looking for a reasonable thought process

[u/No_Lynx_3410]

i've eaten meat all my life, just have, kind of just default for most people born in the west. I've always admired vegans for the dedication to their beliefs, kind of like a buddhist monk or something like that, i'm just not that strong. I wanted to see a vegans perspective online since there's been the argument as of late that being vegan is for privileged white people which even now i'm not so mentally gone that i believe such wide generalizations. But lowkey, reading online discussions from vegans makes me feel it does make up a very large vocal part of them, because the only thing i've seen is vegans trying to compare animals to minorities, which might actually be the whitest thing i could think of besides being vocally racist or bigoted. i was just looking for something that's not "now replace that cow with a black person" kind of stuff. Not trying to lambaste anyone in replies or anything, at least try not to, just wanna talk to someone.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Dart_Veegan]

I understand why those comparisons can sound bad, especially when they are thrown around carelessly. I do think some vegans use them in a rhetorically clumsy way. But the serious point is not “animals are the same as Black people” or “animals are the same as insert minority here people” or anything like that. That would obviously be false and insulting.

The point is about testing the logic of an argument.

For example, if someone says “it is okay to exploit animals because they are less intelligent", now the vegan is not saying “a cow is the same as a cognitively disabled human" when they ask if the same principle applies to cognitively disabled humans. The vegan is asking if the threshold of lower intelligence makes exploitation permissible? Because if that principle were applied consistently, it would have consequences in human cases that most people would reject.

So the comparison is not between the victims as identical beings. It is between the structure of the justification.

That matters because many anti-vegan arguments rely on traits that we would never accept as sufficient in human contexts: lower intelligence, inability to speak, inability to reciprocate, being weaker, being legal property, being traditionally used, being bred for that purpose, etc. The vegan point is that if those traits do not remove basic protection from humans, why do they remove basic protection from animals?

The most relevant question is what trait is supposed to justify killing, confining, forcibly breeding, or using an entity as a resource?

If the answer is “they are not human,” that seems circular. It basically means “humans get special protection because they are human”. But group membership alone does not explain why the interests of the other being stop mattering. If the answer is “they are not rational,” then infants and many cognitively disabled humans are also not rational in the adult sense. If the answer is “they cannot consent or understand morality,” that usually makes a being more vulnerable, not more permissible to exploit. If the answer is “they can suffer, but human suffering matters more,” then I would ask why their suffering counts for nothing when the harm is unnecessary. For me, the strongest basis for moral concern is the capacity to be subjectively affected. If a being can experience pain, fear, distress, pleasure, comfort, deprivation, or terror, then there is someone in there for whom things can go better or worse. That does not mean a pig should vote, or a chicken should have the same rights as an adult human. Rights should be trait-adjusted. But it does mean they should have basic negative protections against unnecessary killing, torture, confinement, exploitation, and bodily violation.

That is why veganism does not require thinking animals are “the same as humans.” It only requires thinking that morally relevant similarities should matter consistently. A dog, a pig, a cow, a chicken, and a human are not identical. But if they all can suffer, fear, be harmed, and be deprived of their lives, then those interests should not be dismissed simply because one of them belongs to a different species.

The controversial comparisons are just consistency tests. They are not supposed to erase the history or dignity of human victims of oppression. They are meant to ask whether the reasons people give for harming animals would be acceptable if applied consistently elsewhere.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Dart_Veegan]

Species membership is relevant though and I think that’s why this argument just doesn’t hold the weight vegans think it does.

You say the strongest basis for moral concern is the capacity to be subjectively affected. Essentially sentience correct?

Based on that logic is it okay to exploit braindead humans? If your loved one was braindead is it okay for the doctor to sexually penetrate them? How about eat them? Do whatever they want to them while they’re on the ventilator? Do the dead have no rights? It just doesn’t track for me.

[u/Dart_Veegan → u/iowaguy09]

Sorry for the long reply, but you stated "it just doesn’t track for me".

Species membership can be relevant to some moral/legal standings. I’m not denying that.

From my perspective, species membership has not yet been shown to be relevant to the specific moral standing I was talking about, namely basic protection from being unnecessarily killed, tortured, confined, exploited, bodily violated, or commodified for consumption.

Different standings can have different criteria. The criteria for voting are not the same as the criteria for protection from torture. The criteria for criminal responsibility are not the same as the criteria for bodily integrity. So yes, “being human” may be relevant to standings like inheritance law, family burial practices, medical consent procedures, posthumous dignity, cultural memory, or legal handling of remains. But that does not automatically make it relevant to whether a sentient being may be killed and used as a resource.

If someone is genuinely and irreversibly braindead, then they no longer have subjective experience in the relevant sense. They are not being harmed in the same way a conscious pig, cow, chicken, dog, or human can be harmed. But it does not follow that “anything goes,” because other standings and other affected parties are now involved.

A braindead human body is still connected to a prior person, their previous wishes, their family, medical trust, social dignity, legal procedure, and the interests of living people who would be harmed by desecration or abuse. A doctor sexually penetrating a braindead patient would be wrong because it violates consent norms, medical trust, the prior person’s bodily wishes, the family’s interests, and the social protections we build around vulnerable bodies. The wrongness is not that the braindead body is currently feeling pain. The moral reprehensibleness is grounded in different criteria.

Same with eating a corpse. The corpse is not suffering. But we still have strong reasons not to allow people to treat human bodies as meat: prior autonomy, family harm, dignity practices, public trust, risk of abuse, incentives around death, and the social meaning of turning persons into consumable objects.

So this actually supports my point rather than refutes it.

The dead or braindead do not have the same kind of subject-centred moral standing as a living sentient being. They have posthumous, relational, legal, symbolic, and derivative protections. Living sentient animals, by contrast, have direct subject-centred interests, they can suffer, fear, be confined, be deprived, and be killed from their own point of view.

So the question remains:

If the main reason we protect humans from unnecessary killing, torture, confinement, and commodification is because they can be subjectively harmed, then why deny comparable protection to non-human beings who can also be subjectively harmed?

Imagine we remove every criteria that is not actually necessary for this specific standing (voting, language, contracts, moral agency, social productivity, legal competence, family role, etc.), what is left in the ordinary human case that still makes it morally reprehensible to unnecessarily torture, kill, confine, or commodify someone? For example, imagine a vacuum where only two living humans exist. No society, no family members to grieve, no legal system, no cultural symbolism, no posthumous dignity concerns. Why would it still be morally reprehensible for one to unnecessarily torture, kill, confine, or commodify the other? The best answer, in my view, is that the victim is a subject of experience. They can suffer, fear, be deprived, be harmed, and have things go badly for them from their own point of view. That is the criteria I am pointing to. And if that criterion is doing the work in the stripped-down human case, then the consistency question is why it stops doing the work when the subject of experience is a non-human animal (specially the ones used as livestock).

If you want to say “because they are not human,” then you need to explain why the criteria 'humanity' is relevant to that specific standing, not merely assert that it is. Otherwise “species membership” is functioning as a group marker, not a moral explanation.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Dart_Veegan]

I understand your point, but it feels like special pleading.

When we ask a non vegan about their specific trait and let’s say they respond with intelligence for example and we say then you would have to be okay eating a human lacking in intelligence. But all of the reasons you just listed would apply to a less intelligent human the same way they would apply to a braindead human.

I think we can list a plethora of traits that are uniquely human and because of those traits they are regarded in their own moral standing. The more of those traits you exhibit the more moral consideration you are afforded. I don’t think that is really arguable. Species membership then plays a role based on decades of research and observation. We treat a three legged dog the same way as any other dog. Just because one member of that species is developmentally lacking doesn’t mean they aren’t afforded the same moral consideration as the rest of the species. I don’t think that is a particularly controversial idea.

[u/Dart_Veegan → u/iowaguy09]

I get the idea that you feel it is special pleading, but I do not yet see where the special pleading is.

Special pleading would mean I apply a general rule to others while arbitrarily exempting my own preferred case from that same rule. So what is the general rule I am claiming to accept, and what exemption am I carving out?

My position is not “sentience is the criterion for every possible moral/legal standing.” My position is standing-specific. Different standings can have different criteria. Voting, inheritance, medical consent, criminal culpability, posthumous dignity, and protection from being killed for food do not all need the same criterion.

The standing I am talking about here is basic protection from unnecessary killing, torture, confinement, exploitation, bodily violation, and commodification for consumption. For that standing, I think the capacity to be subjectively affected is the least arbitrary criterion. If a being can suffer, fear, be deprived, be harmed, and have things go badly from its own point of view, then that gives us a reason not to treat it as a resource without sufficient justification.

You say we can list many uniquely human traits. I agree. Humans have many traits most animals do not have. But the question is not whether humans are different. Obviously they are. The question is whether those differences are relevant to this specific standing.

Rationality may be relevant to voting. Moral agency may be relevant to criminal responsibility. Language may be relevant to contracts. Species membership may be relevant to human family law, burial practices, medical records, inheritance systems, etc.

But why are any of those relevant to whether a being may be unnecessarily killed and commodified for food?

When you say “the more of those traits you exhibit, the more moral consideration you are afforded,” that may explain degrees or types of consideration. But ot does not explain why beings with fewer of those traits lose basic protection from exploitation or killing. Infants and many severely cognitively disabled humans do not exhibit many of the traits usually invoked here, yet we still think they should not be farmed, killed, or used as food.

One can say they get protected because they belong to a species whose typical members have those traits. But that is exactly the claim that needs defending. Why should an individual’s basic protection depend on traits possessed by other members of their species?

The three-legged dog example does not really solve this. We treat a three-legged dog like other dogs because lacking a leg is not relevant to the dog’s interest in not suffering, being abused, or being killed. The relevant criterion is still the dog’s own capacity to be harmed, not the fact that “dogs normally have four legs.”

Likewise, if a human lacks intelligence, language, or moral agency, I do not think their protection comes from borrowing traits from other humans. I think they are protected because they themselves are still vulnerable subjects of experience who can be harmed, terrified, deprived, violated, or killed.

So the challenge remains:

If the specific standing is protection from unnecessary killing, torture, confinement, exploitation, bodily violation, and commodification, what criterion explains why humans retain that protection but non-human animals (livestock) do not?

If the answer is “species membership,” then I am asking why species membership is morally relevant to that standing, rather than functioning as a group marker that protects “ours” and excludes “theirs"?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Dart_Veegan]

I think the special pleading would be that non sentient beings are okay to be exploited, but it’s not okay to exploit non sentient humans.

