Why You Should Go Vegan

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why You Should Go Vegan

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

I did not even realize there was a D&D vegan thread! There I was over in c-spam trying to get real discussion going.

Communist Thoughts posted:

tricking people into trying BBC recipes is assault

e: whoops didnt realise i was posting in D&D, i'll shitpost less

funny that the first 2 recipes i clicked on were for fake fishfingers made of cauliflower and olives (!?) and some kinda fake sausage casserole tho

A lot of pop culture vegan recipes are like that to try to show that people can eat similar to how they eat now without learning how to cook all over again. I think it's usually better to focus on more whole foods but it's hard to convince someone to harm less animals while also trying to get them to start from square 1 in the kitchen. It's easy to ease into recipes you already know and go for easy swaps like lentils or TVP for mince etc. If you're curious for fully plant based options there are plenty of great recipes that are a google search away.

Try to think outside your cultural conditioning for a second though. Why are plants breaded and fried strange but fish blended up, pressed together into shapes, breaded, and fried normal? Why are heavily processed animal parts in casing fine but plants processed and shaped in the same way wrong? Cheese sauce (a secretion from a cow, pasturized, heavily processed, fermented and melted down) is ok, but a cashew based alternative is fake sludge?

OwlFancier posted:

Out of curiosity, is there a vegan position on "rewilding" ideas involving the reintroduction of animal species to habitats in order to improve their resiliance?

Because to me it would seem to be something that they should oppose.

Generally veganism is a stance against human exploitation of animals although there are interesting discussions to be had around re-wilding. That's a different ethical and environmental argument however and it seems a bit like fussing over the colour of the carpet when the house is on fire. I'm not sure what the alternative would be though. If the world went vegan and we did not need so much land devoted to agriculture then what else would we do with all that space? I could pave over it to reduce suffering but I think restoring the ecosystem makes more sense even if it entails wild animal suffering. It's a tricky problem but has basically nothing to do with what you plan to buy at the grocery store.

OwlFancier posted:

You could certainly make the argument that we could improve the process by which we do that to reduce some of the suffering involved but I don't think that is quite veganism, which appears to seek to totally divest from animal exploitation, or at least to do so in a more extreme form than simply improving agricultural processes.

Doing something wrong a little better is still wrong. It would be more morally consistent to stop. Even in idyllic conditions and even if the suffering is removed, breeding and killing animals at a fraction of their lifespan for a sandwich is still harm.

DrBox fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Sep 8, 2022

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 00:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 05:48

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

This seems to be a fundamental disagreement on what harm means.

Suffering I would describe as pain or chronic discomfort. Basically the status quo for modern animal agriculture. Harm is more vague but I would consider killing a sentient being with an interesting in their own life and who does not want to die to be an example of harm. Do you disagree with either of those interpretations?

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 03:17

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

I agree that a cow can suffer. I don't know that I agree that it has "interests" the way people do.

Do you really believe that? Only cows, or do you think this for dogs and cats as well? These animals have personalities and seem to exhibit desires and preferences. They avoid situations that cause them pain or make them afraid. As far as we can tell they seem to have an interest in continuing their life as much as any other animal. They do not have to have interests in exactly the same way people do in order to merit moral consideration but we can look to their behavior and infer they have some interest in their life or have a will to continue living.

Here is a cool link that show some interesting behavior. Cows appear to have complex social lives and even mourn their dead.
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals...20their%20loss.

Harold Fjord posted:

Things get very squirrely when you start really digging into these kinds of "harms" and the moral action you demand of people, because there's so much human suffering too.

Yeah I agree. Rather than shy away from the reality and downplay the sentience of these animals we should have real conversations and try to be morally consistent. Trying to end animal agriculture and brutal exploitation of animals does not have to come at the expense of, or be mutually exclusive to mitigating human suffering too. No human wants to work in a slaughterhouse if they have another choice available.

DrBox fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Sep 8, 2022

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 03:49

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:

assuming we end animal agriculture, what happens to all the cows? where is the place set aside for cows to live wild and free?

