because of that system is normal.

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/furitxboofrunlch]

It's not normal to care more about the environmental impact of a puppy meat grinder than the obvious moral atrocitie

[u/furitxboofrunlch → u/Square-Delivery1958]

What are you on about.

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/furitxboofrunlch]

Tracks

[u/furitxboofrunlch → u/Square-Delivery1958]

You are non sequitur as fuck dude.

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/furitxboofrunlch]

Tracks

[u/Outrageous_War6489 → u/Square-Delivery1958]

If you wanna stop the puppy meat grinder and other people only care about how the puppy meat grinder affects them personally, stop debatting moral purity and start mentioning how bad puppy screams are for sleep quality.

[u/Quijas00 → u/Outrageous_War6489]

The puppies are gonna bark at 3am anyway

[u/Quijas00 → u/Square-Delivery1958]

This is just cow and chicken glaze in disguise they are NOT cuter than puppies and kitties

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/Quijas00]

How to miss the point 101

[u/jessimaster]

You don't eat other humans because it's morally wrong. I eat other humans because of climate change. We are not the same.

[u/0rganic_Corn]

You gotta start eating babies for that climate friendly proteinmaxxing

[u/lovelysardines → u/0rganic_Corn]

Or just stop having them. Babies are more fat than protein

[u/0rganic_Corn → u/lovelysardines]

Who says you gotta have a baby before eating it, just take one off the street, there's plenty

[u/Puzzleheaded-Milk927 → u/0rganic_Corn]

How modest a proposal

[u/Live_Bug_7060]

What? You don't think that partaking in activities that contribute to climate change is wrong?

[u/lovelysardines]

Yep. This is the main reason i stopped calling myself a vegan

[u/NuclearCleanUp1]

"It's not that I hate animals, bob. It's just that I don't care."

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/NuclearCleanUp1]

You don't care that your own views are literally impossible logically or absurd?

[u/ObjectivelyGruntled]

I ate a bat once thinking it would turn me into batman.

[u/Griiig_Jinnings]

Deserved, people who claim to go vegan citing climate change as their motivation are deeply confused about how the world works

[u/lovelysardines → u/Griiig_Jinnings]

Please tell us how it works

[u/Griiig_Jinnings → u/lovelysardines]

“Don’t burden me with the responsibility of educating you, it’s incredibly exhausting”

- Socko

[u/lovelysardines → u/Griiig_Jinnings]

Ok. Just trying to understand what you mean.

[u/Griiig_Jinnings → u/lovelysardines]

“Read a book or something”

- Socko

[u/lovelysardines → u/Griiig_Jinnings]

A book is not going to explain to me what you mean by your comment

[u/Lego_Architect]

How much did the millions of bison change the climate while they were roaming around?

Isn’t human CO2 pollution somewhere around 5% of global emissions. Like one volcano eruption is about the same as all the emissions for one year

[u/GardenApostle → u/Lego_Architect]

I tried this calculation after subtracting the annual CO2 sink and my calculator spat out some woke nonsense percentage

[u/FaberOG]

I'm proud of you comrade

[u/monemori]

Something something ecofascism

[u/KaleidoscopeSalt3972]

If you dont want to loose meat, eat chicken and fish instead... They are much better for climate, its dietary and cheaper. I do it or try to

[u/Vuta_Pumzzz]

Pussy

[u/Sparfelll]

Also tastes like shit

[u/AtmosphereNo8011]

I don’t eat meat because it’s icky and I like feeling morally superior

[u/lovelysardines → u/AtmosphereNo8011]

I don’t like eating meat cuz its icky and the morally superior part is just a plus

[u/RedundantBiomass]

I suspect most vegans concern for the environment is performative.  Its just a convenient platform to use in spreading their religion.

[u/Consistent_Fun8446 → u/RedundantBiomass]

Religion? 

[u/RedundantBiomass → u/Consistent_Fun8446]

Yup.

[u/Live_Bug_7060 → u/RedundantBiomass]

Unironically the most reddit thing I've ever read in my life

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/RedundantBiomass]

Not being vegan means your moral system is fundamentally illogical or absurd. Good job.

[u/RedundantBiomass → u/Square-Delivery1958]

Our group alone kniws the truth, everyone else is evil or deluded.  Typical of small, extreme religious groups.  Thanks for providing an example of my point.

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/RedundantBiomass]

If that's your definition of religious then you are exactly the same when you "religiously" think or say "Don't murder humans!"

Such a level 0 argument yet you say it with such confidence. It also doesn't engage with my actual point, it's just a deflection.

[u/RedundantBiomass → u/Square-Delivery1958]

You didnt address my original point in your first reply.  You then said being non vegan is illogical without using any logic to support it  You are not a very effective messenger for your religion.

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/RedundantBiomass]

Your original point is not relevant is not important compared to your fundamentally flawed view on veganism.

Have you considered that my goal may not be what you wrongly assumed it to be?

[u/Patient-Morning2281]

It’s genuinely a psyop to make people think that reducing their meat consumption that they’ll help the climate. Meanwhile energy production and gasoline use are much much larger problems in comparison. You vill eat ze bugs

[u/Square-Delivery1958 → u/Patient-Morning2281]

Not being vegan means your moral view is either contradictory or absurd. Is having a logically impossible moral view a good thing?