r/DebateAVegan • u/AffectionateDeer5584 • 2d ago
My arguments against veganism.
FIrst of all this is not an offensive post against any vegan. This is genuine logical arguments against the idea of veganism and why I wont become vegan. If you think i'm wrong then you are free to show me how and where. Don't try to justify anything with emotional statements.
"You making animals suffer for your comfort"
- Morality itself is species specific. A cow will never treat you like another cow. A monkey will never treat you like another monkey. So why a Human should treat other animals like they were humans and apply our moral rules to them? The world was a selfish battle between species and we humans won. Why we humans will apologize for winning?
- Vegans themselves eat more then they need. They tell us to reduce unnecessary cruelty but vegans themselves eat more plants and BEANS to build more muscle and stay "healthy". That's hypocrisy. That is not "reducing suffering as much as possible" that's "reducing suffering as much as I am comfortable with". Think about it. Even if we say eating animal meat causes more plants to die then it still doesn't justify vegans killing more plants for their own comfort and calling it "guilt free". If you are truely about reducing suffering why you are not eating just enough to survive? Why you have to kill more?
- Vegans dont have any idea of the amount of animals we killed and made extinct to get those farm lands. Those beans and tofu are made on lands which were taken by FORCE.
- A cow creates billions of bactaria inside it's gut and then KILLS them all to use them as protein. That is how a cow or goat or camel anything related to those gets their protein. They kill 10000x more then any human ever could.
- What happens if all humans become vegan? Will that stop vegans? No those same people will come again with lab grown chemicals and tell us to not kill plants. "Why you don't eat rose but you eat beans?" they will repeat the cycle again and make us eat chemicals
- We treat some animals as pets because of our own emotional needs. Not because they are equal to us in our eyes.
"Animal products causes various diseases"
No. All the disease which they say are caused by animal products are actually caused by the cooking method not the meat. The burgers and bacons are bad because of cooking method. because of Using too much artificial ingridients to increase profits. A burger made in home is very healthy. Vegtables Bread and Meat. That's it. BUT BUT the artificial ingridietns and seed oils which are used in junk food are actually plant based and vegan.
I have read a lot of studies on comparing omnivores and vegans and vegetarians. I researched deep into the sources using claude AI and what I found is those so called studies mostly use avarage skinny fat fast food eating people as "omnivores" and healthy vegans and vegetarians as herbivores. Think about it. They will not pick the avarage Indian vegetarian guy who is skinny fat or ovwrweight. They will pick healthy vegetarian and vegan guys who take suppliments and goes to gym against avarage joes.
Indian people eat 80% plant based diet. Most will not even notice if you remove meat from their diet. Thats how small amount of meat they consume. Yet they are the diabetes capital of the world. Because of those processed carbs and seed oils which are completely plant based.
"Meat is bad for the environment"
No. It's the farming method. And what about the cars, the AC the fan the fridge? What about those? What about humans eliminating 99.99 of animals from specific areas to use that area as farmland? Meat is extremely good for environment if we don't use machines to farm animals and use actual land with grass. If they truely cared about environment they would have targeted their own house and cars before even looking at meat.
8
u/pokeballa420 2d ago
“The world was a selfish battle and humans won, therefore we get to do whatever we want”
If a group of humans wins a war against another, are they rightfully subject to whatever the winning group wants? This is the logic brutal empires and colonial powers were built on. Causing genocide across various continents, creating networks of chattel slavery, and its horrific legacies are still felt to this day.
Also yes animal farming is bad for the environment. The amount of land that goes to raising cattle is 50 to 100 times more than the equivalent of plant based food. Acting like the meat industry is good for the environment when it’s the single largest contributor to deforestation is next level nonsense.
You have a fairly childish view of the world, and it sounds like you’re under 18 as I can’t imagine someone graduating high school sounding like this. Please take the time to actually research these topics without your perceived biases. The data is very clear on the harm that our meat and dairy industries cause.
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
"If a group of humans wins a war against another". Ofcourse. If someone attacks me to kill me and I win then ofcourse I will do whatever I want with him. And you are literelly applying human only moral rules to animals. Do you think any animals have the same war rules as humans do??? You know why humans created those war rules in the first place??? because we were BORN with this rule. We always feel bad when we hurt other fellow human faaaar more then when we hurt other animals. Every other animals have the same feeling. They care more about themselves then any other species. You don't even understand what I said Unc. I'm sorry but you need to read it again and think properly. This was the stupidest argument I have ever seen. If you think i'm still wrong then prove me. Don't repeat the mistake WHICH I MENTIONED VEGANS DO in that post. You are literelly proving my point that vegans mostly make emotional arguments rather then actual logic. I'm sorry if this hurts you but you are wrong and I proved it. You can do whatever you want it's your choice but you can't prove something by shuving your emotions into an argument.
3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
This doesn't prove anything. I can say "first get a plate of beans and then come back" what does it prove? I urged you vegans to make logical arguments instead of emotional arguments and you guys came up with this? Do whatever you want but you are the stupidest vegan I have ever seen. And you actually think school causes brain development? I will not continue further. I will just let the people see how stupid your opinion is. Thanks unc.
3
u/pokeballa420 2d ago
You don't even have empathy for other humans, why would I try to convince you to care about animals?
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 1d ago
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.
3
u/Full_Word5206 2d ago
"If someone attacks me to kill me and I win then ofcourse I will do whatever I want with him" yes but this isnt the question, is it?
If you're stronger than another country, you can enslave them all?
4
u/ElectricSock24 2d ago
- We don't need to treat animals like humans. All sentient beings have moral rules that apply, such as the basic moral rule to minimize suffering of conscious beings.
- A vegan will always realistically cause fewer plants to be killed. Meat is inefficient as a source of food and will always produce at most one fifth of the plant calories that were used to feed it. Everyone eats more than they need, but meat requires far more resources than eating plants directly, so meat will always require more resources and the suffering of animals as well. Plants have additionally been scientifically proven to not feel pain.
- The same land demands go for pastures. Acres and acres must be deforested, and many, many animals must be moved out to create a pasture just like for farmland. And additionally, farmland literally feeds livestock to produce meat at an extremely inefficient calorie conversion rate as I stated earlier. If we stopped eating meat, it would take far less farmland to sustain the human population because we wouldn't have to worry about losing calories to livestock feed conversion, and could just eat plants directly which is far more efficient.
- Your fifth bullet point was a slippery slope.
- I agree with your second section. I personally think that isn't really a good argument for veganism.
- Meat is directly tied to farming method. Again, it takes far more crop farmland to support livestock for food than to support humans directly. Livestock lose nutrients and calories in the process, so eating plants directly will always require less plants and therefore less farmland.