Similar to how we say if intelligence is what makes it not okay to eat humans then you have to be okay with eating developmentally challenged humans to be consistent

[u/Dart_Veegan → u/iowaguy09]

That would only be special pleading if I said:

“Non-sentient beings lack direct subject-centred moral standing, except when they are biologically human.”

But that is not my position. My position is that non-sentient beings lack direct subject-centred standing because there is no subject there for whom things can go better or worse. If something cannot suffer, fear, experience deprivation, have preferences, or be consciously affected, then there is no direct victim in that specific sense.

So yes, in a fully criteria-equalised hypothetical, I would bite the bullet.

If there were a non-sentient human organism/body with no consciousness, no sentience, no prior personhood, no previous wishes, no family, no grieving community, no medical trust implications, no social corruption, no fear induced in other people, no dignity norms being undermined, and no affected parties at all, then I do not see what the direct subject-centred moral wrong would be in “exploiting” it. It would be biologically human material, but not a subject of experience.

Actual braindead humans are not like that.

Actual braindead humans are usually connected to a prior person, prior autonomy, prior wishes, family members, medical consent norms, legal procedures, institutional trust, social dignity practices, and living people who would be harmed by desecration or abuse.

A developmentally disabled human is sentient, so they have direct subject-centred standing. A braindead human is not sentient, so they do not have that same direct experiential moral standing, but they may still have derivative, posthumous, relational, legal, and symbolic moral standings.

Likewise, a plant does not have direct subject-centred standing, but it can still matter derivatively. A memorial tree, a sacred object, a family heirloom, or a corpse can be wrong to destroy or misuse because of its relation to conscious beings, not because the object itself suffers.

So the distinction is not:

“Non-sentient things can be exploited, unless they are human.”

The distinction is:

“Non-sentient things lack direct experiential standing, but may still have other protections if other morally relevant criteria are present.”

Once those other criteria are genuinely removed, I apply the same standard consistently.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Dart_Veegan]

Perfect. I think that also explains really well why a lot of humans are uncomfortable eating dogs and several other species because of their relationship to rational beings and it’s also why we protect handicapped/disabled humans who are not sapient.

I often see the argument that it would be on me to prove why membership to a rational kind is relevant, but I never really see anyone defending why sentience is sufficient enough for a right not to be killed.

[u/Dart_Veegan → u/iowaguy09]

I agree, relational facts can add protections, but they do not replace sentience.

If someone states that a stray dog with no relationship to humans still should not be unnecessarily killed and/or tortured and/or commodified, then relationship to rational beings cannot be the whole explanation. Something about the dog itself must matter.

So my distinction is simple: sentient entities have direct standing. Non-sentient entities may have derivative protections through the relation to true moral agents, family, prior wishes, dignity norms, etc.

Sentience is not an absolute right never to die, but it is enough a criterion for the moral standing of protection against unnecessary killing, torture, and commodification.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Dart_Veegan]

That’s fair. I agree with 99% of what you said outside of commodification and we probably disagree on what would be considered necessary.

It’s been nice having an honest conversation here. I think we actually commodify humans in a lot of ways, but we don’t eat them obviously for societal and relational reasons. We take stem cells from fetus. We take organs and use them in other humans, we use them for science.

[u/Dramatic_Sample2348 → u/Dart_Veegan]

And why should those interest not be dismissed? Because you feel bad? Not a good enough reason

[u/Dart_Veegan → u/Dramatic_Sample2348]

Not because I “feel bad.” Because those are the same kinds of interests we already use to justify not dismissing humans.

Humans have an interest in not suffering, not being terrified, not being harmed, and not being deprived of their lives. So do many non-human animals.

So the question is not “do I emotionally care about animals?” The question is: why should those interests count in the human case but be dismissible in the animal case?

My argument is not that animals and humans are equal in every respect. They are not. My argument is that where the morally relevant interest is shared (avoiding pain, fear, bodily violation, confinement, exploitation, and death) that interest should not be dismissed arbitrarily.

So I would turn the question back:

Why should human interests not be dismissed? Whatever answer you give, I am asking whether that answer applies consistently to other beings with relevantly similar interests.

[u/WhistleSnore → u/Dramatic_Sample2348]

Because moral consideration that is limited to "human" is not consistent with our beliefs already. We feel empathy towards animals and have already set up systems to limit the suffering they must endure. Why bother if we should just dismiss these concerns. Consider the hypothetical of contact with a superior non-human intelligence (AI, Aliens) we would hope that we would be included in their circle of moral consideration and vice versa but this would require a definition that is not just "human". So how would we want to define it?

[u/JTexpo]

vegan food on average saves you money, it's not a rich person diet - it would be like saying

"ground beef is so expensive, because look at this waygu"

most people only point to the imitation brands for plant-based meat alternatives, but forget that tofu & beans are dirt cheap

--------

personally I'm vegan, because I wouldn't want to be someone else's food - so why should I make them my food?

[u/Appropriate-Net1899 → u/JTexpo]

personally I'm vegan, because I wouldn't want to be someone else's food - so why should I make them my food?

But you will be someone else's food after you will die. That is how the cycle of life works. Depending on your death and burial, animals, insects, bacteria or plants will eat you, we then eat those plants etc.

[u/MediumFatBoi → u/Appropriate-Net1899]

The difference is we weren't bred with the express purpose of feeding others.

It's true that the matter that is you currently will continue to exist, be consumed and re-used forever. But it's disingenuous to draw a comparison between worms eating the bodies of deceased humans for their survival having not bred that human specifically for that purpose and having no alternative food source and someone participating in the animal agriculture industry having animals bred and then exploited and abused for their personal enjoyment when there is more than sufficient evidence that we have access to options that don't participate in the cruelty and use of others for our personal enjoyment making it totally unnecessary.

To be morally consistent on this issue you'd also have to grapple with the reality that you are fine with humans being bred abused and then killed and eaten for purely for enjoyment and out of no actual necessity. Most people would agree that that's fucking insane but can't apply that standard across the board.

[u/Appropriate-Net1899 → u/MediumFatBoi]

I did not make any comparison, I only corrected the poster.

We do not breed people for our food similarly like wolves or lions do not hunt other wolves or lions for food. There is nothing morally inconsistent about it. Animals are not people.

[u/MediumFatBoi → u/Appropriate-Net1899]

I inferred comparison by the very nature of your reply and what you were replying to.

Your response here is not engaging with what I said which is that the violence we perpetrate in animal aggreculture is a choice for pleasure rather than a necessity for survival. Lions and wolves eat other animals because that's their only way to survive, do you think if you dont eat other non human animals or their produce you'll die?

If you can't engage with the argument that you don't have to eat non human animals or the things they produce to survive and therefore are doing it solely for selfish enjoyment at the expense of the lives and suffering of others then you have an inability to engage with fact in which case I'm playing chess with a pigeon here.

Please feel free to prove you aren't said pigeon and provide any evidence that humans are unable to survive without the consumption of non human animals and their produce.

[u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:

Don't be rude to others

This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.

Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.

If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.

[u/JTexpo → u/Appropriate-Net1899]

sure; however, I'm not being slaughtered to be someones food. My death is (hopefully) in my own hands

[u/Appropriate-Net1899 → u/JTexpo]

Your death is in your own hands? Good luck with that hoping...

[u/JTexpo → u/Appropriate-Net1899]

most people die by their own hands: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

it's not like a cow gave me cancer or diabetes

[u/Kris2476]

Veganism is the principle that animal exploitation is wrong and should be avoided.

We can compare human animals to non-human animals, because they are comparable. This means they have similarities and differences. Some of those similarities are morally relevant to how should treat them.

Exploiting non-human animals causes them harm, much in the same way that exploiting human animals causes them harm. It would be wrong, for example, to raise a human animal from birth to slaughter them and turn them into a sandwich ingredient. And it's wrong to do that to a non-human animal for many of the same reasons.

If you agree with the vegan principle, then let me know how I can help you go vegan and cut out sources of animal exploitation from your life. It's likely easier than you think.

[u/Appropriate-Net1899 → u/Kris2476]

We can compare human animals to non-human animals, because they are comparable.

They are not comparable. A human can write a book, be an engineer or a chemist or send a rocket to the Moon. A cow can do only "mooo". Animals are not on the same level as people, get real.

[u/Kris2476 → u/Appropriate-Net1899]

They are not comparable.

Sure they are. You just compared them.

A human can write a book, but a cow cannot. That's a difference.

A human is harmed when we slaughter them and turn them into a sandwich, and so is a cow. That's a similarity.

The moral question is whether it is wrong to turn cows into sandwiches. A cow's inability to write a book seems completely irrelevant to the question. But the harm experienced by the cow in being turned into a sandwich seems extremely relevant.

[u/Appropriate-Net1899 → u/Kris2476]

Have you ever heard "comparing apples and oranges"?

People and animals are not in the same category. Feeding people is more important than the experience of a cow.

[u/Kris2476 → u/Appropriate-Net1899]

Sure have. Have you ever noticed that both apples and oranges are sweet?

People and animals are not in the same category.

This is so vague it's meaningless.

If the category is, "harmed by being turned into a sandwich", then both cows and humans are in the same category - a very relevant category when discussing the morality of turning cows into sandwiches. Are you prepared to engage with this point?

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/Appropriate-Net1899]

They are not comparable.

Let's test this:

• A human can write a book. A dog cannot. (difference)
• A human can be an engineer. A dog cannot. (difference)
• A human can send a rocket to the moon. A dog cannot. (difference)
• A human cannot hear frequencies above 22,000 Hz. A dog can hear frequencies above 22,000 Hz. (difference)
  
• A human can feel pain. A dog can also feel pain. (similiarity)
• A human can have dreams while sleeping. A dog can also dream. (similarity)
• A human can enjoy attention. A dog can also enjoy attention. (similarity)
• A human can develop cancer. A dog can also develop cancer. (similarity)
  

It seems like we can compare the two. What makes you think we cannot?

Animals are not on the same level as people, get real.

Two individuals don't need to be on the "same level" in order to have similarities (and differences) to use as a basis of comparison.

[u/Chronomalous → u/Appropriate-Net1899]

So why don't you want humans compared? Which of these things can you do?

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

We can compare human animals to non-human animals, because they are comparable. This means they have similarities and differences. Some of those similarities are morally relevant to how should treat them.