There are a couple of ways this could go.
1. Society gradually shifts towards less exploitation, less and less animals are bred and killed and eventually animal agriculture will be a small niche industry similar to horse breeding now. This will happen in both a gradual shift to veganism or more likely as lab grown meat gets easier and more cost effective.
2. I become king of the world and and mandate an end to animal agriculture. We stop all breeding immediately and shift the government subsides from animal ag to animal sanctuaries. We let the animals life out their lives and within 20 years they'll be mostly dead and we close that chapter.

OwlFancier posted:

As I said, though, I think cruelty is an intrinsic state of existence for animals because they don't have any means to escape it on their own, I would personally suggest they have the potential to be better off as livestock than living in the wild, because I don't think ideas like self determination apply to animals.

An animal that is kept in decent conditions and then slaughtered for food I think is better off than one that is left to fend for itself until some other animal kills it or it starves to death.

This is a false dichotomy though. The choice isn't between should these animals live in nature or live as livestock just like the choice isn't only between feral dogs or dogs in animal testing labs. We have other options.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 21:04

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

I, however, do. Whatever choice we make, animals die. I think that providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in before killing them quickly for meat, is a better lot than they would be afforded in nature. As well as entirely morally consistent with having say, national parks full of wildlife existing in a cruel state of nature simply because we find the idea romantic, or because we need them to preserve a biosphere for us to live in.

I do not think it matters whether you personally cause the harm.

You are insisting the choice is in how we harm them. Vegans are arguing you don't have to harm them at all.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 21:31

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

You don't have to but I would certainly suggest that free range agriculture is better for the animals living in it than letting it go wild.

I suppose you could also just devote a lot of land to giant petting zoos instead but I also think that you could feed and clothe people with the land while also doing the animals on it a favour on the whole.

Please read this very carefully. The choice is not between letting the cow roam free or breeding and killing the cow. The choice is between breeding and killing cows or NOT breeding and killing any more cows.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 21:36

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

What would you be doing with the previous pasture land if you aren't putting cows on it? Because I had rather assumed you would be allowing it to be inhabited by wild animals (other than cows)

I am assuming that by reducing the amount of agricultural land you would be expanding the amount of wild habitat and thus commensurately the population of wild animals.

We can do whatever but that's a separate argument. If you're worried about wild animal suffering then we can turn it into a parking lot if that would make you go vegan today.

I would not argue we should keep cosmetics testing labs open because we don't know what to do with the building. I would not want to keep breeding torturing bunnies because they might suffer outside of the lab.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 21:46

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

I think paving over gigantic stretches of land to make them uninhabitable to all life would be a bit weird when you could just practice agriculture to half decent standards on it instead.

But you were saying you were against wild animal suffering. What exactly is your argument then? You want to breed billions of animals into existence and kill them every year because you think that's a better alternative than simply not doing that?

Are you for puppy mills for animal testing too because it's better than breeding puppies and letting them loose on the streets?

Harold Fjord posted:

Everyone knows what factory farms are and agrees that they are terrible. This is a question of the "morality" of kinder farming practices and whether it's "moral" to do them instead of just letting the animals all brutalize one another.

Veganism is against the exploitation of animals where practicable and possible and you are bringing it back to the false dichotomy of "breed and kill them ourselves" or "let them suffer in the wild". How about don't breed animals to exploit and then look at the totally separate issue of wild animal suffering?

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 21:52

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

I mean I live not far from a bunch of fields with cows in them. They seem quite content, I walk through it sometimes to go for walks, seems like an agreeable state of affairs tbh. Quite happy to demolish the factory farms and keep the fields.

Quite happy until they are trucked to the slaughter house as soon as they are big enough. This is also the exception, not the rule in animal agriculture. 99% of meat is factory farmed despite everyone pointing to cows in fields to say everything is fine. Why not stop breeding the cows so we can cut their throats?

OwlFancier posted:

I don't think my actions really make much difference being vegan or not. As I said I don't think of the realistic options it actually makes much difference at all what I do because even if I somehow contributed to the scaling back of animal agriculture, I don't think it would make much difference to animal welfare, even assuming that my actions would do that which I don't think they would, especially as my job involves trying to maximise human consumption of all things so like, my own personal consumption seems pretty moot honestly.