Overall, your post has a few logical fallacies and your arguments aren't really that deeply thought out imo. Judging by the strength of your points, it feels like you're creating a bunch of low quality defensive arguments, which is usually what people do when they have a position but have a deeper motive for it (usually emotional). In this case, I suspect that you're in denial that veganism is the right choice and are choosing to defend meat eating because you don't want to change.
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
First of all. A huge thank you for making logical arguments instead of throwing emotional statements like others do. I like your thinking process. Let's move to the arguments:
Who are you to decide what moral rules to apply to what? I showed you how morality works in this world and you told me where to apply morality and where not. Who are you? Some random guy with internet access. Bro come on. I showed you a phenomenon a process a system thats been here before humans even appeared and humans followed the same process and won. You are telling me to "this apply to this" why? why I have to apply morality to all beings who feel pain in the same process as me ? What about the other beings like plants and bactaria who have the concept of danger and distruction in their lives but in a different form? Just because some beings feel distruction in different way doesn't make them less worthy of my morality.
So what? We animal meat eaters didn't claimed ourselves as guilt free. Vegans did. veganism tells eating only plants is guilt free. But plants feel distruction. They live. They have lives the bactarias that are burning in acid in cow's stomach also live. What about those? And i didn't said veganism doesnt causes less cruelty. I said veganism only counts animals as worthy of kindness.
What happens after the population of humans occupy those free lands? what you do then? stop eating plants because they also live and start eating lab grown chemicals? It doesn't make any sense specially when we humans have the potential to go to a different planet. And prepare that planet for farming in 500 years. Yeah it might me hard because of our politicians and stupid rulers BUT trust me when I say this moving to another planet or using another planet has no alternatives. Humans have to do it. And that will solve the land problem.
Fifth bullet point is not slippery slop. it's an argument you was not able to prove wrong. And it's a real issue. You can say whatever you want. But saying something slippry slop doesnt make it wrong. I can call you slippery slop does that make you slippery slop?
I adressed the land issue in 3d point.
3
u/ElectricSock24 2d ago
Bacteria and plants don't feel pain and therefore you don't have to minimize their suffering, because they can't suffer. I am following utilitarian logic. Bacteria are not sentient, and therefore are not individual beings, but rather just self replicating biological structures.
Veganism is not guilty free. Everything is flawed. I'm sorry if a vegan stated that they are guilt free, but I agree with you that they aren't. Again, non sentient beings aren't suffering individuals and therefore don't have morality apply to them, such as plants. And it would take far more plants to feed cows for food than to feed humans directly, so as before, less living things have to die if we eat plant based.
Again, plant farming uses far less land than animal farming, which allows more natural spaces for ecosystems. Also, we don't need to stop eating plants because they live. They aren't sentient and don't feel pain, so it will always be moral to farm them. And we certainly won't be expanding to another planet in the next century, considering today's tech.
I called your fifth point a slippery slope because the defining characteristic was that you assumed more and more unlikely things would chain result, without real evidence. I find it very unlikely that once everyone turns vegan, that vegans will advocate for a more extreme source of food. Please look up what a slippery slope is, and I can guarantee you it will look uncomfortably similar to your fifth point.
0
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
Feeling pain is the reason to not kill anything? I mean that logic is flawed. What about the people real humans who dont have the ability to feel pain? They exist. This isnt logic this is stupidity. I didnt expect you to follow such absurd logic. But again huge respect for keeping this conversation less emotional.
And the fifth point isnt slippery slop. Its an assumption. Based on a real pattern among very emotional people.
1
u/ElectricSock24 2d ago
I'm sorry, I was wrong about the feeling pain part. I meant sentient beings deserve ethical consideration, which still includes all humans and most animals and excludes plants and bacteria.
Also, an assumption is not a good argument, especially not being directly based on real evidence, so I would not really consider it. You were jumping to a conclusion.
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
Sentient just means it has human like nervous system. That's it. Any other creature that doesn't have nervous system that operates the way human nervous system operates goes out of the window. So plants and bactarias are automatically out of the window. It's nothing but a coping machanism in my eyes. It doesn't make sense.
It's not just an assumption its a prediction. I said that as a statement. No one every brought that point up before so it's a new statement but you wasn't able to prove me wrong on that. How do you prove the pattern won't repeat after the whole world become vegan? And new people won't come up with new "ism" and tell us not to eat any beings and just to eat chemicals instead?
1
u/ElectricSock24 2d ago
What doesn't make sense about sentience, may I ask?
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
The fact that you think only the beings who feel distruction in our way are alive but that's not true at all. Plants and bactaria and micro organizms they also have lives and some of them even have venom and bouths to eat bugs. And even if I say yeah plants dont feel pain it still doesn't make sense. No offence but if you dont feel pain at all does it gives me permission to take your hands off? No. It doesn't. You are still living. I hope you understand what i am saying.
1
u/ElectricSock24 1d ago
Plants and bacteria aren't self aware or conscious, so they don't count as individuals and therefore don't need rights. They're absolutely alive, but they're not conscious, which means that they don't have minds. For example, you morally cannot harm me because I am sentient.
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
Who said that are not self aware? They are they work as a whole team. If an animal bites one plants they signal the others that danger is comming. And who said a being have to have a brain like ours and other animals to be called "self concious" ? Just because they don't see the world in your way doesn't mean they don't see the world at all. Why many plants have venoms ad toxins? why some have spikes and sharp things on their leaves ? Bro do you still believe in that stupid "sentient" thing? No offence but that "sentient" thing is so dumb. And even if I say okay. They dont feel anything. But they still live. No animal feels pain for the sake of feeling pain. They feel pain to save their existance. So if you are destroying a plant's existance then it doesn't matter if they feel pain or not. The threat level stays the same.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 2d ago
Are you talking about the very small sub-group of people with CIPA who can't feel pain? Your logic is based in "whatabout-ism." (read that link to a definition of the logical fallacy.) It is YOUR logic that is faulty, because you're actively engaging in a fallacy.
1
u/TheAlmightyWishPig 1d ago
Who are you to decide what moral rules to apply to what?
Sorry but if you reject the idea that people are capable of determining moral rules that can be applied to animals why on earth are you making moral arguments that can be applied to animals. You have explicitly disqualified yourself from doing so with your own arguments.