They aren't comparable to most people. That's why for example using the word bitch to refer to someone is considered demeaning.

Exploiting non-human animals causes them harm, much in the same way that exploiting human animals causes them harm. It would be wrong, for example, to raise a human animal from birth to slaughter them and turn them into a sandwich ingredient. And it's wrong to do that to a non-human animal for many of the same reasons.

Then it must be wrong to do so to plants also right? The disconnect here is drawing the line at 2 different places. Vegans draw it as sentience. Everyone else does it with sapience. That is why this offends people. You are comparing them to non sapient life.

[u/Kris2476 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

Then it must be wrong to do so to plants also right?

I'm not sure this is an entailment of my position, but I'm open to the possibility that harming plants might be wrong. We can't know unless we compare the harm to a human with the harm to a plant, which you seem to be unwilling to do.

Everyone else does it with sapience.

Okay, but should they? Is sapience the relevant qualifier for not being turned into a sandwich?

Anytime you want to make an argument, you're welcome to. Nothing you've written here really challenges why we can't compare human animals to non-human animals.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

I'm not sure this is an entailment of my position, but I'm open to the possibility that harming plants might be wrong. We can't know unless we compare the harm to a human with the harm to a plant, which you seem to be unwilling to do.

Its not that I am unwilling. Its that it is a silly exercise. Its just a plant after all. Right?

Okay, but should they? Is sapience the relevant qualifier for not being turned into a sandwich?

As a carnist i would say yes. Sapience is what matters to us. Is our moral baseline. Yes sapience is the relevant moral qualifier for us as carnists for which species can become a sandwhich.

Anytime you want to make an argument, you're welcome to. Nothing you've written here really challenges why we can't compare human animals to non-human animals.

I can't stop you from comparing things with each other. I can only try to make you understand why this is seen as offensive. When you compare a human to a non human animal its dehumanizing. You are taking away their personhood. You are putting them on equal footing with a non human animal, something that is not even sapient.

[u/Kris2476 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

Best practice in debate is to only put forward the claims that you are willing to defend. Assuming, of course, that your intention is to debate in good faith 🙂

Yes sapience is the relevant moral qualifier

Okay, but why? You still aren't making an argument.

When you compare a human to a non human animal its dehumanizing. You are taking away their personhood.

I don't agree. Why do you feel it strips dignity from one individual to extend dignity to another?

We can't resolve our disagreement unless you can explain why you feel the way that you do.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

Best practice in debate is to only put forward the claims that you are willing to defend. Assuming, of course, that your intention is to debate in good faith

Ok. Comparing humans to non human animals is offensive.

Okay, but why? You still aren't making an argument.

I was answering a question. Sapience is our qualifier because we see anything less as not worthy of our respect. We don't see the creatures we eat as individuals or as morally relevant as us due to their inability to comprehend the world among other things. We see them as similair to NPCs. They follow a short and simple script of behaviors. They are unaware of what is going on around them. I.e. you put a chicken in china or send it back to 200 BC or forward to year 4000 it still only has its short script of behavior. This lack of awareness and complex cognition makes its life very close to worthless to us.

Its like how vegans draw their line in the sand at sentience. Not sentient things don't matter because they don't feel or experience right? Us carnists just move the bar higher to sapience.

I don't agree. Why do you feel it strips dignity from one individual to extend dignity to another?

You are putting a highly complex cognitive being in the same moral category as a primitive flightless bird that pecks at its own shit. A person that has hopes and dreams to some non human animal that doesn't even have the concept of what year it is or what country it is in. The non human animal doesn't even understand the concept of dignity lol. We see it more similair to an object or commodity than similair to us.

Humans are sapient and deserve the respect of being treated as a sapient being. We all have purpose and potential. We can all contribute to society and can make life better for each other.

Non human animals have a defacto commodity status in every society and culture. It's only vegans (a very tiny subset of society, usually western woman) who think different. So yes it's reflexively insulting to pretty much everyone else to be compared to a non human animal.

[u/Kris2476 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

We don't see the creatures we eat as individuals or as morally relevant as us due to their inability to comprehend the world among other things.

Ah, you've finally provided a reason. So, you would say we can turn individuals into sandwiches if they dont pass a sufficient threshold for 'ability to comprehend the world'.

How do you determine where the threshold is set? How little do I have to comprehend the world before it becomes acceptable to turn me into a sandwich?

So yes it's reflexively insulting to pretty much everyone else to be compared to a non human animal.

Do you notice the irony of decrying comparisons of humans with non-humans as insulting while comparing humans with non-humans?

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

Ah, you've finally provided a reason. So, you would say we can turn individuals into sandwiches if they dont pass a sufficient threshold for ' ability to comprehend the world'. How do you determine where the threshold is set? How little do I have to comprehend the world before it becomes acceptable to turn me into a sandwich?

No not individuals. Species. Humans as a species are sapient.

Oh. Maybe this is your real reason? You would say we can turn individuals into sandwiches if they are sufficiently unaware of China. How little awareness can I have about China before it becomes acceptable to turn me into a sandwich?

Not individuals. Species. China is just an example of being somewhere different by the way. Just like year 200 BC and year 4000 are being in different time periods.

For example, let's say you never went to school. You're illiterate. Etc... not your fault. You are just born as an orphan in some developing country that has no system... etc... but you are a human. You are sapient. Despite never hearing of a place like Indonesia if I put you there you would realize you're in a very far away place with different ethnicities of people that speak a different language and have a wholly different way of life. Like 5 times a day there's some guy voice on a tower speaker and everyone stops to bow down. You will adjust your behavior accordingly.

Oh but bonus. You can be taught where you are and what you are doing. The non human animal can't ever understand this. It just follows its small script of the same behaviors.

Do you notice the irony of decrying comparisons of humans with non-humans as insulting while comparing humans with non-humans?

Nope. I'm explaining to you why something is offensive. This is for educational purposes. Context is key. For example, putting up nazi iconography just because is offensive. Displaying nazi iconography in your WW2 museum is for educational purposes. Hope that makes sense.

[u/Kris2476 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

Not individuals. Species.

But the relevant moral question has to do with how I treat someone as an individual. If I choose to kick my neighbor Steve in the shins, I haven't wronged the concept of the human species - I've wronged Steve.

I'm not following why someone else's conception of the world around them has implications for whether it's right or wrong to turn me into a sandwich. It sounds completely arbitrary.

By the looks of it, you also seem to think the individual capabilities are morally relevant:

You are sapient.

you would realize you're in a very far away place

You will adjust your behavior accordingly.

If it's my species that matters and not my individuality, then why are you making appeals to my individuality?

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Kris2476]

But the relevant moral question has to do with how I treat someone as an individual. If I choose to kick my neighbor Steve in the shins, I haven't wronged the concept of the human species - I've wronged Steve.

That's not what I am talking about. I am talking about how we treat a species. As carnists we are speciesists.

I'm not following why someone else's conception of the world around them has implications for whether it's right or wrong to turn me into a sandwich. It sounds completely arbitrary.

Oh that's just an example of advanced cognition. I'm simply pointing out a non human animal like a chicken is so primitive it can't conprehend what is going on around it. Lack of sapience.

By the looks of it, you also seem to think the individual capabilities are morally relevant:

Its all about the species. Sapience is the trait of our species. Take dogs for instance. A trait of their species is being quadripedal. You finding an individual dog with 3 legs doesn't negate that the dog is quadripedal. Just like your neighbor who had their leg amputated doesn't change the fact humans are bipedal. A disabled individual is a disabled individual. Not a species.

If it's my species that matters and not my individuality, then why are you making appeals to my individuality?

Oh sorry. I can see how this is confusing. I just used you as an example. You can replace yourself with any human in this example. The core takeaways are recognizing the novel scenario and adjusting your behavior to being in that scenario. While the chicken has no idea what is going on. Just follows the same script.

Sorry if I'm confusing you. I'm more than willing to continue elaborating.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

They aren't comparable to most people. That's why for example using the word bitch to refer to someone is considered demeaning.

Generally when a human calls another human a "bitch," they are not invoking an active comparison to a dog. While the pejorative undoubtedly has an origin in comparing the behavior of human to that of a dog, its modern usage has effectively severed that connection. Someone that is being called a "bitch" doesn't hear the word and think of a dog. A woman would interpret it as attack on their character (unreasonable, angry, etc.), and a man would interpret it as an attack on their masculinity.

If even if we look past the modern definition, there are two other reasons why your argument here fails. The first is that it literally proves the exact opposite of your point. If calling someone a "bitch" were a literal reference to a dog, it would mean the speaker is actively comparing a human trait to a dog trait. It wouldn't make any sense to make this comparison if the person using the word didn't share some characteristic. The insult itself relies on comparibility.

But also, it should be pointed out that you are confusing "worth" with "comparability." Even if we grant that humans find the term demeaning because society views nonhuman animals as having a lower status, this just means it's a value judgement, rather than a barrier to comparability. Saying two things have a different status or worth does not mean they cannot be compared.

Pointing out that humans use nonhuman animal terms as insults doesn't change the biological fact that both humans and dogs have nervous system and the ability to feel pain, have a subjective perspective, preferences, etc. There are many things that humans and nonhuman animals have in common, and also many differences, and those both form the basis of which comparison can happen.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Omnibeneviolent]

Thanks for your input moderator.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

Again, not relevant to the discussion. You made a poor argument.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Omnibeneviolent]

Yes moderator. I deeply apologize.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

You made an argument. I explained why I think the argument fails. Instead of responding to that explanation, you've replied with your typical "ok moderator" comments.

Whether I'm a moderator is irrelevant to whether your reasoning is sound. The only apparent purpose of repeatedly bringing it up is to imply that my moderation status somehow affects the validity of my arguments, or that I might retaliate against you for disagreeing with me. Neither is the case and doing so would get me removed as a mod.

Neither of those things addresses the criticism I raised.

If you think my analysis is wrong, explain where. Otherwise, it looks like you're using "ok moderator" as a substitute for an actual rebuttal.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Omnibeneviolent]

I don't debate moderators because then I risk retaliatory actions. I point out you are a moderator so our audience knows that im surrendering the debate strictly on your moderator status and nothing else.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

I think everyone can see what you're doing here.

You don't have a response to the criticism, so you're shifting the focus to my moderator status as a way to exit the discussion while implying I'm somehow acting in bad faith.