It is like asking me if I feel bad about stepping on a bug. I like bugs, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

This is a different argument about the futility of personal choices. That's a lame argument when we're arguing the morality of something. Do you agree with the premise then and you're on to the practical argument of if your choice makes a difference? My choices not to bet on dog fights or bull fights is not making a huge difference to those industries but I still think it's the right thing to do. The small amount of vegans so far seem to make some difference. The grocery stores look a lot different than 10 years ago.

Harold Fjord posted:

Why is it more okay for animals to suffer and kill one another in that forest than it is for us to have some nice farms for a couple of well treated cows?

Again this is not the choice we are making. We are not choosing between those two things. Being against beagles in labs or cows in slaughterhouses is not a vote FOR wolves eating a deer.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 22:07

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

They are going to die one way or another, I have no objection to killing them humanely in a way that goes on to benefit humans, as human benefit is also good.

No they are only going to die because we keep breeding more. You refuse to let go of this idea that it's cows killed by humans or cows running amok. Are you ok with me starting a puppy mill and killing them to make rugs? By your argument they get the benefit of living for a year relatively comfortable and I get some rugs! But the alternative would be just don't breed and kill the dogs at all.

Harold Fjord posted:

Yeah we all agree with you about this why are you beating this dead horse? Me going vegan personally or not has no bearing on changing that reality

I don't think you really agree because you're still fine with buying the product when you have an alternative options readily available. Acting ethically is living your values regardless on if the rest of society follows suit. Me not importing a child bride has no theoretical bearing on the human trafficking industry but if enough people get together and say this is wrong and boycott a practice then social pressure increases, laws get put in place, and things change.

OwlFancier posted:

I do generally try to watch where I walk, but equally I think I have to accept that that's just going to happen, I do wonder sometimes how many things I kill every day just by existing, but part of the way I rationalize it is by thinking that I won't produce another human to have the same problem. The other part being "that seems like an endless line of thinking that is unlikely to produce a result beyond 'kill yourself' so I am not going to pursue it"

There is a difference between watching where you walk vs purposefully stomping on things. Animal agriculture is purposefully causing that harm. I accept that a certain percentage of people will die in car accidents but I'm not out here advocating for reckless driving even though some number of people will still die. I'm still going to try to reduce harm.

DrBox fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Sep 8, 2022

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 22:30

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

I feel like you could vote for better animal welfare but not be vegan and still be pretty consistent?

What does vote mean in this context? If I'm paying to go to bullfighting events but make some vague noises about wishing they didn't die so brutally it's not really consistent.

If you say you want better animal welfare but you pay for factory farmed meat even when there are alternatives available it's not really consistent.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 22:43

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

As I said I don't really think that that my personal choice to eat or not eat animal products makes a great deal of difference in that regard, and I don't find it necessary to perform specific actions in this instance to attain a personal sense of moral superiority, nor really do I think any such actions are actually available to me, I would not think I was achieving anything if I became vegan, certainly not any more than just, I dunno, eating slightly less meat or whatever. The absolutist position holds no value to me on a personal level because I am fairly aware of all the myriad miseries I am complicit in anyway. It is not able to generate a sense of moral purity. I think my actions are consistent enough for my own satisfaction, they cannot be absolutely consistent nor do I expect them to be.

This is a weak argument you would not use for any other moral discussions. You can't avoid all harm so no choices matter?

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 23:04

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

VitalSigns posted:

You certainly can disagree on both counts! But that's a separate argument, and it's not inconsistent for someone to disagree with you on both counts either.

Vegans think that killing a cow is just as wrong as killing a human. Doing it humanely doesn't make it right, after all you wouldn't say it's okay to kill a human and take their stuff as long as you double-tapped them quickly and painlessly. It doesn't matter that someone else might torture them to death for their stuff later and so you may as well spare them that and get their stuff too. If killing is wrong, it's wrong. That's the disagreement between you and them.