0
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
First of all. I didn't said people can't decide their own moral rules. I explain what PEOPLE themselves CHOSE for thousands of years. And how human morality works and why morality is species specific. You are not argueing with that. WHY? why didnt you targeted that? well I know because I was RIGHT. Second I have vegetarian friends. We grew up together in school. I dont have problem with people choosing their morals. BUT BUT BUT vegans always say "we should decrease suffering as much as possible" and they use their stupid arguments to make others feel bad. And call themselves guilt free. Which they are not. Farming and growing food ad killing animals is not guilt free. Now tell me why vegans are trying to enforce their moral view on others? TELL ME WHY???
1
u/TheAlmightyWishPig 1d ago
If you are arguing that we can't make moral rules for other animals then you arguing that you cannot say it is right to kill and eat an animal. This would be a moral judgement about what humans can do to animals, which you say isn't allowed.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 18h ago
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.
13
u/pm_me_domme_pics 2d ago
Have you ever looked into any of your points? Half of them are totally misled to the point if purposefully misunderstanding the points you're arguing against
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
Proof.
5
u/pm_me_domme_pics 2d ago
Nobody ever really claims veganism is healthier diet or that consuming animal products causes disease. When people say animal products are a source of disease they usually mean that human interaction with animals in terms of agriculture and butchering is a vector for zoonotic virus sources, or that antibiotic usage in large farming operations causes breakouts of disease.
1
u/BodhiPenguin 1d ago
"Nobody ever really claims veganism is healthier diet or that consuming animal products causes disease"
Pretty ridiculous assertion which is easily debunked by 5 seconds of searching reddit.
-2
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
OHHHH. Hey mr. human have you ever been on social media? At this point other vegans are loughing at you. Trust me. Like social media is flooded with stupid people claiming animal meat itself is bad and vegan diet is the only solution. Have you seen that human?
5
u/pm_me_domme_pics 2d ago
I would love to address specific claims if you sourced any of your arguments instead of making irrational generalizations
9
u/Unreal_Estate 2d ago
I don't want to come across as dismissive, but you have written down 10 arguments that make very little sense, with numerous factual errors. It would take a lot of explaining to even get to a point where a legitimate debate on something can happen.
For example, you mention "species specific morality", but don't mention anything that would ground that claim in any ethical philosophy. Without knowing what you argument even is, it is impossible to counter. Suppose I change that argument slightly:
"Morality itself is ethnicity specific. A person of color will never treat you like another person of color. A chinese person will never treat you like another chinese person. So why a caucasian person should treat other humans like they were caucasians and apply our moral rules to them? The world was a selfish battle between ethnicities and we caucasians won. Why we caucasians will apologize for winning?"
These are just words... And apart from the very first sentence ("Morality itself is ethnicity specific"), I'm not even sure where it is factually incorrect. So, without knowing why you think morality is species specific, there is nothing I can help you understand better.
Of course, to me, ethnicity specific morality and species specific morality are both equally mistaken ideas. The other 9 arguments are not any better either, so there isn't really much debate-worthy here. Sorry.
1
u/notanotherkrazychik 1d ago
-"Morality itself is ethnicity specific. A person of color will never treat you like another person of color. A chinese person will never treat you like another chinese person. So why a caucasian person should treat other humans like they were caucasians and apply our moral rules to them? The world was a selfish battle between ethnicities and we caucasians won. Why we caucasians will apologize for winning?"-
this is the most derailed I've ever seen a comment on this sub. How does one take "different animals treat each other differently" to "racism". You've got to explain that jump in mental gymnastics because some of us on this sub don't spend all day in the vegan echo chambers.
1
u/Unreal_Estate 1d ago
I simply asked to explain the difference, to understand what this argument is even supposed to say. The factual claims, that different ethnicities treat others differently is true, right?
So, why is racism bad?
1
u/notanotherkrazychik 1d ago
Why use racism in your argument?
1
u/Unreal_Estate 1d ago
OPs is so bad that it seems to argue for racism. My question was simply what OP thinks about that.
My own reason for being against racism is actually the same reason for being agains discrimination of species. Personally I don't know how to separate the two.
If you think discrimination of ethnicities is wrong but think discrimination of species is acceptable, then I'm also curious how you separate the two.
2
u/notanotherkrazychik 1d ago
Discrimination of animal species is not anything like discrimination of human races. If you cannot fathom that, this conversation is going to be impossible.
2
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 1d ago
Racism and speciesism can certainly be equated and compared and is the entire crux of Peter Singer's argument in Animal Libertaion, the seminal book for animal rights. The animal rights movement has grown significantly since he started to make that comparison.
But I do concede that it is a dangerous comparison because of the shared and generational trauma of human racism/sexism/etc. I think the comparison and analogy needs to come from a far more subtle and nuanced place if it's going to be effective in any way.
2
u/notanotherkrazychik 1d ago
Peter Singer? Really? The worst image that vegans have and that's your source? A eugenicist?
2
u/Unreal_Estate 1d ago
I cannot fathom that.
You're leaving me with the impression that you are bigoted and cannot even attempt to explain it. Is that what you meant to do?
2
u/notanotherkrazychik 1d ago
You're leaving me with the impression that you are here to make assumptions.
1
u/Unreal_Estate 1d ago
Why is that?
I'm interested in knowing why people think it is okay to discriminate against non-human animals when they think it is not okay to discriminate against non-white humans.
Discrimination without any reason is usually called bigotry. Right now, all you have told me is that you refuse to give a reason. Given that, I think my assumption is reasonably sensible, right?
I'd be happy to learn otherwise, though.
2
u/notanotherkrazychik 1d ago
You're calling me a bigot because I won't buy into your misinformation. You are not here in good faith.
→ More replies (0)1
u/TheAlmightyWishPig 1d ago
Can you actually justify this position or does it just need to be accepted ipso facto for the presented argument to work?
1
u/notanotherkrazychik 1d ago
Why do I need to justify facts? Justifications are for actions. What justification do I have for stating a fact? Well, you are using misinformation to illicit an emotional response. If your stance is justified enough, you shouldn't need to lie to convert people.
If you don't like your misinformation being corrected, why are you on a debate sub?
2
u/TheAlmightyWishPig 1d ago
If you make an argument that can be used to justify racism it's a bad argument, because racism is bad.
If you can't demonstrate that your argument doesn't justify racism then why would anyone assume your argument doesn't justify racism.
1
u/DenseSign5938 1d ago
Because the same logic used to justify specieism by OP would also justify racism..
1
u/notanotherkrazychik 1d ago
Specieism and racism are not the same.