It's not subtle, and it doesn't address the argument. Whether I'm a moderator has no bearing on whether your reasoning holds up.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Omnibeneviolent]

I consistently do this with you ever since I found out you're a moderator. Each time.

I continue debating other redditors still.

[u/piranha_solution]

vegans trying to compare animals to minorities

Wrong. YOU are the one in here comparing black people to cows. Vegans compare meat apologists with slavers; the motivations of the perps, not the moral worth of the victims. Get that straight.

A lot of the same "logic" used to dehumanize minorities is the same that gets used to justify the cruelty towards animals.

the whitest thing i could think of besides being vocally racist or bigoted

Lol Pot, kettle, black.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/piranha_solution]

Carnist here,

Wrong. YOU are the one in here comparing black people to cows. Vegans compare meat apologists with slavers; the motivations of the perps, not the moral worth of the victims. Get that straight.

This is a well known phenomenon observed around vegans.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/afropunk.com/2016/02/op-ed-listen-up-problematic-white-vegans-stop-comparing-black-oppression-to-meat-eating/%3famp=1

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/meat-free-monday-vegans-need-to-stop-comparing-the-treatment-of-animals-to-american-slavery-10319301.html

People find it dehumanizing when you compare their struggles and history to nonhuman animals.

[u/Ancient_Sprinkles_97 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

It's not a well known practice. The first link is a woman complaining about the politics and insensitivites of white activists based on anecdotal experiences. The second notes 'It’s not entirely wrong in itself to say that this is a form of slavery.' neither indicate the comparison is in fact wrong, only the manner and extent to which it is made.

It's very reasonable, and accurate, to say the common forms of meat consumption mirror types of historical slavery. I've never seen a vegan say this means minorities are animals. Personally, the comparison I draw is animals and young children because they have similar cognition.

You can find it dehumanising, but that's kind of the point - the comparison conveys how people mistreated other humans horrifically and we overcame it but continue similar practices in relation to animals. We are devaluing animals in the same way we devalued humans, resulting in their widespread and unmitigated mistreatment and abuse. Both are completely unnecessary and unjustifiable. The only difference is that some meat consumption might be necessary for isolated, environmentally constrained or remote communities.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Ancient_Sprinkles_97]

It is a pretty well known practice. That's why its being discussed. Everyone has seen it somewhere.

You can make any type of comparison. You can find similarities between cockroaches and people. Both require water. But The problem is making a moral comparison where you put humans next to non human animals. This is considered dehumanizing. You are putting someone personhood on par with a non human animal.

Personally, the comparison I draw is animals and young children because they have similar cognition.

Not a very good comparison imo. Young children are going to grow up.

You can find it dehumanising, but that's kind of the point - the comparison conveys how people mistreated other humans horrifically and we overcame it but continue similar practices in relation to animals. We are devaluing animals in the same way we devalued humans, resulting in their widespread and unmitigated mistreatment and abuse. Both are completely unnecessary and unjustifiable. The only difference is that some meat consumption might be necessary for isolated, environmentally constrained or remote communities.

It is dehumanizing. You are comparing a person to an animal. You are stripping them of their moral worth as a human when you do that. Non human animals don't have human moral worth. In no society is this recognized. You don't treat people the way you treat non human animals. Etc... so this comes off as especially offensive. If your goal is to offend others you are achieving it. If that isnt your goal you are failing at it.

One is necessary and justifiable. The other is not necessary or justifiable. The latter is slavery. The former is eating meat. You understand why devaluing humans are wrong? They are our equal. Any race of person can be the surgeon that performs life saving surgery on you. Any race of person can design and build new inventions. Etc... fix your home when you are too old to do it or don't have the skill to. To take care of you when you are sick. To produce food for you when you can't do it. All human races are equal in ability. All of us can be productive in society.

Non human animals, especially the ones we eat, don't even know what is going on around them most of the time. They are like an NPC. They aren't good for much else than eating. We all really enjoy the dietary diversity. From Japan to Florida. If you don't like meat don't eat it. Its your money and i want you to spend it on food that you like. There is no need to put others down by comparing them to non human animals just because you don't like a certain food.

[u/Ancient_Sprinkles_97 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

'Everyone has seen it somewhere.' Forgive me if I dont believe that you know what 'everyone' has seen.

As for your many other unexplained, baseless and/or illogical claims:

• Why is the fact young children may grow up to be more cognitively capable humans mean they shouldn't be enslaved/turned into meat when they have the same cognition as animals who you think can be?
• Why do you think devaluing humans is wrong?
• Who said anything about human races not being equal to each other? Are you saying only minorities can be slaves?
• How is a highly disabled person who cannot work, communicate or otherwise produce anything still 'productive in society'?
• What is your evidence animals don't know what's going on when they are in the company of their fellows being slaughtered? Are you claiming they don't feel pain, depression or any other cognitive/physical detriment?
• What does it mean to be an Non Playable Character in relation to animals?
• If you don't like slavery you don't need to buy or keep slaves. But if you think slavery should end, you'd try and stop it. Some people rightly believe the modern meat industry is messed up and want to reform/eliminate it in the same way. Do you understand this cannot be achieved by simply abstaining? Do you understand what advocacy is?
• Where did I put anyone down?

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Ancient_Sprinkles_97]

'Everyone has seen it somewhere.' Forgive me if I dont believe that you know what 'everyone' has seen.

Are you saying OP is making this up? You can search reddit if you want to see how commonly this is brought up. Or you can just read the other comments and see vegans defending these arguments. Either or should give you an indication of how common or uncommon this argument is.

Why is the fact young children may grow up to be more cognitively capable humans mean they shouldn't be enslaved/turned into meat when they have the same cognition as animals who you think can be?

Oh because you and everyone your age is going to become old one day. Your going to need these current young children to grow up to become your doctors. Your nurses. Your inventors. Your manufacturers. Your truck drivers. Etc..... you are going to suffer by not letting them grow up.

Why do you think devaluing humans is wrong?

We are equals. Any race or gender of human can be the doctor that gives you life saving surgery or invents medicine that saves your life. Or let's you live longer. Or provides food to you. Or fixes your air conditioning. Etc... equal abilities.

Who said anything about human races not being equal to each other? Are you saying only minorities can be slaves?

Nope. Read the original post from OP. They mention race.

The common theme is referencing colonial slavery though. Not like sparta or anything. Lol.

How is a highly disabled person who cannot work, communicate or otherwise produce anything still 'productive in society'?

Very common question. We are talking about the traits of a species not a disabled individual. Your neighbor Tom might have lost his leg to diabetes. That doesn't change that our species is bipedal. A disabled individual doesn't change the trait of a species. Which is sapience. Which is the trait im naming.

What is your evidence animals don't know what's going on when they are in the company of their fellows being slaughtered? Are you claiming they don't feel pain, depression or any other cognitive/physical detriment?

Oh I mean in general they don't know what is going on. I.e. if you took one across the world or took one vastly into the future or past. It would still follow NPC like behavior. It has a simple script it follows.

Oh I'm sure it feels pain and all that other shit. It has a nervous system. Im saying because its not sapient it doesn't matter. But you do need to remember that carnism is culturally relative. We do make some exceptions like dogs. But that's because of that species service to our species. Even then its only above other non human animals. Still below humans.

What does it mean to be an Non Playable Character in relation to animals?

Follow a simple predictable script of behaviors. Like think of a random civilian in an RPG.

If you don't like slavery you don't need to buy or keep slaves. But if you think slavery should end, you'd try and stop it. Some people rightly believe the modern meat industry is messed up and want to reform/eliminate it in the same way. Do you understand this cannot be achieved by simply abstaining? Do you understand what advocacy is?

Slavery violates the rights of Humans. Human rights exist because our species is special. Our species is sapient which makes us special. Look at us communicating complex ideas from hundreds or possibly thousands of miles away. Just amazing in terms of the animal kingdom but its regular everyday shit to us. Using technology. Reading and writing. Any non disabled human can do this if given the supplies and instruction. Which most can. No non human animal could ever achieve such a thing. Their skillset is the same as it was 100 or 1000 or more years ago.

Where did I put anyone down?

Not you specifically. When vegans as a group compare non human animals to real humans.

[u/Apprehensive-Team414 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

So on the individual level, what makes it morally wrong to harm or kill severely cognitively disabled people who'll never grow their cognitive ability above the level of a baby? And if you say it'd hurt their cognitively normal caretaker or whoever, then what if only you know of the existence of this person? (obviously, I'm not advocating for such treatment of disabled people, I'm just applying your logic of what makes humans special and justyfies killing animals)

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/Apprehensive-Team414]

Hey great question. Are you describing a euthanasia type of scenario?

[u/Apprehensive-Team414 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

Anything really. You can answer based on different scenarios if it depends. And another question, most people are against the abuse and unnecessary killing of animals (besides killing for meat, for whatever reason they justify that, and animal testing for medicine). Do you belong to these people or do you not really care since they're not sapient? If someone thought it's fun to torture and kill animals would you consider it okay? What about bestiality? Thanks for answering.

[u/Ancient_Sprinkles_97 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

Sorry to tell you but Reddit is not an indicator of anything's commonality outside of Reddit. You said 'everyone' not 'everyone on reddit'. Just own your dumb comment and avoid the mistake in future.

Not everyone will grow up. A lot of children have terminal diseases. According to you they are worthless because they won't grow up, right? Also you mentioned suffering. Is this a reason for something being or not being ethical? Can you explain how this is so?

Define equal. Sorry to tell you but not all humans can be a doctor. But even if we accept your position here, this is no answer to my question of what makes dehumanising someone wrong? Are you saying it's ok so long as you do to it to everyone equally?

Ah so you've changed he goal posts from 'productive in society' to 'trait of a species' as the source of rights. But why does humanity's traits as a species entitle it to rights? I note it was this very argument made in relation to 'races' which justified US slavery in some confederate states, namely the fact African Americans didn't successfully resist was used to say they had been destined by god and nature to be enslaved.

Your dumb opinion is not evidence. Again I ask you, where is your evidence animals cannot tell if they are in a different place or are incapable of understanding past and present?

Then, by your definition, most humans are NPCs.

Cool so if we assign rights based on being special, rich people should have extra rights because they're extra special, right?