Minor quibble to an otherwise great summary, but not all vegans vegans think its "just as wrong". In a contrived desert island situation where I had to save forum user OwlFancier or a cow I would probably save the human. But by the same token I would save my girlfriend over a human I didn't know.

You don't have to consider everyone the same in order to grant them enough moral consideration to not cut their throat for a burger.

VitalSigns posted:

Isn't everyone?

You have to draw a line somewhere right. Plants are living beings.

i draw the line at conscious beings with a subjective experience of the world and the capacity to suffer.

DrBox fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Sep 8, 2022

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 23:12

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

If you let your cat outside it will kill birds and mice for no good reason. So I would suggest that this is a quite good example of humans doing better than nature. It would certainly be nice if your cat could have an endless world to explore in safety, but that is not how the world is, and I think it is quite clearly better for it to be inside.

Which is not an argument for breeding more cats.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 23:21

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

I don't think they need our help. Should we be spaying ferals?

Yes but that is not the point I was making. I was arguing against the idea that breeding them and giving them a good life or letting them roam free are the only two choices.

OwlFancier posted:

I mean if you think cats can be happy as indoor pets it kind of is unless you adopt the position that a happy life is not worth initiating under any circumstances which is even more antinatalist than I am, I certainly have objections to most forms of reproduction at this current time but in the event that we figured out a way to reliably give people lives as happy as cats I think I would reassess that.

If animals have experiences as valuable as humans and we are to take the premise that well lived lives are inherently worth living, and initiating, then I would be hard pressed to come up with a better example than a housecat for something we should desire more of.

I am not anti-natalist but we should not intentionally breed more cats. There are already thousands of cats that are euthanized every year after not finding homes. Giving existing cats a loving home is obviously a good thing.

Harold Fjord posted:

Raising alpacas for wool seems perfectly ethical if you are nice to your alpacas. That's another particular where I would agree with calling veganism absolutist.

I'm not familiar with alpacas but the sheep wool industry is brutal. They have been selectively bred to need our help so if they escape they either die or are found later near death with the wool overgrown. They are neutered without anesthetic, mutilated to avoid having wool grow near their anus, and only sheared when best suited for wool sales and not the sheep's comfort leading to awkward periods of too much wool on them. They also time the breeding to be ideal for farmers meaning later winter and early spring where many young newborns die of exposure. Since they are treated like a wool growing machine and not sentient creatures there is a lot of abuse uncovered when they are sheared.

OwlFancier posted:

I fear that position runs into the danger of solipsism where I identify as vegan despite eating a burger for dinner because I was out and the burger place was there and it was practical for me to get it and I had to eat something because I had work to do.

I would generally hew more to the idea that words have, like, collectively defined meanings, and vegans at least to me appear to be far more absolutist about the concept of avoiding animal products than I think it is necessary to be. They may not achieve it but their concept of practical swings well into my concept of exceptional. If you have a better word to describe the length they go to to avoid animal products I could use that instead though. I suppose I do not strictly mean absolutist in reality, but rather absolutist in ideal.

There needs to be a little wiggle room and possible and practicable can be a little muddy but the level of inconvenience of buying something else at the restaurant or grocery store is trivial. I'm against killing humans and would not say that grandma took too long at the crosswalk and I'm late for work so lets run her over!

What if you were at a roadside diner and you walk in craving a burger and they had a perfectly good vegan burger or other plant based options, but they were out of beef. Would you ask them to cut the throat of the cow you walked past on the way in so you could get what you were craving, or would you be ok with buying one of the other options available? That's more or less the choice you're making every time you're in a grocery store buying the beef instead of beyond burger.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2022 23:56

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

VitalSigns posted:

In the world we have now I agree, there's so many animals that need homes that intentionally breeding more doesn't make sense. My dog is from a shelter.

What about in a future where that problem is solved and the shelters are empty but people still want pets, would breeding them to satisfy families who would like a pet be all right then?

In a world where there were no dogs that need homes I'm torn on whether breeding more for pets is exploitation or a form of mutualism. I lean towards exploitation since we are using them as a means to an end which is the fulfillment of our own desire. I'm not married to that position though.