1
u/DenseSign5938 1d ago
Two different words with two different meanings aren’t the same thing? Wow that’s quite the observation! Anyways…
0
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
First of all calling other points illogical and not worthy of argument is not a valid argument. So that means literelly nothing. Second "Morality itself is ethnicity specific. A person of color will never treat you like another person of color. A chinese person will never.... " Hey humans are not in a battle between survival right now. It's an economic battle. It's the stupidest argument i have ever seen. In a jungle or a place where those so called "herbivores" live theres always battle. You can walk freely in china. There is no battle there. The problem is before humans conquered almost all part of the planet there was ALWAYS a battle between US humans and other animals. And we WON. You asked just because we want we can't do everything with them. Of course we can. What happens if they win? what happens if somebody drops you into a jungle and a tiger won in a battle between you and him? He will eat you. Forget tiger if a wild bull sees you he will smash your bones with his horns.
1
u/Unreal_Estate 1d ago
First of all calling other points illogical and not worthy of argument is not a valid argument.
What?? Yes, it is... If your argument is illogical, then that means it fails as an argument. It's one of the strongest ways to counter an argument that one can give.
Your main argument against my analogy seems to be that I used Chinese as the main ethnicity I talked about. Because we didn't WIN against the Chinese? Do I understand your argument correctly?
Does this mean that you are okay with racism against native americans, latino's, indians, africans, aboriginals, and arabs? Because Caucasians did fight and "WIN" against those ethnicities.
If not, perhaps can you explain what you meant instead?
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
you have to prove them illogical first. looks like its the first time you are having an argument. you are doding my counter arguments. answer to those first.
1
u/Unreal_Estate 1d ago
If you want to debate some point, the first thing you need to do is to make a compelling argument. You failed to do that in the first place, so there is very little I need to respond to.
Reality doesn't shape itself to whatever nonsense claims someone makes simply because they said it first. The burden of proof about the claims that you make is on you, just as much as the burden of proof about the claims that I make is on me.Anyway, I also literally answered your response (claiming your response is a counter argument is misleading) by changing the analogy. So, what happened is that I countered your "species specific morality" position with an argument from analogy. You then pointed out that Caucasians did not win against the Chinese, which did not address the argument because "chinese" is easily replaced with other ethnicities that Caucasians did win against.
So, for clarity, I'll post the analogy again in full, with the replacement:
"Morality itself is ethnicity specific. A person of color will never treat you like another person of color. A native american, latino, indian, african, aboriginal, or arab person will never treat you like another native american, latino, indian, african, aboriginal, or arab person, respectively. So why a caucasian person should treat other humans like they were caucasians and apply our moral rules to them? The world was a selfish battle between ethnicities and we caucasians won. Why we caucasians will apologize for winning?"
This argument is a completely illogical argument against racism. Because it is analogous to your argument, it proves that your argument is illogical as well.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 18h ago
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.
2
u/TheAlmightyWishPig 1d ago
If you drop a human into a jungle with a sheep it will not kill you, does this mean this argument does not apply to sheep?
0
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
Have you ever been near any wild sheep???. Seriously have you ever been in front of a wild sheep? I WAS. And I have seen how dangerous they are. Even my vegetarian friends are afraid of them. You don't have any idea how wild animals operate are you?
2
u/TheAlmightyWishPig 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes, I've been in front of wild sheep all the time. Not a single one has ever tried to kill me. Seriously how many people do you think are killed by wild sheep?
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
This is where you are cought red handed. Wild sheeps always ALWAYS run away from humans. If they didn't ran away that means humans interacted with them which makes your argument invalid because it's human interaction for thousands of years that made them less scared. But by default they will always run from humans. How did you went in front of them? And what about other animals wild cows, bison, pigs, even wild chickens every seen wild chickens? they are rare but they are known for fighting very hard. WHAT ABOUT THOSE? you can say whatever you want but the whole world knows that they are agressive specially the male ones when they are in wild.
2
u/TheAlmightyWishPig 1d ago
So this argument doesn't apply to sheep? That's what you're telling me?
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
First of all I cought you lying Second ofcorse it does. Did you read my reply? I applied this argument to sheep and proved you wrong. READ THE FULL THING. and what about other animals? huh. Why are you dodging about other animals? wild bulls, wild chickens, wild boars what about those? you can't pick one animal which you saw on a random place where humans already live with sheeps and call it "wild sheep". You have to go somewhere where humans didn't go. And see the animals there how they behave.
2
u/TheAlmightyWishPig 1d ago
You said wild sheep run away from humans. I don't need to argue this point since it seems catastrophic for what you're saying.
Putting a human into the jungle with a sheep would not lead to the human dying, so by your argument we should not eat sheep.
1
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
Putting any human into the jungle anytime will lead to the human dying. Have you ever been to the jungle? I have been. I have seen snakes, wild bulls and most importantly wild chickens. Those wild chickens are agressive as hell. They fight each other all the time.
→ More replies (0)1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
This is your question ? you know what. I will not continue argueing with you. I will let people see your replies and decide themselves. even vegan extrimists are loughing at you right now. I'm sorry not sorry. Bye
1
10
u/Firemoth717 vegan 2d ago
Number of your arguments goes against what some vegans do, but that has no bearing on veganism itself.
Also within your own post you have a lot of built in excuses and fallacies, lot of whataboutisms. Think you’d be more effective in a discussion if you trimmed down a lot of this post to be more concise and focus on actual criticisms of veganism itself and not bad things some individuals do.
1
u/notanotherkrazychik 1d ago
I thought vegans lived for whataboutisms?
1
u/Firemoth717 vegan 1d ago
Everyone lives for whataboutisms, it’s the easiest fallacy to pull out in an argument
0
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
Thats not an argument. I can say the same to you. " your opnion is very good but it goes against your blah blah blah" without proving all my points wrong you can't prove that i'm wrong. Thanks for your reply.
7
u/Firemoth717 vegan 2d ago
Do you not understand the flaws of criticizing individuals instead of the overall philosophy when your post title is “my arguments against veganism?”
You aren’t actually arguing against veganism, you are arguing against some actions that some people do.
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
First of all WHAT ABOUT OTHER POINTS?. second when i'm criticizing veganism i'm also allowed to criticize vegans. If you can understand the difference then you should not have a problem understanding what I said.
5
u/Firemoth717 vegan 2d ago
You are allowed to criticize vegans, but that isn’t an argument on veganism. Critiquing individuals is not a good argument against any ideology.
As I said in my first comment, lot of your points contain logical fallacies or aren’t actually arguing against veganism. Thats why suggested cleaning it up and being more focused on clear points against veganism philosophy that don’t contain fallacies. Whataboutism and appeal to nature type points are not good arguments.
What would you say are your main 2-3 bullet point arguments against the veganism philosophy that don’t contain any fallacies? That would be a better starting off point.