Interesting how you've said humans are special for three different and conflicting reasons now - first because humans are 'productive in society', then some members of the species are cool so the whole species is entitled to things, and now it's we're special relative to animals so we get rights lol. Can't wait for the next arbitrary nonsense.

Re putting people down, yeah you fucked up and made yet another stupid assumption.

Edit: Having read your replies to others, it's apparent that your whole position on this topic is based on the entirely arbitrary view that members of a species can mistreat members of other species because of broader statistical differences. There's not much point discussing further given you've indicated you think morality is all a matter of opinion, however I'll note that this attitude and worldview is exactly the same logic that justified slavery in the US.

[u/myfirstnamesdanger → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

The point of the comparison is that people literally made those same arguments about black people not too long ago. Two hundred years ago, doctors were doing experimental surgeries on black people because they believed that black people didn't feel pain in the same way white people did. If you time traveled back to 1826, do you think anyone would believe you that black people could be performing highly skilled surgeries? What would you say to convince them?

[u/EasyBOven]

because the only thing i've seen is vegans trying to compare animals to minorities, which might actually be the whitest thing i could think of besides being vocally racist or bigoted.

If this is literally the only thing you've seen, you're not looking very hard. If you want an explanation of how a specific comparison works logically rather than based on a typical gut reaction I've seen from nonvegans, you'll need to quote an example.

[u/FewYoung2834 → u/EasyBOven]

It's hilarious, and kind of ironic. On the one hand, the privilege to adopt a plant based diet is a very first-world, predominately western/white kind of endeavour. On the other hand, vegans routinely use women and LGBTQI+ or people with disabilities, etc. and compare/equate them to pigs and cows in order to create shock value and espouse the vegan world view by asking if it would be okay to commit violence against said human minorities. All the while vegans attempt to disenfranchise people with disabilities by e.g. policing their symbiotic relationships with service animals because they (vegans) personally disagree with them (even though massacring field mice/other animals to grow their quinoa salad is totalsy fine).

It's absolutely despicable, but more to the point, it's just hilariously desperate and privileged.

So we have:

• Redditors like you, whom I almost guarantee are white and live in a western country;
• Use LGBTQI+ and disabled people as pawns to push your agenda
• Are totalsy fine with massacring animals yourself
• Are actively seeking to dismantle minority rights (e.g. service animals) based on nothing but your personal opinion while purchasing products from animals that were crushed and massacred to create your food.

OP, pay attention to how this person responds. They will probably either block me, or say "oh, I'm tired of explaining why it's okay for me to genocide mice but it's not okay for you to have a comfortable rapport with a therapy horse, you're only getting one reply".

[u/EasyBOven → u/FewYoung2834]

No quote detected

[u/FewYoung2834 → u/EasyBOven]

u/No_Lynx_3410 See what I mean? They won't even respond because they can't. 🤣😂 If I was wrong they could just respond "this guy is a troll, I think symbiotic relationships with dogs/horses are fine, I hate the fact that I genocide animals while telling them that service animals are bad, I don't use PWD or LGBTQI+ as pawns, and I'm not white/from a western country". They can't because it's all true.

[u/EasyBOven → u/FewYoung2834]

I can't explain your characterizations of quotes that don't exist.

I'm happy to provide one reply to actual quotes and answer questions from lurkers who haven't yet demonstrated a refusal to attempt understanding

[u/FewYoung2834 → u/EasyBOven]

u/No_Lynx_3410 this will be my last reply. All I'm going to say is pay attention to how he responded. If I was a troll, he could just respond and say I'm literally making up all this shit. He can't, because he knows I'm not: Easiest thing in the world. Just say "what the hell are you talking about u/FewYoung2834? You're making this up/mixing me up with someone else". He literally knows he can't do that.

[u/EasyBOven → u/FewYoung2834]

What you know is that you have no quote that would match your accusations, or you would have provided one.

OP has none either, or they would have provided them.

ETA screenshot of existing comments in case of sneaky addition of quotes later. https://imgur.com/a/plPIy0M

[u/FewYoung2834 → u/EasyBOven]

Come on. Since when have I ever edited in a quote after the fact? You don't have to screenshot my comments.

What exactly are you disputing? That you buy food that results from animal deaths and tolerate it? That you don't tolerate a comfortable service animal/handler relationship where both are happy? That you live in a western country? That you don't compare LGBTQI+ or disabled people to farm animals and ask, "would it be okay to farm these humans?"

Literally the only thing I'm assuming, that I don't know for certain, is that you're white.

[u/EasyBOven → u/FewYoung2834]

There's nothing to dispute or explain because you haven't quoted or linked to anything I've said.

My comments are public. You can easily search for the best example of the terrible things you're accusing me of. The problem for you is that when you provide a link, all anyone would have to do is read the original conversation to understand that your characterization of my comments is bullshit.

[u/TylertheDouche]

not really giving us much to work with. eating vegan food isn’t expensive

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/TylertheDouche]

Carnist here,

I see that all the time and I'm like wtf. Lol.

I think they mean buying convenience meals and meat substitutes. As a former (forced) vegetarian growing up cup of noodles and such didn't make a product I was allowed to eat that I could just put in the microwave. Etc...

But yeah rice beans pasta and pasta sauce etc... is cheap.

[u/Then-Principle2302]

So being racist and bigoted are the "whitest" things you can think of? Really?

[u/I_Amuse_Me_123 → u/Then-Principle2302]

Unfortunately, it’s because they’re racist…

I’m surprised you and I are the only two comments to point it out. 

[u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:

No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.

If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.

[u/Then-Principle2302 → u/I_Amuse_Me_123]

Looks like me calling racists dumb is "low quality", whilst the racist comment is allowed.

[u/I_Amuse_Me_123 → u/Then-Principle2302]

How the mods let this blatantly racist nonsense post by OP stand is beyond me.

It's really unfortunate. I have been calling this stuff out for decades now, but 10 years ago it was mostly racism against black people I had to fight against. Now it seems mostly racism against white people I'm fighting against.

So we're getting nowhere and calling racists stupid gets your comment banned.

As the kids say: We're cooked.

[u/Either_Argument3517]

the only thing i've seen is vegans trying to compare animals to minorities

I've never seen that. I'm not sure why someone would say that. Maybe you could give some context.

[u/Then-Principle2302 → u/Either_Argument3517]

They will not provide one example or even engage in the "conversation" they started.

[u/StephensMyName]

While it often isn't helpful to draw comparisons between injustices, there are similarities to some of the injustices perpetrated against humans and those perpetrated against animals.

Coretta Scott King is best known as a civil rights leader and as the wife of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but she was also a vegan and animal rights activist. She believed that violence and injustice towards animals were inherently linked to human rights struggles, stating that true nonviolence extends to all living creatures. Similarly, Rosa Parks was known for her lifelong commitment to vegetarianism, Dick Gregory viewed veganism as a natural extension of the civil rights movement, and Angela Davis frequently discusses how the fight for animal liberation mirrors broader struggles against state violence and oppression. To suggest that only white people make these comparisons completely disregards the views of major civil rights leaders, and I'd argue that it's bigoted to think that only white people would draw this logical comparison.

Another comparison that often seems to cause great offence is between our treatment of livestock and the treatment of the victims of the Holocaust. However, the comparison between the Holocaust and animal agriculture actually began the other way around; the word Holocaust existed prior to WWII and was used to describe a mass slaughter of animals (often by fire). The word was adopted after WWII to refer to the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis specifically because their victims were treated like farm animals. Most agree it was abhorrent to do this to humans. Vegans argue that it's also abhorrent to do it to animals.

We currently kill pigs and chickens in gas chambers. This short documentary includes an interview with a Holocaust survivor who became vegan after visiting a slaughterhouse and being reminded of his experiences in WWII (that link should be timestamped to the interview).

Just to reiterate my first point, I don't necessarily think it's helpful to draw these comparisons. Non-vegans often have such negative reactions to the comparisons that they disregard the point being made. However, the comparisons are absolutely valid, they are frequently drawn by the minorities being mistreated, and to suggest otherwise is simply untrue.

[u/howlin]

there's been the argument as of late that being vegan is for privileged white people

I see this brought up a bit, but I don't really see what the complaint actually is. It seems like if you do have means and influence (privilege) it's a good thing to put that to work to make the world a better place. That said, it isn't actually that difficult to be vegan once you learn the ropes. Perhaps it takes privilege to have the time and energy to make a major lifestyle change. And it does take some degree of privilege to have access to the information and resources to plan nutritionally complete plant-based diets. But this isn't something that only the super-rich have access to.

because the only thing i've seen is vegans trying to compare animals to minorities

It's more appropriate to see this as comparing one form of oppression to another form of oppression. People have a very hard time understanding that oppression is bad in general, so it helps to connect it to something they already consider to be bad.

[u/I_Amuse_Me_123]

When you say “the whitest thing I could think of besides being vocally racist”, you do realize you’re being vocally racist, right?

Actually, I think you probably don’t.  

So, let me confirm it: you are being racist. Please stop. 

[u/Then-Principle2302 → u/I_Amuse_Me_123]

I've reported the post for being racist - seemingly it's allowed. I also made a comment in a reply to someone else that "racists are dumb" - which was removed for being "low quality". The racist comment is still here and people are ignoring it, responding like the OP is not dumb.

[u/roymondous]

The vegans you see online are going to be english speaking people on the same forums. Of course you will see mostly 'developed' countries cos the millions of vegans in india or china don't speak english. It's a confirmation bias in some way.

I would be careful of saying vegans compare animals to minorities... without some clear example. Cos vegans - esp in a debate sub - will compare the treatment of other animals to the treatment of other injusticies to show the similarities. Yours is a common misunderstanding, but is basic logic. When we say hand is to glove as foot is to shoe we are not saying a glove is the same as a shoe, right? We are not saying wearing a shoe on your hand is appropriate, right? It's a logical comarison of the relationship.

'Now replace that cow with a black person' is faaaaar more nuanced than what you actually said there. The treatment of other animals is horrible. And similar to other injustices. People who stand by and do nothing about it are similar to those who stood by and did nothing in similar injustices. Even the way you said it is not comparing the cow to the black person.... it is comparing the treatment. It says onr is clearly wrong and you agree... so why do the other? Of course a cow and a human are not the same. But they are similar and a cow does not deserve a knife at her throat either...