Harold Fjord posted:

I don't think anyone ever made such an argument, just provided some comparisons. You can add more

This was the general tone of the last two pages. Every time I point out that we could simply not breed more animals, wild animal suffering got dragged back into the conversation and I'd again have to clarify that it's not just a choice between feral cows or domesticated cows with a knife at the end. There's also no cows as an option.

Harold Fjord posted:

Everyone knows what factory farms are and agrees that they are terrible. This is a question of the "morality" of kinder farming practices and whether it's "moral" to do them instead of just letting the animals all brutalize one another.

Only seems like two options here. Farm cows or let animals roam free to brutalize each other.

DrBox fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Sep 9, 2022

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 00:45

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

I think the hangup here is that I and others are not suggesting specifically cows. But rather that if you removed cows, you would consequently get more animals that are not cows, because they expand to fill the newly available habitat (working on the assumption we would not be filling the cow pasture with something else that prohibits animal habitation)

Yeah and those are two different arguments. I would again use the example of an animal testing lab. Are you saying it's better to keep breeding beagles for cosmetics testing because otherwise wild animals may take over that space if we shut down the lab?

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 00:50

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

So all the cows going extinct is moral in a way that humanely killing one is not?

It seems inconsistent, I'm still teasing out how.

Yeah there's nothing exploitative or harmful for the individuals if the species goes extinct. There are dog breeds that have genetic health complications and it would be more ethical to stop breeding them rather than keep the breed going out of some worry about them going extinct. Pugs are not having an existential crisis over the future of the species, they are struggling to breathe.

Edit: VitalSigns beat me to it!

Fozzy The Bear posted:

Serious question: If honey isn't allowed because it exploits bees.

Are you not allowed to eat commercially grown fruit, since most of it is dependent on captured bee hives pollinating the flowers to produce that fruit?

Should you insist on fruit that is pollinated purely from wild bees?

Some Vegans will argue we should avoid crops like avacados or almonds for that reason. I'm not sure where I sit on that. If there is a crop that requires exploitation of an animal in order to cultivate it should probably be avoided. I know the proliferation of the honey bee puts stress on native bee species and is another reason why the bees are in decline.

DrBox fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Sep 9, 2022

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 01:15

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

XboxPants posted:

Some of this I'd agree with, but I think there's another angle as well. The idea that humans are not inherently superior to animals as decreed by God.

There's a very entrenched idea in the western Christian world that humans, as first among God's creations, have the right and obligation to shepherd and care for nature and all animals. Under this frame, humans are responsible for all life on Earth due to inherent superiority and the question isn't if humans should care for animals, but what the best way to do so is.

Under this frame, "animal welfare" means "how to treat animals most kindly".

But if you don't accept that the Bible is the word of God, this argument starts to fall apart. We no longer have a moral responsibility to care for animals in the wild, for instance, after we shut down a cow farm and it gets repopulated by the local deer and wildlife. Those guys are doing their own thing, and good luck to them. If I say that humans aren't decreed as superior by God, then humans have no more of a right to control the lives of deer than deer have the right to control the right of man. It simply isn't our domain to decide what's best for other living beings.

Under this frame, "animal welfare" means "giving animals rights and freedoms similar to our own".

It's almost the exact opposite of the other kind of animal welfare.

Though, I do still have a responsibility to care for, for example, my child, because I made a choice to create that being as a moral actor.

The idea of being the arbiter of wild-animal welfare gets strange very quickly too. If there's a drought this year are we morally obliged to go out and kill off half the wild animals so they don't die from starvation or lack of water? Or should be we out hunting predator species to extinction? That's why for me Veganism is concerned with the exploitation of animals by humans and not more generally animal suffering as a whole.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 01:22

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

as I think the human use of a cow's component parts is of greater utility than the cow simply living a bit longer.

This is why I'm not a utilitarian. This thinking leads to some really messed up scenarios and without a good foundation there's no reason it stops at animals.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 01:37

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

This is very rude, we've already established that we think humans are special.