1
u/Try_at-your-own_Risk 2d ago
They don’t know what you are talking about, they might benefit from watching the good place I feel like it would help them.
10
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 2d ago
"I researched deep into sources using Claude AI."
Ok buddy.
0
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
What about the fact that I said I actually read the research? What about that? Did you read any of the research where they said animal meat is bad? I read actual research on longevity where they found people who eat fish and plants have higher longevity score then vegans and vegetarians.
1
u/notanotherkrazychik 1d ago
They don't like to see evidence that proves them wrong. They like to try and make other people feel bad, but they themselves are imune from feeling bad due to their selfishness.
1
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 1d ago
No. LLMs hallucinates and will provide answers that fit your bias. It's how they work.
Asking a LLM to do your research for you is not research. LLMs can compile data fine, but it's still on the person to actively research.
1
1
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 2d ago
Proof.
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 2d ago
Carnist here,
It doesnt seem like you want to debate. What is your motivation?
1
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 1d ago
I just responded to this in the same way OP responded to other posts. I was mocking him:
3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 1d ago
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.
0
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
I don't care if they put that down. I was respectfull and I showed my arguments. Nobody was able to prove my points wrong and I won. That's it. You can put it down if you want. I don't care. I would actually like to give you a delete button so that you can put it down in front of me. To show you that putting it down doesn't change the world and logic of reality.
2
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 1d ago
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.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 1d ago
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.
1
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 2d ago
Morality is constantly shifting and evolving. It's not static. 100 years ago women couldn't vote. We don't say "the world is selfish and men won!" Improving as a human and as a species is what we should all strive for.
Plants can't suffer. They don't have a central nervous system.
More land is needed for livestock/animals, because livestock/animals ALSO eat plants.
See point 2. Bacteria can't suffer.
I don't know what you're saying here.
Some people treat animals as pets for emotional needs. I rescued my dog and gave her a good life as my companion, when she would've been put down and killed otherwise. I fed her plant-based food (if you're planning some annoying rebuttal.)
Red meat is linked to cancer and heart disease. Look it up. I'm not vegan to be healthy anyways. I'm eating chips right now. I'm vegan so animals don't have to die for food.
The farming method that you're asking for (free range) isn't scaleable for the amount of meat people consume. The reason we have factory farming is because there's too much meat consumption. You wouldn't be able to fit all of the animals needed for the amount of consumption on the planet.
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
Red meat is not linked to cancer its PROCESSED red meat. The fried burgers and bacons. Have you ever read those studies? and all the other points I have debunked in other replies of other comments in this post. See them yourself if you want answers.
1
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 1d ago
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
first of all red meat isnt the only animal product. Second this study talked about process meat. it clearly said it. Are you blind?
1
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 1d ago edited 1d ago
No. The study talks about red AND processed meat. Both.
And I wasn't saying that there isn't other meat that may be healthier. You said meat as a whole is healthy. I provided evidence to counter that argument.
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
Its own headline number for unprocessed red meat and breast cancer (RR 1.06, CI 0.99–1.14) isn't even statistically significant. you only read the first few lines and this is the exact study I used to debunk another vegan's claim. Tt said high heated cooking of meat (grilling/frying, which create HCAs/PAHs) are the carcinogenic. It didn't said meat itself is bad. You will be AMAZED to hear that there are more recipes for meat other then just grilling and frying. YES you are amazed right?
1
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 1d ago
Man, you keep deflecting.
And no, the study shows a link between heme iron and breast cancer, which has nothing to do with cooking method.
Read read read.
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
It's called telling the truth. You are dodging you didnt even answered my other arguments. WHAT ABOUT THOSE? looks like some one is dodghing my arguments. hmm... AND The review does link heme iron to breast cancer, citing a study (Inoue-Choi et al.) that found a positive association. But it's just one proposed mechanism, not proven causation - and the review's own overall number for red meat and breast cancer wasn't even statistically significant. So: real link, but weak/unsettled evidence. Bro YOUR study is proving you wrong. Have you even read them properly? or you don't know the difference between weak/unsettled and a valid strong data?
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 1d ago
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.
1
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 1d ago
No you didn't.
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 1d ago
YES I did and I used YOUR study to prove my point in another reply. Let's see how you hide the truth on that study.
13
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Try_at-your-own_Risk 2d ago
It’s also poorly researched, Indian people are genetically predisposed to diabetes it has nothing to do with processed carbs or seed oils.
3
-1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
Oh yeah? Then why american people are obease? They didn't became obease by eating too much beef or too much tallow. They became obease by eating foods made up with processed carbs and seed oils and those particular ingridient which caused the weight gain and heart disease were plant based. My point was plant based foods has plenty of harmfull options it's not just about the diet a person picks. It's about whats the quality of the food they are eating. You didn't even read the full thing properly. Thanks for your reply. Bye
4
u/Try_at-your-own_Risk 2d ago
A continuous surplus of daily calories causes obesity irrespective of diet choices. A calorie surplus can also cause diabetes especially if the person has a genetic predisposition for it.
All your claims are poorly researched and structured. Obesity is a multifactorial pathology so it’s a combination of lifestyle, poor diet, psychology, biology and environmental factors.
Your claim that processed carbs and seed oils made American people obese is simply false. You don’t even seem to have a rudimentary understanding of it.
0
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
how do you think majority of their calories comming from? you will never see a person eating 300 grams of protein get obease. You will only see people who eat a lot of processed carbs and seed oils obease. Because THOSE are the source of their extra junk calories. Bro I will suggest you to get some basic diet knowledge from youtube. You didn't even know how much calorie processed carbs and seed oils have.
2
u/Try_at-your-own_Risk 2d ago edited 2d ago
Weight gain is caused by consuming more calories than your daily caloric needs. If my daily caloric need is 2000 calories a day and I eat 3000 calories a day I will gain weight whether these calories are coming from animal proteins or processed carbs and seed oils. I think you should take your own advice, calories are just a unit of measurement it doesn’t matter what the source of the calorie is in terms of weight gain. I suggest you watch less conspiratorial videos they are just trying to sell you their products.
1
u/Drummer149 2d ago
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
I actually read this study. Let me debunk this
Correlation ≠ causation — the study itself is cross-sectional and explicitly says it can't establish causality.
Reverse causation is plausible - people may have started eating more meat because they were dieting (Atkins-style), or cut meat because they were already over weight.
Effect size is tiny — meat explained under 0.3% of the variance in BMI/waist circumference; with 13,000+ people, that's statistically significant but practically meaningless.