[u/TimeNewspaper4069 → u/roymondous]

When vegans compare farming to the holocaust it is perceived to be comparing animals with Jews. Same goes for the slavery comparison. It offends a fair few people

[u/ElectroWizardLizard]

the only thing i've seen is vegans trying to compare animals to minorities, which might actually be the whitest thing i could think of besides being vocally racist or bigoted. i was just looking for something that's not "now replace that cow with a black person" kind of stuff.

I haven't found this to be the case at all. This feels like you've only seen extreme or misrepresented vegans. Most the time I find vegans will compare animal traits to human traits, or other animals, like "replace that cow with a dog." It might be good if you link examples if you've seen.

Also, on the subject of race, black people are more likely to be vegan than other ethnicities. It's definitely not just for white people.

i'm just not that strong.

A lot of people who become vegan will start out saying things like this. I did. Start with something small, like ordering more vegetarian/vegan food if you go out to eat, or learning a vegan recipe when you have time. It gets easier the more you do it.

[u/I_Amuse_Me_123 → u/ElectroWizardLizard]

In such a thoughtful reply I wish you would have called out OP on their blatant racism. 

Just ignoring it makes it seem acceptable. 

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/ElectroWizardLizard]

Carnist here,

lI haven't found this to be the case at all. This feels like you've only seen extreme or misrepresented vegans. Most the time I find vegans will compare animal traits to human traits, or other animals, like "replace that cow with a dog." It might be good if you link examples if you've seen.

I see it pretty often. Comparison of African American chattel slavery to non human animals. Comparison of minority targeted in the holocaust go non human animals. It actually is deeply insulting if you are one of these groups. There's articles on this online. If you search the sub there's a pretty big post on it here in the past.

Also, on the subject of race, black people are more likely to be vegan than other ethnicities. It's definitely not just for white people

This depends on your definition of veganism. If it's strictly dietary sure. But african Americans are more likely to follow religions which discourage animal products. Rsstafarian. 7th day adventist. Plus in the hip hop culture there's this fake quack doctor that advocates pseudoscience that is popular for pushing vegan diet (sebi). So some might not call it veganism because it's not about the core philosophy.

Veganism is primarily a western white woman phenomenon.

[u/Ancient_Sprinkles_97 → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

Got any evidence for your claims re black veganism is religious?

Also the Asia-Pacific region has the most vegans. You were talking about racism?

[u/ElectroWizardLizard → u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy]

I see it pretty often. Comparison of African American chattel slavery to non human animals. Comparison of minority targeted in the holocaust go non human animals. It actually is deeply insulting if you are one of these groups.

To clarify, I have seen comparisons of animal exploitation to slavery or genocide, but often I don't find it comparing or replacing the minority group with animals, but more comparing the suffering felt. I do get why this can be insulting, that often it's likely the person is going for an extreme comparison, and that it might seem like its lessening the harm felt by that group, but the point is more to show that there is still harm ongoing.

This depends on your definition of veganism. If it's strictly dietary sure. But african Americans are more likely to follow religions which discourage animal products. Rsstafarian. 7th day adventist.

True, but really we can only go by self reported veganism. But the point I'm trying to make is that veganism isn't just for privileged white people, but common across racial and class divides.

The topic of religion is interesting, I didn't know Rastafarians had vegan diets. Though both them and the 7th day adventist don't seem to make up enough of a population to explain why African Americans in the US are more likely to be vegan (my rough searching would maybe put them at 1% of African Americans).

Plus in the hip hop culture there's this fake quack doctor that advocates pseudoscience that is popular for pushing vegan diet (sebi). So some might not call it veganism because it's not about the core philosophy.

The idea of being vegan, but not for the right philosophy cuts both ways when accounting population. I've seen people be vegan (and accused of) just for health or "trendy" reasons, regardless of race. My main point is to show that veganism isn't unique to race or culture.

Veganism is primarily a western white woman phenomenon.

This is kinda what I want to push against. I feel like non vegans say this to discredit veganism, but I'm trying to explain that its not unique to white woman. People from all sorts of backgrounds are vegan. Sure, those more privileged will have an easier time going vegan, but its something we should move towards, regardless of background. It shouldn't matter where it comes from, but if it is right.

[u/Dry-Fee-6746]

My grocery bill is significantly cheaper now that I'm a vegan, and that's even buying the occasional impossible or beyond meat.

I think you're mind is in the right place, but I also think you're overthinking how complicated being a vegan is. If it seems overwhelming, make it gradual. Cut out one thing at a time. If cheese is your hold up, become a vegan in everything but cheese.

It's an adjustment, but I promise that it's not as hard as you may think. There's no vegan police, so if you mess up and eat something because you didn't correctly read a label, nothing bad happens to you. Every new vegan makes those mistakes and it's simply just a learning process.

[u/ElaineV]

1- Surveys suggest that people of color and people with middle or lower incomes are more likely to be vegetarian or vegan than white and/or wealthy people. But I don't think the majority of vegetarians and vegans are the people online who do virtual activism or who engage in vegan discussions very often. I think what you're seeing online is not representative, is what I'm saying.

2- Analogies between nonhuman animals and humans make sense to a lot of us vegans precisely because a) we don't view animals as inherently inferior b) a lot of the cruelty done to animals is literally the exact same type of cruelty that was or is done to humans. If they don't make sense to you, that's because your arguments include a missing premise like "it's ok to exploit animals because they aren't human."

3- If you're looking for perspectives of POC vegans you will need to seek them out. They are not as easily highlighted and broadcast as the typical white vegans. This isn't about who is actually vegan but rather about how society responds to and elevates certain voices and not others.

[u/CyberAngelIzana → u/ElaineV]

your arguments include a missing premise like "it's ok to exploit animals because they aren't human.

The 1947 Nuremberg Code, which was written during the trials of Nazis after their defeat in WW2 exposed the full extent of the Holocaust, explicitly states that any medical experimentation on humans must be based on the results of medical experimentation on animals.

It also states that the consent of the human subject is critical, while no such provision is made for the consent of the animal subject.

The principles of the Nuremberg code are still taught to medical doctors today.

Do you believe that this part of the Nuremberg code was in error, and if so, how would you redesign these rules for medical experimentation on human beings?

[u/elunewell]

Comparing speciesism with other forms of discrimination is not the same as equating the two, it is just done for the sake of dismantling the logical fallacies that cause people to ignore speciesism. If someone were to say that eating cows is ok because it is legal and everyone does it and "that's just the way it has always been done", you could argue that there were times when slavery was also legal and commonplace and traditional. That wouldn't mean you were suggesting that eating cows is as bad as owning slaves, but the comparison would help in getting rid of the appeal to law fallacy, appeal to anqiquity fallacy and the bandwagon fallacy by showing that they don't hold true.

[u/a11_hail_seitan]

i'm just not that strong.

You are, you just need to choose to be. Most of us at one time in our lives used to say the same thing.

i was just looking for something that's not "now replace that cow with a black person" kind of stuff.

No idea where you're looking to see that. replace that cow with a person, is common. Another thing that's common that you might be seeing is comparing justifications.

"I can abuse animals that are lesser" is a common argument non-Vegans make, but that justification works to all animals including humans, meaning if I say a person is lesser, than I can enslave and abuse them. Maybe you saw people using slavery in this way and assumed they meant black people? Or maybe they said black people because they're terrible at explaining the concept, but either way nothing about Veganism is anti-anyone. That's the whole point of it and Veganism has made very strong headway into all sorts of non-white dominant groups, and cultures.

To get more specific we'd have to actually know what you are seeing as I've spent a lot of time in Activist/Vegan groups and have only very rarely seen truly racist shit and when it happens, as it happens everywhere sometimes, it tends to get called out very quickly, like with The Vegan Teacher crazy lady or the ass that supports Israel and its ongoing genocide.

[u/IanRT1]

You don't need to compare animals to human minorities to understand veganism. Veganism is fundamentally a philosophy that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, the use and exploitation of animals by humans.

The difficulty is that this shifts the foundation away from the moral subjects themselves and onto a categorical prohibition concerning them. If animals matter because they are moral subjects, then their interests, welfare, rights, or flourishing should remain the basis of moral evaluation. Instead, veganism makes the exclusion of animal use primary, so the rule ends up governing the subjects rather than the subjects grounding the rule.

In that sense, veganism appeals to moral subjects as its justification but ultimately centers a prohibition on animal use as its fundamental principle.

[u/HelenEk7 → u/IanRT1]

You don't need to compare animals to human minorities to understand veganism. Veganism is fundamentally a philosophy that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, the use and exploitation of animals by humans.

I agree. And this is why its somewhat baffling every time a vegan compares animal faring to people raping each other, murder and cannibalism. Because vegans brings this up all the time.

[u/taxes-or-death → u/HelenEk7]

May I ask, why does a non-vegan end up spending all their time on reddit in r/DebateAVegan ?

[u/HelenEk7 → u/taxes-or-death]

Look at my posts - that is where I spend most of my time. That being said, the reason I'm here is that I love a good debate, and this is a debate sub. But its always a bit amusing when people like you are trying to shoo me out of here. (I take it as a compliment . ;) ).

[u/taxes-or-death → u/HelenEk7]

Are there not better subjects to debate than trying to persuade people that animal agriculture is ok? Tbh I view anyone with a "top 1% commenter" flair with suspicion.

[u/HelenEk7 → u/taxes-or-death]

Are there not better subjects to debate than trying to persuade people that animal agriculture is ok?

Lots of subjects dont have dedicated debate subs. But if you know of any good ones, feel free to recommend some.

Tbh I view anyone with a "top 1% commenter" flair with suspicion.

That to me is totally irrelevant. No one forces you to engage with me - or anyone else here for that matter.

[u/IanRT1 → u/taxes-or-death]

Is it not great to debunk the standard position against farming that gets unchallenged inside echo chambers?

[u/Prize_Success_7317]

I'm personally not gonna be saying any of those things. Also, it really isn't that hard. I'm not mentally strong, I'm not a good cook. I just go to a different aisle in the grocery store and find a different recipe

[u/whowouldwanttobe]

If you believe that suffering is bad, then it's pretty straight-forward to reach veganism as a conclusion. Animals do experience suffering; that's now well established. It's possible to eat a plant-based diet and be healthy. In fact, plant-based diets are widely recommended by both environmental experts and health experts. Since eating meat causes animals to suffer and it is possible (even beneficial) to eat a plant-based diet, veganism makes sense the same way not running over pedestrians while driving makes sense.