Oh ok in that case I apologize to the true victims in the conversation on whether we should cut throats for burgers, the humans arguing we should.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 02:10

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

OwlFancier posted:

No I'm saying that I don't think divestment from animal exploitation is actually an improvement. I acknowledge that it would still be preferable from a vegan perspective to not kill the animals we keep as livestock but I am positing that keeping animals as livestock rather than having the space be used for wildlife can be a net-improvement for animal welfare, with the maximal animal welfare being achieved by human intervention to minimise animal suffering, basically the pet model. I think divestment from interference with animal behaviour is actually quite low on the range of possible human-animal relationships from a welfare perspective, on the basis that the natural state of life is pretty horrible.

I acknowledge that killing animals is bad for the animal but that is why I emphasise that the decision is not really "no animals die ever" but rather that they (by which I mean animals of some form living on the space we currently use as pasture, not necessarily the specific animals that we raise as livestock) die by various natural causes, most of which are very unpleasant without human intervention, or they die by human hand, which I believe we have the capability to make far better for the animal, and indeed which we routinely do with our pets when they are sick and we either lack the resources to pay for their care or if we judge that they are unlikely to have a quality of life we think desirable.

Is the optimal path in your view to cut down all forests, drain all wetlands and fill it with livestock so that no animal has to suffer in the wild? This is either a bizarre rationale or a huge distraction to justify killing animals for a sandwich.

Why don't we just leave nature alone where we can, intervene where it makes sense, and stop exploiting animals for food?

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 03:54

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

Because nature isn't a separate thing from us and what we do. I think using "Exploit" is pretty loaded and it sounds a lot less bad if you use the dictionary definition, which is "benefit from"

No moral reason we can't benefit from animals while being kind. The animal benefits too

I said leave nature alone where we can. This is in contrast to the idea that we have to go into the furthest reaches of the wilderness and wipe out all wildlife to prevent suffering. I feel like I'm arguing with a comic book villain.

As for "benefiting from animals while being kind" you are still talking about breeding, confining and ultimately killing animals for food we do not need. You are advocating we Impregnate a cow, steal away her calf, milk her until she is no longer productive then kill her.....kindly so that you can have milk in your coffee.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 04:22

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

Quote me advocating this

Making up positions no one took is bad form and you just can't help yourself

You arent an absolutist but if we disagree with you we support experimentation on puppies

So what exactly are you advocating for in clear terms? And do you think anything you're advocating for is likely to happen as long as animals are still seen as commodities or resources to exploit?

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 04:51

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

Sure we did. It's a good OP and I agree with a lot of it, just not every premise of morality or the conclusion. But on the other hand, I've made lots of posts here where the substantive point was disregarded so you could call me a puppy experimenter.

I think actual animal welfare is more important than perceived individual moral harms.

What do you mean by perceived moral harms? Do you acknowledge these animals are individuals who are experiencing the world and it's not just a perceived harm, but in fact actual real harm?

You say you do not support factory farming but there is no way for the world to continue to eat meat as you do without it so why not address the morals at the individual level without trying to handwave away all the suffering by arguing for some fantasy land situation where all these pigs and chickens get to roam free and the gas chamber at the end is a fair trade.

The only reason to argue for the continued exploitation of these animals is cultural inertia and tradition. We do not need these products and the fact that bacon tastes nice is not a justification.

Besides the moral question there are other good reasons to stop animal agriculture such as the impact on the environment, antibiotic resistance, and zoonotic diseases.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 14:47

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

I think there is a morally acceptable point that is not veganism, not that things should remain unchanged, and I reject the premise that individuals becoming vegan is the only way to enact needed change.

And we probably do need some of these products because we certainly can't keep using plastic for everything.

Individuals becoming vegan is not the only way to enact change, but it's the only way to remain morally consistent. If you agree that animals have moral value then it does not make sense to cut their throat for a burger when we have alternatives available. We are not living in a desert island scenario here.