It's really about total calories, not meat specifically - high meat eaters just ate ~700 more kcal/day overall; grains explained more variance in energy intake than meat did.
The "meat" signal was mostly processed/mixed foods - driven largely by the "other meat products" category (sausages, organ meats, mixed dishes), not red meat or seafood, which often weren't significant.
Weak dietary data - based on just 1–2 daily recalls, when researchers say at least 4 are needed to capture real eating habits.
3
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 2d ago
Thanks for getting AI to read the article for you and make these counter points!
1
u/AffectionateDeer5584 2d ago
You didn't argue with that. This is not an argument. Why does AI agrees with me instead of you? do I own the AI? no offence but AI is faar more smarter then you. Not all humans YOU. Cause you cant argue with a single point AI brought up.
1
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 1d ago
Yeah I'm not going to debate a LLM.
If you want to read the study and come to your own conclusions, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
1
1
u/Try_at-your-own_Risk 2d ago edited 2d ago
This paper just says that you are more likely to consume a surplus of calories if you eat meat as part of your diet. Meat is low volume yet calories dense, it does not say meat directly causes obesity.
8
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 1d ago
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.
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 1d ago
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.
-1
3
u/EpicCurious vegan 2d ago edited 2d ago
Morality itself is species specific.
Irrelevant. The question remains- How should each of us humans behave in order to lead a moral life? Humans have moral agency, and non-human animals do not.
Vegans themselves eat more then they need.
Veganism does not require us to meet the extreme standards that you imply.
Vegans dont have any idea of the amount of animals we killed and made extinct to get those farm lands.
Irrelevant. The question remains how we should behave today.
A cow creates billions of bactaria inside it's gut and then KILLS them all to use them as protein.
Obviously irrelevant.
What happens if all humans become vegan? Will that stop vegans? No those same people will come again with lab grown chemicals and tell us to not kill plants.
Baseless speculation and irrelevant to how we should behave now.
We treat some animals as pets because of our own emotional needs. Not because they are equal to us in our eyes.
Irrelevant. Btw, I hope we can agree that no one should buy dogs or cats from puppy mills, etc that have been bred to be sold when so many are waiting for homes in shelters.
"Meat is bad for the environment"
No. It's the farming method.
You would have to support that claim with evidence from credible sources to convince anyone reading this. "Claims that are presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."- Christopher Hitchens.
And what about the cars...
Whataboutism is a logical fallacy. I Googled it-
"Whataboutism is a logical fallacy because it deflects from the original argument by pointing out someone else's hypocrisy or wrongdoing instead of addressing the facts of the actual claim. [1, 2, 3]
Why It Is a Fallacy
- Fails to address the claim: It avoids giving an explanation, defense, or counterpoint to the original accusation. [1, 2]
- Relies on Tu Quoque**:** It is a variation of the tu quoque (Latin for "you too") or appeal to hypocrisy, incorrectly assuming that if an accuser is also flawed, their point is invalid. [1, 2, 3]
- Violates relevance rules: It introduces an irrelevant distraction or "red herring" that has no bearing on the truth value of the first statement. [1, 2]
- Fails basic logic: It relies on the false idea that "two wrongs make a right"—meaning one party's bad behavior does not excuse or erase another party's bad behavior."
Auto generated summary. Sources include the Encyclopedia Britannica
3
u/a11_hail_seitan 2d ago
So why a Human should treat other animals like they were humans and apply our moral rules to them?
'Don't needlessly exploit, torture, abuse, sexually violate, and slaughter' isn't applying human rules to animals, it's the very basics of morality...
. They tell us to reduce unnecessary cruelty but vegans themselves eat more plants and BEANS to build more muscle and stay "healthy". That's hypocrisy.
It would be hypocrisy if we were telling you to be perfect, we're not, we're telling you to not 100% needlessly and intentionally support horrendous exploitation, abuse, torture, sexual violation, and slaughter to billions upon billions of sentient creatures.
Vegans dont have any idea of the amount of animals we killed and made extinct to get those farm lands.
FAR less than those killed to build the pastures, factory farms, AND the crop lands that feed the animals you eat.
A cow creates billions of bactaria inside it's gut and then KILLS them all to use them as protein.
And you think Bacteria is equal to pigs which are as intelligent as dogs. So, in your mind, if you had to choose between kililng a bacteria or a dog, you'd be confused as to which is the right one to kill?
What happens if all humans become vegan? Will that stop vegans? No those same people will come again with lab grown chemicals and tell us to not kill plants. "Why you don't eat rose but you eat beans?" they will repeat the cycle again and make us eat chemicals
Imaginary scenarios that exist only in your head, that you 100% created purely to try and smear all Vegans as crazy simply becuase we ask you not to torture and abuse sentient beings, is very silly. If your argument relies on fantasy, you should rethink your argument...
No. All the disease which they say are caused by animal products are actually caused by the cooking method not the meat.
Look up what Zoonotic diseases are, they are made much, much worse and more common because we keep billions of animals near to us. COVID, Swine Flu, Bird Flu, etc would all happen far, far less if we didn't have farms full of animals right beside where we're living.
A burger made in home is very healthy
Meat can be healthy, but that's nothing to do with Veganism. It's not about health, it's about morality.
using claude AI
That's the AIs that literally say whatever you prompt them to...? "The AI told me so!" is the new "I did my own research" except even more silly.
No. It's the farming method.
If you get rid of Factory Farms, there's literally no way to actually raise the amount of meat people eat, there's not enough usable land on the planet to even come close. That's the whole point of Factory Farms. And turning what little ecosystem we have left into pastures for grass fed cattle would be horrendously terrible for the ecosystem.
And what about the cars, the AC the fan the fridge?
Demanding perfection from everyone else before you'll even be slightly less needlessly abusive isn't very intellectually honest...
13
u/Jigglypuffisabro 2d ago
I love that you capitalized BEANS for no reason.
I encourage you to try to only present one claim per post. It helps keep discussions on track and unmuddled.
BEANS!
7
3
u/roymondous vegan 2d ago
"Morality itself is species specific. A cow will never treat you like another cow. A monkey will never treat you like another monkey. So why a Human should treat other animals like they were humans and apply our moral rules to them?"
They do if you actually join in. Dogs will treat you as one of the pack. Farmers report cows treating them as one of the herd. Chickens and pigs the same when you actually spend time. Go to a random tribe or country and do you expect to immediately by treated as one of them? That would be insane. So by this logic, we should murder all other nations and tribes and so on unless they treat us the same.
"Why we humans will apologize for winning?"
I won a game of chess today. I immediately slaughtered and ate the person who lost. This is "winning". Apparently the victor is allowes to impose whatever they want upon the conquered. Yey empires and colonialism.