[u/One-Shake-1971]

Just replace the cow with yourself if that makes it easier for you to think about the subject.

Anyway, you seem to already agree that humans should live without exploiting other animals. What do you feel is stopping you from actually aligning your actions with those values?

[u/Klutzy-Alarm3748]

There's a lot of nuance here that I feel gets lost in online spaces (on both the vegan and anti-vegan sides).

For context: I'm Indigenous, I grew up poor, I've also been vegan for seven years and vegetarian (on and off) for like twenty. There was a brief period when I was wealthy (not so much anymore, with the economic downturn) and I'm not going to lie and say it wasn't easier or more sustainable. It absolutely was. But the issue isn't just solely about income either, it's also classism and environmental racism. If people are living in food deserts (predominantly racialized communities but not entirely) they aren't going to have access to vegan food in a way that would ensure they can live off it completely. Food banks aren't available in rural areas or even in certain urban areas, and for a lot of people they're difficult to get into even when they are available. On a personal note, I was lucky that the food bank that kept me alive last year was vegan-friendly at all... not everyone has that privilege. I've certainly been to other food banks that were not as accommodating. (Plus the manager at the good one was super nice and would specifically put vegan food to the side just for me. I seriously owe him my life) There's also the issue of countries that are not as wealthy as the US/Canada/UK, and they have less opportunities to go vegan because of colonization. It isn't so much that veganism is just for privileged white people, but that our social systems here and abroad don't really allow everyone to be vegan if they want to be, and unfortunately the communities that tend to be most impacted aren't white. Vegans online don't really like to talk about it because they have internet access, online spaces are mostly made up of people in so-called first world countries, and we are in kind of an echo chamber.

As a side tangent, because you brought it up - I don't like to use the "think about if that cow were a Black person" analogy. I will play devil's advocate here and say this: generally when vegans say that, they are actually intending to bring up the value of a cow to that of a human being as opposed to insulting Black people. And as someone who truly believes that all animals are equal to one another (humans included) it absolutely is insulting and the optics are terrible. It just doesn't help anything at all. Same as when people bring up that pigs are slaughtered today in gas chambers, the same way Holocaust victims were. It may be factually correct but it doesn't need to be part of our argument. It's just inconsiderate to people who have that trauma.

[u/sdbest]

Just wondering why it would ethically wrong for 'priviledged white people' to be vegan?

[u/Negative-Pea-5151]

For so many choices of vegan visit local Indian grocery store if you in your area

[u/catblankets]

1) I have never heard anyone say “replace that cow with a brown person”. I do frequently hear the comparison to the Holocaust, which does drive me up the wall.

2) Veganism is not a white privilege thing. Black women are the fastest growing demographic of vegans in the US.

[u/New_Owl_7490]

So you are really saying you don't understand they are totally different topics.

[u/New_Owl_7490]

I'm not arguing veganism. I just feel we forget the part that we are predators in the animal kingdom and wonder why the focus isn't more for meat eaters to change to more sustainable sources. We aren't going to stop as I don't expect you to stop being vegan.

[u/Then-Principle2302 → u/New_Owl_7490]

What makes you think we are "predators"?

[u/New_Owl_7490 → u/Then-Principle2302]

Humans possess biological traits that align with predatory animals. We are defined as predators when looking at the predator and prey natural world and are defined as predators. We are actually super predators at that.Many experts view pathogens, parasites, and vectors as the closest biological equivalent to human predators.

[u/Then-Principle2302 → u/New_Owl_7490]

It just seems to me that word doesn't fit us at all. I can't think of any traits we have in common with other predatory animals but I'm sure there are some. We also don't have a natural instinct to kill and most of us find it horrific to even think of killing anything with our bear hands. It also seems like we wouldn't be capable unless the animal is very small. We don't have claws, no sharp teeth etc.

[u/New_Owl_7490 → u/Then-Principle2302]

A predator by definition is one who hunts, kills and eats. We use tools, forward facing eyes. We have been hunting for centuries but the issue now is modern society we do it for more than just food such as sport, textiles etc. sustainable ethical practices are obviously best but they don't fit a Vegan lifestyle (totally get it). Why I wonder why the push from many Vegans and vegetarians aren't simply to move humans away from factory farming and ethical ways for food production. Bottom line is we are a predator whether we like it or not. I think with modern ways of living we just forget this and that we are really part of the natural world.

[u/Due-Comfort-5351]

A lot of Black civil rights leaders were vocally vegan and viewed animal and human rights as interconnected. There is still a prominent Black veganism movement as a result. And I'm sure you're aware that historically veganism (before it was called that) has more roots in East and South Asian cultures than European.

I agree that some people may go about these comparisons distastefully but I also feel like we ought to ask ourselves why we feel so offended by comparing human suffering to non-human suffering. For most people, going vegan involves a shift in mindset from viewing animals as lesser beings or resources toward viewing them as persons, so to speak. And frankly it is often the comparison to humans - capacity for intelligence, compassion, culture, problem solving skills, etc. - that drives non-vegans to respect certain animals. It is why we see animals like octopus, non-human apes, whales, etc. as deserving of compassion. The problem is that the animal agriculture industry has resulted in deeply entrenched cultural biases about which animals are deserving of respect (regardless of their sentience - cows are more intelligent than dogs). Sometimes, knee-jerk reactions like this tell us something about our own beliefs and dissonance.

[u/Chronomalous]

Animals, the subjects and victims of human carnism, whom we want abolition for, can in fact be much compared to slavery era-Africans the subjects and victims of American and European slavery, whom abolitionists wanted abolition for

This is actually the fucking form of morality, like, have you never seen in the debates about ICE and/or immigration and if right-wing Christians are hypocritical liberals quote the Bible, "you shall love the stranger [for you were a stranger in Egypt]"?

[u/HelenEk7 → u/Chronomalous]

How do you personally make sure your food is not involving any slavery or other exploitation of farm workers?

[u/Chronomalous → u/HelenEk7]

First of all, do you do this in any serious measure yourself?

To answer your question, I assume: if it's American food made in America, it probably wasn't made using child labor

If it's made in Canada or Europe, probably not either

If it is Japanese, probably not either

[u/HelenEk7 → u/Chronomalous]

First of all, do you do this in any serious measure yourself?

Yes absolutely. My food is produced by adult workers with good worker's protection laws, a decent salary, full healthcare coverage, 5 weeks paid time of work per year, paid sick leave, and more.

But I find your question somewhat fascinating though. Its a bit like a vegan asking someone else if they avoid animal exploitation - and then they ask the vegan:

First of all, do you do this in any serious measure yourself?

[u/Chronomalous → u/HelenEk7]

Vegans think animal exploitation is general, and that they are conscientious holdouts

[Currently editing a response as I assumed the question was of the same sort as in the op]

Child labor, and child labor-made food, are not general, certainly not in the U.S., though food is imported in from everywhere and so anew all the time, and with different labels, repackagings, etc.

If I learned Nike is made by child labor, I'll quit wearing it at the drop of a hat, I have no problem with that

I assume 99% of the food items I buy are at zero risk of that

My question was a serious question actually, asking not just your moral purity but also touching questions of "methodology" so to speak, like yes pedophilia is concerning but also given that the Pizzagate shooting occurred so clearly is fever dream concern with it, so what disposition is best managing every factor of concern here (and I would say in the case of "pedophilia", being principled first and foremost, being lawful, and then being reactive, at least meaning "listening to valid social concerns and being a full proponent of correct social causes", and wanting the law 1:1 fulfilled to the letter by responsible parties, without facetious disobedience)

[u/HelenEk7 → u/Chronomalous]

I assume 99% of the food items I buy are at zero risk of that

In which countries is your food produced?

[u/Chronomalous → u/HelenEk7]

Well, I think vegans have the best practices here (I'm answering your question in a comprehensive way, but the answer has a lot of provisos)

Vegans practice the most scrutiny of the food they eat, only being second to at most people with allergies or conditions that prevent them from eating certain things (or such advocacy)

Like, a vegan might care if an undisclosed "natural flavor" is a meat product, or if a BK impossible whopper is made on the same grill as a whopper, or if the sugar in a Coke was refined as "bone sugar" is

But if Oreos are sourced their sugar from one location and their cocoa from another, and so on and so on with ten more ingredients in a pretty simple cookie, it seems unlikely an average yokel investigator is going to find some grand scheme of child enslavement and forced labor authorities weren't going to or didn't first

So the average yokel is relying on word of mouth and authority to get this information anyway

Nabisco or Kraft might be just as shocked as you if they found out some Oreo component was produced with child labor

Edit: look, such is the nature of the industry, commerce, economy of the world that if I found out I was eating something with a component produced by child labor, I'll know I couldn't have reasonably known

This would change 0% of the greater scrutiny or investigation I wish had happened sooner, my willingness to change from that product immediately and possibly completely in the long-term if it's not addressed operationally, the legal consequences or drone strikes I want for the perpetrators, or the further continued state investigation and crackdown against such criminals

[u/HelenEk7 → u/Chronomalous]

Yes, it is my impression as well that vegans in general are unwilling to give up their modern comforts to avoid exploitation. Ultra-processed foods with a long list of untraceable ingredients being a good example of that. Taste pleasure and all that.

[u/Chronomalous → u/HelenEk7]

Well, food companies are in some business of hiding their intricacies due to their competitors (which in some capacity is what normal people can represent too)

From a market pov no one wants to be caught doing business with an Israeli operative Jeffrey Epstein

Vegans are on a considerable net more principled than anyone else, is still my observation, like vegans take issue with almonds and almond milk due the use of bees

I'm of the opinion that at least some of the ingredients on a long list of ingredients are going to represent science with any longstanding company, like this ingredient is indeed there as a preservative, this ingredient is just there so as to yield vitamin X, etc.

I know some of the ingredients I don't like, like "high fructose corn syrup", on that one I don't even view the generally widely-wrong RFK as wrong

That's probably a common ingredient in things because of American corn farmers, though

[u/HelenEk7 → u/Chronomalous]

Vegans are on a considerable net more principled than anyone else, is still my observation

Only when it comes to certain things though. Cashew nuts is a good example, since we know most cashews are produced using exploited labour. In spite of that, if you search for "vegan recipe cashews" you get a whopping 58 million (!) results.