As for the plastic comment, I assume you mean for clothing? There is lots of literature to show the process for tanning leather and animal agriculture in general has a far greater impact and again, we have alternatives available. There are new forms of vegan leather and lots of plants we can process for wool and silk alternatives. If this was actually a priority for people we could push for those alternatives but instead we go for the cheap animal by-products.

DrBox fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Sep 9, 2022

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 15:20

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

It depends entirely on where he gets the steak from.

Opposed is a strong word for it. I disagree with the moral absolutism even though I agree with the critique of modern agriculture as is.

Do you actually care about this and look into it, or do you just buy steak blindly knowing the cow probably suffered? It's one thing to virtue signal and say you wish it were better for the cow but those are empty words if you keep buying that steak.

Do you use this moral absolutism critique with any other moral discussions? Bull fighting or rodeos can be done better and arguing for a boycott is too extreme?

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 15:47

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

Start a thread on those and find out.

Edit, to be less flip, there are probably practices I don't support, but I don't think "loving around with a bull" is some great moral wrong

Bull fighting and rodeos is just "loving around with a bull"? You are so set on not acknowledging the harm done to these animals for entertainment. Steak falls into the category of entertainment too.

Bull fights end with the bull stabbed with a sword multiple times. In rodeos bulls have a rope tied around their balls to give them incentive to buck and give a show. Many animals die in chuckwagon races and calf roping. This is all for spectacle and the root cause is the same mentality you display here. The idea that animals are ours to use and abuse.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 16:02

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

I explicitly did not. In fact, I outright indicated I disagree with some practices. You shithead

Harold Fjord posted:

Start a thread on those and find out.

Edit, to be less flip, there are probably practices I don't support, but I don't think "loving around with a bull" is some great moral wrong

You said you "probably disagree with some practices" then called it "loving around with a bull"

To be clear, all bulls die bleeding in bull fighting and some percentage of animals die in every event in a rodeo due to accidents.

Why not just take a moral position instead of this wishy washy sliding scale of harm? There is no compelling argument to defend using animals this way. You're the guy going to a sea world protest trying to argue the fish are lucky to be there.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 16:37

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

Meanwhile, in reality people have been "bull fighting" without stabbing them to death for at least 5 years now. https://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/13/controversial-bloodless-bullfighting-denver/

Oh nice. A practice that according to your article is seen as controversial, going against tradition and used in a tiny minority of bull fights. I'm glad a handful of bulls will survive but that's not a reason to now excuse the sport. Why not just stop rather than try to do it a little nicer in a compromise that makes no one happy.

Harold Fjord posted:

I fail to see how rodeo accidents carry any ethical weight whatsoever and of they did, it implies we should care about animal welfare itself in a way vegans have been quite clear that they do not.

If I put on a circus event knowing 5% of human performers will die or be maimed I would be shut down. It's the double standard that vegans are arguing against, and the animals don't get to sign a waiver and accept the risk. They are slaves.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 17:12

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

I don't see why it is necessary to stop consuming all meat instead of unethically produced meat to reach that point.

Have you stopped consuming unethical meat, whatever that means to you?

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 17:23

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

As much as possible

What steps do you take to accomplish this? No restaurants, no grocery store meat, it must be very different than the average person.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 17:33

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

What bearing does my personal ability to abide by my own ethical principles have on any of this? If I chose to be vegan I would be exactly as successful, whatever that may be.

I haven't dined in in 3 years so... What?

Harold Fjord posted:

I don't see why it is necessary to stop consuming all meat instead of unethically produced meat to reach that point.

You imply by this quote that to "reach this point" it would be necessary to stop consuming all unethical meat. I'm trying to see if you live in alignment with those principals.

I am skeptical and this is why vegans push for what you consider a hardline stance. No animal products is a much easier and consistent position to hold than your fuzzy "ethical meat" idea that would be nearly impossible to live by.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 17:48

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

See the previous posts about vegans driving on roads.

Driving does not guarantee accidents or harm. A steak guarantees harm. Violence is inherent in the product.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 17:49

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Harold Fjord posted:

I would say that this is equally applicable to a rodeo that's why the word is accident

You don't see a difference in intentionally putting animals in dangerous situations for entertainment vs driving with some potential unintended harm?