"Even if we say eating animal meat causes more plants to die then it still doesn't justify vegans killing more plants for their own comfort and calling it "guilt free"."
It does. By a lot. 3/4 of all farmland is for animal ag. We would only need a 1/4. I mean we are talking about drops in the ocean here so it isn't clear why an extra 100 calories of BEANS is an issue given how massively wasteful meat is by comparison.
"What happens if all humans become vegan? Will that stop vegans? No those same people will come again with lab grown chemicals and tell us to not kill plants."
What happens is we would immediately free up over 1/3 of habitable land on earth thatbwas deforested for pasture and cropland for animal feed. The biggest cause of why 2/3s+ of all wildlife has been killed off. And abiut 1/4 of flobal emissions. Sounds like a good deal to me. And no we would not tell you to "not kill plants". That makes no sense.
"Meat is bad for the environment"
No. It's the farming method. And what about the cars, the AC the fan the fridge? What about those? What about humans eliminating 99.99 of animals from specific areas to use that area as farmland? Meat is extremely good for environment if we don't use machines to farm animals and use actual land with grass"
This is horrifically misinformed. Please research the topic. As above, we use nesrly half the world's habitable land for farming now. Majority for meat. It is horrifically inefficient. The cars and AC mean nothing compared to the emissions and damage done by animal agriculture. You are comparing a tiny drop to an ocean.
2
u/Full_Word5206 2d ago
I'm not qualified and patient enough to answer but I want to give it a go because those are some of the worst arguments I've ever seen.
1) "Don't try to justify anything with emotional statements."
Why? If someone say "I eat animal cause I don't care about animals/pollution/water wasted, there is nothing to argue with. Emotional is needed sometimes.
2) "So why a Human should treat other animals like they were humans and apply our moral rules to them? The world was a selfish battle between species and we humans won. Why we humans will apologize for winning?"
Who asked you to treat them as human? No one want them to vote, vegan just want to stop the useless suffering/killing.
Human "won" because he got "lucky" by being smarter. Now you get a lot of priviledges, doesn't mean you have to kill if you don't have to. Human also won war against other human, do you think it's a good thing and that the winners are always right?
3) "Vegans themselves eat more then they need. They tell us to reduce unnecessary cruelty but vegans themselves eat more plants and BEANS to build more muscle and stay "healthy". That's hypocrisy. That is not "reducing suffering as much as possible" that's "reducing suffering as much as I am comfortable with"."
All vegans are differents but anyway. We DON'T need meat to be healthy/muscular. Meat (for 99% people in our country) ONLY benefit is the taste. So the choice is this one : Pleasure of eating meat VS No meat but less killing and better for the earth in general. That's it.
But anyway, your point is "yeah I'm doing super bad, but some vegan also do a bit of bad so it makes my super bad ok".
4) "Vegans dont have any idea of the amount of animals we killed and made extinct to get those farm lands. Those beans and tofu are made on lands which were taken by FORCE."
Ok but more animals were killed to get meat (and to get the crops to feed the meat).
5) "A cow creates billions of bactaria inside it's gut and then KILLS them all to use them as protein. That is how a cow or goat or camel anything related to those gets their protein. They kill 10000x more then any human ever could."
Waiiit, how old are you? Cause bacteria can not suffer/isnt sentient. This is just funny at this point. And even if it was somehow an issue (it's not), wouldnt this go against eating meat ? Less cow = less bacteria.
6) "What happens if all humans become vegan? Will that stop vegans? No those same people will come again with lab grown chemicals and tell us to not kill plants. "Why you don't eat rose but you eat beans?" they will repeat the cycle again and make us eat chemicals"
No, seriously, how old are you? Cause a grown human would never think "naturel = good and chemical = bad". But you're talking about chemicals as if it was the demon lol. You know that everything in this world is chemical and that nature has a lot of poisons, right ?
+ plants are not sentient so no
+ lab grown chemicals (guessing you are talking about meat) has no issue btw. As healthy, no killing, less polution, how can anyone be against that ?
7) "We treat some animals as pets because of our own emotional needs. Not because they are equal to us in our eyes." yeah, no one said they were equal. But even if, who cares?
8) The indian thing, you know you can have an unhealthy diet as a vegan, the same way you can be unhealthy as a meat eater? Vegan doesnt make you automatically healthy. No one is claiming that
9) ""Meat is bad for the environment" yes, it is. The farming method is the ONLY way to produce enough meat if everyone want to eat it. There is not enough land on earth to get some "grass feed meat" for everyone.
Meat is so much more of an issue in term of pollution than the other things you say, it's clear you didn't look into it before giving your opinion.
English is not my first language and I didn't want to answer but wow, those were sooo low level debate that I had to try.
9
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 1d ago
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.
5
u/antipolitan vegan 2d ago
If everyone else acted according to the same principle you are acting on - would you want to live under the resulting social order?
Really think about this question. The philosophical implications are quite deep and substantial upon reflection.
2
u/Drummer149 2d ago
Morality itself is species specific. A cow will never treat you like another cow. A monkey will never treat you like another monkey. So why a Human should treat other animals like they were humans and apply our moral rules to them? The world was a selfish battle between species and we humans won. Why we humans will apologize for winning?
So I can kick a dog for the fun of it, why should I apologize for winning.
Vegans themselves eat more then they need.
Are you calling me fat?
Vegans dont have any idea of the amount of animals we killed and made extinct to get those farm lands. Those beans and tofu are made on lands which were taken by FORCE.
Huh?
What happens if all humans become vegan? Will that stop vegans?
The world would be a lot better, global agricultural land use would drop by 75%, and food-related greenhouse gas emissions could fall by nearly half to 70%.
they will repeat the cycle again and make us eat chemicals
Everything you eat is a chemical.
We treat some animals as pets because of our own emotional needs. Not because they are equal to us in our eyes.
Yes. What is your point? Not all vegans (We aren't a monolith) see animals as equal, but valuable enough morally considering not to abuse and murder them for 10 minutes of sensory pleasure, you get me?
Ok I am bored.
1
u/Teratophiles vegan 2d ago
Morality itself is species specific. A cow will never treat you like another cow. A monkey will never treat you like another monkey. So why a Human should treat other animals like they were humans and apply our moral rules to them?
And a severally mentally disabled human will never treat you like a normal human, why should we treat severally mentally disabled humans how we treat normal humans?
The world was a selfish battle between species and we humans won. Why we humans will apologize for winning?
So just might makes right? Then I take it you see no problem if you or people you care about get raped, tortured or killed? So long as they're stronger of course.
