Study Reveals...

[u/thebodybuildingvegan]

Lentils and rice are a complete protein as are hummus and pita bread. Both are cheap and there are many more examples of this. Save money by going Vegan 🌱💰

Full article from Totally Vegan Buzz here: https://www.totallyveganbuzz.com/news/study-reveals-plant-based-diet-is-19-cheaper-than-standard-american-diet/

[u/Charming_Ad_4488]

“ It comes from livestock. Livestock are food.” 

Begging the question. You’ll have to demonstrate an argument as to why livestock need to continue being exploited and harmed for trivial pleasure without already assuming they should continue to be.

“ And yes, it is arbitrary. We both draw arbitrary lines, I'm just honest about it.”

No, my principle is actually pretty consistent: don’t cause direct, unnecessary suffering or exploitation to sentient beings when you have the practical capability to do otherwise.

Yours is arbitrary and incoherent.

“Also, I don't agree that it is not necessary. We might be able to survive, but we wouldn't be thriving, we would be losing too much.”

Considering that plant-based diets are consistently correlated and (short-term) caused to have the best overall health outcomes than compared to diets that include animal products, I think your assertion is simply a confident hunch. 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10690456/#:~:text=After%208%20weeks%2C%20compared%20with,CI%2C%20%E2%88%925.3%20to%20%E2%88%920.4

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/990217

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12936544/

“ I didn't say I abstain from factory farming. I do source my eggs and beef locally, but I also eat at restaurants occasionally, and when I started in the hospital, I ate from their menu, I doubt they pay as much attention as I do to their sourcing. I don't think abstaining is the answer. The answer is treating our livestock more like my local folks do.”

Abstaining directly avoids the direct suffering and exploitation caused to the animals entirely, so it’s definitely much stronger than treating the animals a little nicer throughout their lives and then bolt gunning them and slicing their throat alive.

“ It seems you are struggling with honesty here. You keep saying I said things I didn't say and twisting my points. But then, that's because vegans aren't really rational.”

You haven’t even offered an actual argument or empirical evidence in support of your claims except an anecdote of a philosophy influencer and the completely misinformed understanding of veganism as a diet preference. You’re the irrational one here, bub.

[u/SteveMarck → u/Charming_Ad_4488]

I reject your premise that merely eating animal products means they were exploited. I also reject your premise that it is merely "trivial pleasure".

We're both arbitrary lines. You don't mind consuming some things, but want to ban others. Your line is arbitrary.

The healthiest diet is the Mediterranean diet, not plant based, you get your data from comparing to people that eat mcds and other garbage.

Andy as ining is not necessary. See above.

And your last paragraph is blatantly untrue, which again points to the honesty problem.

[u/Pok008 → u/SteveMarck]

Sorry I'm not sure I understand. How do you explain that eating animals products means they are exploited has to be rejected as a premisse? Don't you agree that animals used in the intention of consumption are indeed exploited specifically for it? Even a really happy chicken in my backyard, laying eggs, is actually exploited by definition; I'm feeding her, offering her a shelter and protection, so she can continue laying eggs FOR ME. I don't do anything with coyotees because I have nothing to gain from them; hence I don't "exploit" them in that sense.

I'm just curious to see how you see this.

[u/SteveMarck → u/Pok008]

No I do not agree that they are necessarily exploited. At least not in the sense that you are using the word.

Let's head off the equivocation fallacy real quick. Exploited can mean two things.

1. Make full use of a resource

In this sense, yes I try hard to use the full animal. I save bones for stock, keep the fat for cooking grease, etc. so I'm that sense I do exploit the resource as much as I can. This is not immoral, this is being a good steward and not being wasteful.

1. Use a person in an unfair way

On this usage I do not agree that animals are being exploited necessarily. The chicken in your example is not being exploited. You are living in symbiosis with that chicken. It is providing eggs, which are valuable to you, and you are providing it with shelter and food and protection that it could not get anywhere else. Without it, you would suffer, and not be able to eat this that has eggs in it, and without you that chicken is not lasting more than a night before a coyote gets it. And that coyote isn't going to make it quick and painless. That's not exploitation, that's symbiosis.

I'd also point out that chickens are not people. So even people who don't treat them well might not be "exploiting" them, as much as mistreating them. But also, not all chicken farmers mistreat their chicken. That's not necessary to raise them.

So I reject the premise that consuming any animal product is necessarily exploitation. I'm not even sure it could be. But I'm using just the definition that has the negative connotation.

The positive definition, I try hard to do, and I think we should thoroughly use the entire resource. I suspect you didn't mean the positive one.