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 18:02

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Epic High Five posted:

I think there's a pretty good case to be made that the act of driving is one of intentionally putting animals in harms way,

Do you consider this the same for humans? Pedestrians get hit all the time but most people do not agree the act of getting in a car is intentionally putting them at risk.

Harold Fjord posted:

Trying to get everyone I know to go from beef to turkey.

ok that's the goalpost I'm talking about. Now it's not about what I'm doing but some vague concept of ending animal suffering (but not in the wild or by having animals and treating them nicely).

Maybe it's a side effect of Rotating Vegan theory but one minute it's about personal morality the next it's about real social change at scale

Why turkeys? Less calories per life and your average grocery store turkey lives a miserable life in a shed. There is no morally relevant difference between a cow and a turkey.

Vegans aren't shifting goalposts. The vegan position has not changed. The only reason we keep wafflingb in this conversation is when people try to argue personal responsibility does not impact anything and it is society that has to change. At that point we have to talk about how to get society to change and I argue individuals living their values is a big part.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 18:20

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Epic High Five posted:

I do, I am profoundly anti-car and I hate them. Driving a car means you are putting lives at risk necessarily, just pretending it isn't heavy equipment that requires constant attention doesn't change the reality of it.

Interesting. By that measure every time you order something online and it gets delivered you have a major ethical dilemma. I'll think about that more but with regular day to day driving I don't consider it analogous to the original rodeo discussion. That would be more like stunt driving on busy roads.

distortion park posted:

On this point, I suppose the question could be phrased as do you think that stopping eating meat makes it more or less likely that society will change? I personally don't see an avenue from me eating meat to society eating less meat, whereas the opposite does seem at least possible.

Two ways to look at it. There is the question on if you should live your values regardless of the broader outcome to which I say yes just like I would for littering or being anti-racist.

The second more tangible outcome depends on if you believe in voting. The grocery stores look different now than 10 years ago in terms of available specialty vegan products. That is a direct result of more vegans demanding change and voting through consumer habits and societal pressure.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 18:35

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Epic High Five posted:

I think veganism/vegetarianism/animal rights is a topic of discussion where there aren't many things that line up 1:1 for purposes of comparison, which is where a lot of acrimony comes from that isn't from how pretty much every culture will put advocates on the defensive as a strategy to stay sane, and I don't think it's akin to rodeo because driving is primarily an economic/necessity thing versus a strictly social thing. It's more just an acknowledgement that cars and especially their infrastructure really gently caress animals and nature up hard in a lot of ways that rarely get examined, but I notice them because I hate cars and driving.

Yeah I agree with a lot this but the case for Veganism is already hard enough to get buy in without also suggesting we dismantle modern society and cars. The "practicable and possible" in the definition do a lot of the work. Looking at the suffering and exploitation in totality cars are a pretty small part compared to the trillions of animals purposefully killed for food every year.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 18:51

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Epic High Five posted:

I think a big shift away from meat for a lot of cultures is going to require something akin to a revolution, in fact.

Realistically it will take widespread adoption of lab grown meat. Once it's economically viable the old way of cutting throats for burgers will not be able to compete and will be a weird niche for rich or sociopathic people like trophy hunting is now.

Once society has moved away from it then they will be much more receptive to the arguments. It's hard to change someone's mind when doing so forces them to admit that what they are doing is perhaps wrong or even immoral. That's why I always suggest people try eating plant based for a month. It's easier to have the conversation when you are not actively participating in the harm being discussed.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 19:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 05:48

DrBox: Jul 3, 2004; Sombody call the doctor?

Epic High Five posted:

I feel like going vegan as a means to end factory farming is a pretty straightforward position that would definitely work at least in theory. If you want people to go vegan, who cares what reason they use to square it with themselves in the end?

One small caveat is the reason matters for non food related things. Vegans constantly having to fight against the term being watered down and if someone says they're vegan while visiting the zoo every weekend in their cow leather jacket it undercuts the anti exploitation message.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2022 19:32

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why You Should Go Vegan

«‹›3 »