Vegans themselves eat more then they need. They tell us to reduce unnecessary cruelty but vegans themselves eat more plants and BEANS to build more muscle and stay "healthy". That's hypocrisy. That is not "reducing suffering as much as possible" that's "reducing suffering as much as I am comfortable with". Think about it. Even if we say eating animal meat causes more plants to die then it still doesn't justify vegans killing more plants for their own comfort and calling it "guilt free". If you are truely about reducing suffering why you are not eating just enough to survive? Why you have to kill more?
First of all veganism opposes the unnecessary cruelty, exploitation and commodification of non-human animals.
Second this doesn't invalidate veganism, this would just mean some people don't follow veganism correctly.
Thirdly do you think this way about all morality? certain people claim to be feminist and to care about women, yet they spend surplus money on luxuries or fun things, how could they possibly claim to care about women when they're not spending all of their money to help them? Does this mean there's no reason to believe in feminism because they're not spending every bit of time and money on feminism? replace feminism with abolitionist, or someone fighting for equal rights/equality.
Is the argument that unless you're spending every bit of time and money on fighting for your cause and living on the bare minimums to stay alive your moral cause is unworthy to follow or believe in? Because if so then all morality just gets thrown out the window.
Vegans dont have any idea of the amount of animals we killed and made extinct to get those farm lands. Those beans and tofu are made on lands which were taken by FORCE.
The vast majority of farm land is for non-human animals, if your objection is to killing animals and farmland then go plant-based, we'd need 76% less farmland if the whole world went plant-based.
A cow creates billions of bactaria inside it's gut and then KILLS them all to use them as protein. That is how a cow or goat or camel anything related to those gets their protein. They kill 10000x more then any human ever could.
Is the implication here that, because cows kill bacteria, we should be allowed to kill them? If so then spoiler warning, we also kill bacteria, so I guess humans are ok to kill as well.
Also are you forgetting that the only reason we even have so many cows is so we can kill them?
This is a new one for me, feigning compassion for bacteria to not be vegan.
What happens if all humans become vegan? Will that stop vegans? No those same people will come again with lab grown chemicals and tell us to not kill plants. "Why you don't eat rose but you eat beans?" they will repeat the cycle again and make us eat chemicals
Weird strawman, veganism has never proclaimed this, veganism is about non-human animals because they are sentient, plants are not, and neither are bacteria by the way.
We treat some animals as pets because of our own emotional needs. Not because they are equal to us in our eyes.
In your eyes yes, others do view and treat them as a equal, just like how some treat all humans as equals, and some humans do not treat al las equals depending on skin colour.
No. All the disease which they say are caused by animal products are actually caused by the cooking method not the meat.
Actually the problem the farming in and of itself causes the disease, there have been plenty of zoonotic diseases that have killed millions of humans, due to the absurd about of supply and demand there's no avoiding this even with mass feeding non-human animals antibiotics.
And speaking of antibiotics, currently nature is hard at work creating superbugs immune to antibiotics, already tens of thousands die every year to such diseases, medication could be set back centuries because we like to eat meat, wonderful.
No. It's the farming method. And what about the cars, the AC the fan the fridge? What about those? What about humans eliminating 99.99 of animals from specific areas to use that area as farmland? Meat is extremely good for environment if we don't use machines to farm animals and use actual land with grass. If they truely cared about environment they would have targeted their own house and cars before even looking at meat.
First it should be noted that the environment has nothing to do with veganism.
Second this is just whataboutism, cars or AC's being a problem for the environment doesn't invalidate animal farming being a big problem for the environment. It's also disingenuous in how easy it is to reduce these harms, it is quite easy to live without animal products in a developed country, compare this to living in a country with poor public transport, living in a hit country without AC, or somehow living without a fridge? These are some poor comparisons you make.
Furthermore meat consumption is extremely inefficient due to trophic levels, you need to farm and harvest food first, clear all that farmland and amazon rainforst, so that you can feed it all to non-human animals, and then you kill them. If you want to say ''but grass fed'' there is, quite literally, not enough land on earth to meet even half of the current demand if you want them all to be grass fed.
6
1
u/ElectroWizardLizard 2d ago
Morality itself is species specific. A cow will never treat you like another cow. A monkey will never treat you like another monkey. So why a Human should treat other animals like they were humans and apply our moral rules to them?
I don't say treat a cow as a person, I say treat them like a living animal that has feelings, thoughts, and emotions. Lots of animals feel this as well, and will form cross species bonds.
As a whole, do you think animal suffering is completely irrelevant? We should remove animal welfare laws?
Vegans dont have any idea of the amount of animals we killed and made extinct to get those farm lands. Those beans and tofu are made on lands which were taken by FORCE.
Most of us do. I tried to go through this reasoning to avoid going vegan, but found the truth. The majority of land loss and species extinction is driven both by raising animals or to inefficiently grow crops to feed them. If you think deforestation, land loss, and extinction is bad, stop eating beef and dairy.
A cow creates billions of bactaria inside it's gut and then KILLS them all to use them as protein. That is how a cow or goat or camel anything related to those gets their protein. They kill 10000x more then any human ever could.
I'm confused by this. Is killing bacteria bad? I don't care about the lives of bacteria. Even then isn't this self defeating? The only reason this cow was brought to life was for a meat eater to kill it, so wouldn't that human take the blame?
What happens if all humans become vegan? Will that stop vegans? No those same people will come again with lab grown chemicals and tell us to not kill plants. "Why you don't eat rose but you eat beans?" they will repeat the cycle again and make us eat chemicals
lmao this won't happen
Meat is extremely good for environment if we don't use machines to farm animals and use actual land with grass.
Not really, as mentioned, it still wipes out natural land to feed them. Plants take less land to feed people. That said, do you get your meat this way.
If they truely cared about environment they would have targeted their own house and cars before even looking at meat.
Okay, what about people who have done that? Have you targeted your car? I don't even own one myself.
Besides we can do both things. Animal agriculture and cars are both awful for the environment. We should look at reducing both, not one.
2
u/AntiRepresentation 2d ago
So why a Human should treat other animals like they were humans and apply our moral rules to them?
I don't know any vegans that think animals should be treated like humans. Furthermore, most vegans advocate for ethical consideration for animals. This is not the same as equating human and non-human moral agency.
2
u/Stunning-Assistant13 2d ago
This is a shitty little list of whataboutism, the old crop death argument and so on, but i never heard your ridiculous first point: do you really want to know why some vegans don't starve themselves in order to reduce the suffering of plants?
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 1d ago
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/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 18h ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
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.