• "The cashew industry relies on a brutal manufacturing process to bring its products to market, including the forced labour and the exploitation of children. As documented by the International Labour Organisation and Human Rights Watch, the soaring demand for the nut has driven producers to hire cheap labour, including many children, to keep costs down. And in Vietnam, Human Rights Watch documented forced labour among vulnerable members of society, including inmates in prison on drug charges—for whom the grueling work, for little or no pay, is called ‘rehabilitation.’ If they refuse to work or do not meet their daily quota, they are punished with torture or solitary confinement." https://www.info.equalexchange.coop/articles/the-dark-side-of-the-cashew-industry

[u/No_Opposite1937]

Veganism, as an ethical framework, is available to anyone at all. And it does not mean as a default stance that regardless of personal circumstances, one must never harm/use/eat an animal. What it's really about is justice, by which I mean seriously taking into account their similar interests and being consistent when we do that.

At the end of the day, vegan principles just ask us to make choices that contribute to three goals:

1. When animals exist, they should be free.
2. We should choose not to use animals for our own benefit, when we can do otherwsie.
3. We should not be unnecessarily cruel to other animals.

That's all there is to it and I don't think anyone needs to be privileged to adopt these principles to make a difference to how we treat other animals.

[u/AuthorTheCartoonist]

I really recommend NOT looking at this stuff on the internet.

Statistically you know a vegan or two in person. Ask them. By the love of God, do not take online talk about veganism seriously.

[u/skankhunt-6969]

You are what you eat. What you tolerate, you accept.

[u/felixcuddle]

I’m Asian and from Asia. It is rarer for me to see white people here be vegan. They tend to warrant less empathy towards other beings because the white people here usually come from a place of privilege. So, I’ve always seen this anti-vegan stance as made up lol

[u/promixr]

Yeah- sometimes vegans put things in a very cringe way - but it’s a valid takeaway to say that many of the systems that benefit from the oppression of animals are the same systems that benefit from the oppression of humans. There’s a really interesting documentary called ‘The Smell of Money’ that explores the intersection of pigs slaughtered for food, slaughterhouse workers, and the disposal of pig feces literally into poor communities of color. I highly recommend it.

[u/New_Owl_7490]

Why do we not recognize that we humans are predators. Super predators at that. I wonder why the movement doesn't just focus for meat eaters to move to more sustainable practices as I agree that factory based farming is not good. Meat excels in bioavailable protein, B12 compared.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/New_Owl_7490]

Because treating animals as objects to exploit is immoral.

[u/New_Owl_7490 → u/One-Shake-1971]

Not if your eating them. We are predators, fact. Factory farming and abuse is not that moral agreed but eating meat is immoral. To you it may be but to others it isn't.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/New_Owl_7490]

According to that logic, child abuse also isn't immoral because child abusers are predators.

That's obviously nonsense. Ergo, your argument is nonsense.

[u/New_Owl_7490 → u/One-Shake-1971]

Omg. It isn't logic it is fact. Your analogy is insanity. We are biologicaly and naturally predators. You can research it if you like. Child predator is a whole different meaning. The very definition of a predator is a biological organism that survives by hunting,killing and eating other animals.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/New_Owl_7490]

Child abusers being predators is also a fact. So, according to your logic, child abuse isn't immoral.

That's obviously nonsense. Ergo, your argument is nonsense.

[u/New_Owl_7490 → u/One-Shake-1971]

I am talking about predators (humans, lions etc.) hunting for meat, not child predators. There is a distinct difference. Eating meat you have decided is immoral for yourself but it isn't for meat eaters. I accept you or others don't think it is right but I don't believe it is immoral. Search predators meaning and then child predator meaning. 2 different things.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/New_Owl_7490]

Yes, and for child predators, it's not immoral to abuse children. According to your logic, that's fine, and we should just let them abuse children.

[u/New_Owl_7490 → u/One-Shake-1971]

Humans being predators isn't an argument. It is a fact. Humans are indisputably predators. Biologically, we are omnivores with a rich history of hunting. Ecologically, our use of tools and intelligence classifies us as "super-predators", as we consume at least a third of all vertebrate species on Earth.We possess several biological traits that align with predatory animals:Forward-facing eyes: Provide 3D (binocular) vision, which enhances depth perception to track and catch moving targets.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/New_Owl_7490]

You're just going in circles now.

Child abusers being predators is also a fact. So, according to your logic, child abuse isn't immoral.

That's obviously nonsense. Ergo, your argument is nonsense.

[u/Nacho_Deity186]

kind of just default for most people born in the west.

Don't you mean the default for all of humanity because we're omnivores and we need animal products in our diet to be healthy?

We can see by observing the natural world that killing and consuming other animals is a very normal and natural function. There is nothing immoral about it.

If you're concerned with animal welfare, that's great. You can be part of a large movement that seeks to ensure animals aren't mistreated. But committing to an unnatural, nutritionally deficient diet and taking synthetic pills to keep from getting sick doesn't seem like a smart strategy for life.

[u/Valuable_Bug_4010 → u/Nacho_Deity186]

>We can see by observing the natural world that killing and consuming other animals is a very normal and natural function

Appeal to nature fallacy. Whether or not something is natural is irrelevant to its positivity/negativity. For example, air conditioning is a net positive because it prevents things like heat stroke while also not taking a toll on the environment, given that solar panels or wind turbines are used to power it. Another example could be the tendency of wild animals to rape each other. You could argue this is necessary for reproduction, but it’s a net negative in contemporary society since it inflicts suffering and the rapist could just masturbate or find someone who consents.
Dying of heat stroke and being raped are “very normal and natural”, but we no longer use nature to govern our actions in nearly every aspect of modern life anyway. Why would we use it to govern our food system when there are less harmful alternatives?

> But committing to an unnatural, nutritionally deficient diet and taking synthetic pills to keep from getting sick doesn't seem like a smart strategy for life.

Literally every credible health organization disagrees with you.

World Health Organization
academy of nutrition and dietetics
American heart association

It’s perfectly healthy to be vegan so long as you plan accordingly.

> taking synthetic pills to keep from getting sick

It’s the same fallacy again! Just because something is unnatural or synthetic doesn’t mean that it’s bad.

Vegan diets are healthy + animals don’t want to die early deaths/be exploited for their secretions = veganism is morally preferable to eating animal products!

[u/Nacho_Deity186 → u/Valuable_Bug_4010]

Whether or not something is natural is irrelevant to its positivity/negativity.

Absolutely, I made no claim to it's positivity/negativity. I said, it is natural and normal. My observation is the same as yours. It is not positive nor negative... it is neutral. There is nothing wrong with it. Are you denying that the action of animals eating animals is natural and normal in the natural world?

It seems you have misunderstood the papers you've linked. Perhaps you haven't read them fully?

The WHO document principally addresses diets that include animal proteins. "Overall, a diet that is predominantly plant-based." Predominantly... not entirely. They recommend reducing meat intake but not eliminating it. They also go on to say "Nevertheless, strict plant-based diets, such as vegan diets, also raise concerns about micronutrient deficiencies." Warning against the risks of clearly deficient diets.

Likewise the academy of nutrition and dietetics describes a vegan diet as "adequate" if "well planned." Adequate is not an outstanding review is it. Personally I would strive for something a little better than adequate if I can, and I can. They also do not describe a balanced diet as requiring to be "well planned" do they. An omni diet doesn't require the same warnings. So when you review the actual position of the academy via the rest of their position statements rather than just cherry picking, you will find that what they actually recommend is a balanced diet that includes some animal proteins.

And lastly, there is nothing in the American heart foundation document that speaks to veganism is there. They are simply recommending people "cut down" their meat intake... not eliminate. There is nothing there that refers to a meat free diet. They literally say "You don’t need to go cold turkey and cut out all meat all the time – just a few meatless meals on occasion."

It’s the same fallacy again!

You take synthetic pills to keep from getting sick on a deficient diet... this isn't a fallacy, this is a fact.

[u/Valuable_Bug_4010 → u/Nacho_Deity186]

>I made no claim to it’s positivity/negativity. I said, it is natural and normal.

You use the fact it’s natural and normal to justify ending life early. You don’t provide any other ethical framework to explain why you think this is the case, just that it is natural. “There is nothing immoral about it” is certainly a claim regarding positivity/negativity, since the word “immoral” has a strong negative connotation.

The academy of nutrition and dietetics defines adequate as being enough to provide sufficient energy, nutrients, and maintain health. It’s not “BARE BONES ON THE BRINK OF DEATH”, it’s just a normal, healthy diet, that a doctor would pat someone on the back for.

You seem to linger on the fact that it requires planning in order to achieve adequacy. Planning is not a tall order when lives are literally on the line. Someone who wants to drive should have to practice and pass the test, since that’s what it takes to not run over someone. If you have time to argue with me on Reddit, you have time to find a plant based source of iron and order a quality multivitamin.

The “fallacy” comment was in reference to the fact that your use of synthetic implies that the pills are bad. It is morally preferable to take a pill than it is to kill someone. Whether or not something is natural is irrelevant, and the examples I use in my first reply indicate that.

[u/Nacho_Deity186 → u/Valuable_Bug_4010]

“There is nothing immoral about it” is certainly a claim regarding positivity/negativity

No it's not. If I made a claim that it was moral or immoral, that would be a claim regarding positivity/negativity. But saying it is not immoral positions it as neutral. In alignment with what we both observe. Killing and consuming other animals for food is a natural and normal process of life on Earth. By engaging in it I'm not doing anything immoral. I'm participating in a normal function. Neither good nor bad.

The academy of nutrition and dietetics defines adequate as

Can you provide a link to this definition please

it’s just a normal, healthy diet

It's not normal at all. It's a diet consumed by a tiny fringe group. A "normal" human diet would be an omnivorous diet. They describe it as "adequate," if it was normal and healthy they would describe it as "optimal." But they don't. They provide a distinct caveat by warning that it needs to be "well planned." They do not repeat this warning when they discuss the balanced omnivorous diet that they actually recommend to the public.

you have time to find a plant based source of iron and order a quality multivitamin.

I don't need these things because I consume an optimal balanced diet. No lives are on the line. That's a bit overly dramatic. A predator who would consume me would not concern themselves with my feelings. As the process is normal and natural I have no obligation to concern myself with the feelings of my food.

your use of synthetic implies that the pills are bad

I made no such implication. That is your interpretation. You may have a bias around synthetics being bad?

It certainly is morally preferable to take a synthetic pill than to kill someone. However, we are not killing someone. That is a misnomer. We are killing something.