Why You Should Go Vegan

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

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

I think you're right that promoting vegetarianism and reduction are the most effective. In terms of moral vs environmental, it seems like with moral arguments you're going to run into lots of people who say (or don't say, but clearly have the revealed preference) "I don't actually care much about certain animals suffering". With environmental arguments you can at least point out that their choices will make the world suck for everyone, including them. If someone doesn't care about chicken suffering at all even the best moral arguments are going to go nowhere.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2022 21:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:32

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Fozzy The Bear posted:

...who eat a mostly plant based diet, have ZERO heart disease. That same demographic moves to the USA and eat a typical standard American diet...

Mostly plant based vs standard American diet is not the same comparison as fully vegan vs meat inclusive.

No one is going to defend the typical American diet. But I've never seen any evidence that 100% vegan is healthier than heavily plant based with occasional fish and eggs (or something).

# ¿ Oct 16, 2022 03:20

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Fozzy The Bear posted:

Of course...You eat mostly...meat...for health...the bulk of your daily diet [is]...donut[s], ...you are eating healthily.

Fozzy The Bear posted:

That was intentional

Two can play at that game.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2022 03:47

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

suck my woke dick posted:

Environmental arguments being more effective isn't automatically an indicator of selfishness. Someone might value the environment for supporting future generations, or for its own sake and for the preservation of wild animal species without necessarily being very concerned about individual farm animals suffering.

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't trying to suggest environmental arguments only work on selfish people, more that if someone is only self-interested those can be useful.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2022 17:30

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

DrBox posted:

I'm judging the consistency based on their own stated beliefs. If you talk to someone and they say "Yes I think cutting a cow's throat for a sandwich I do not need is wrong and therefore I'm going to try meatless mondays" they are being inconsistent because doing a bad thing 6 out of 7 days does not suddenly make it good. It only means you're doing the bad thing less.

Ok, now say you convince them this is morally inconsistent, and they say "well I really don't think I can handle going fully vegan right now, poo poo" and scrap meatless Monday.

Is that better or worse for the ongoing moral emergency?

# ¿ Oct 17, 2022 00:54

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

DrBox posted:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is me drawing a hard red line at no-dog-loving maintaining moral purity and the cost of effectiveness advocating for people not to gently caress dogs? For the record regardless of the outcome I will die on the hill of loving dogs is bad.

If you advocate for abstinence over harm reduction, it *may* be the case that more of the activity you're against will occur.

Let's agree that loving dogs is bad and in an ideal world there would be none. The current level is 100. If we promote abstinence-only we can get that down to 85 over the next year. If we promote harm reduction we can get it down to 75 in the same time frame. Which policy should we choose?

edit: obviously this is making a lot of assumptions, I hope you understand the point of the hypothetical. It might be that abstinence is actually most effective, I'm just asking you to consider this option.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2022 02:40

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

DrBox posted:

Do you think dogs and cats should be protected under law where you live? Why do you give preferential treatment to them when cows pigs and chickens are capable of the same range of emotions and depth of suffering? What is the difference beyond just "I like them"? There has to be some features to point to when we're justifying harm to other animals based on that difference.

You're going to end up being arbitrary on some dimension, aren't you? Or should we have the same rules for mammals, fish, birds, insects, crustaceans, worms, sponges, coral, mollusks, plants? They're all living things and we can view them all as having some kind of 'suffering' or 'preference for life'.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2022 23:11

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

HookedOnChthonics - I don't think there's much interesting discussion to be had in a lot of those points, basically. Nearly everyone* agrees veganism (or near-veganism) is better for the environment/health/land use/economics. Nearly everyone* agrees factory farming is terrible. So the discussion moved.

*In this thread, anyway.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2022 23:35

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

DrBox posted:

What does it mean for something to have moral value but then harming, destroying, or feeding it to an animal not be immoral? If you're granting something moral value, it should matter if you destroy it.

From a utilitarian standpoint I don't think there's a confusion here, we can give things some moral weight but other things higher weight. Harming an animal is 5 "bad". In total we get 10 "good" from turning it into hamburgers. We don't allow animal torture because we agree that's not worth any "good" points. etc.

(I recognize you're probably not a utilitarian)

# ¿ Oct 18, 2022 18:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:32

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

DrBox posted:

Animals are being harmed and exploited and I have not encountered a justification that goes beyond culture, tradition, or personal pleasure. None of these reasons justify harming humans and there is no morally relevant difference to point to that would make it justified for animals.

How would you convince someone that sentience is the critical thing to care about, rather than humanness or sapience or 'living creatures I like' or anything else? I think that's where all the plant talk was trying to go, why should sentience be the line? You seem to assume everyone has that same belief, and then don't understand why they come to different conclusions.

More concretely; do insects have sentience? How would you feel about someone killing a mosquito because it might bite them and cause some minor discomfort? What about someone trapping or killing rats that were in their restaurant?

# ¿ Oct 19, 2022 02:26

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