This meme changed zero minds but made a few vegans feel pretty special.
What three animals everyone else eating? We’ve got chickens, ducks, pigeons, quail, geese, cranes, turkeys, cows, deer, elk, moose, antelope, armadillo, beaver, bobcats, coyotes, foxes, lynx, bear, bison, caribou, goat, musk ox, pronghorn, sheep, muskrat, opossums, pigs, porcupine, rabbits, squirrels, pheasant, chukars, and tons of tasty insects to choose from.
You forgot the many difference species of fish/creatures-of-the-sea.
I didn’t even go there because of so many tasty options to list!
Tell me with a straight face that you eat a fucking squirrel
THAT’S the one you take issue with? Lol
In not sure anyone is eating muskrat or opossum outside West Virginia mountain hermits, people born before 1890, and anyone who self identifies as a trapper.
There’s parts of the Florida Panhandle where opossum is a serious delicacy. They even have a festival in August.
Huh. Weird.
Muskrat was classified as non meat for Catholics, so some people ate it, but anyone I know who did is dead now.
Well squirrel was the funniest one within that context imo.
Eat the elongated muskrat!
Squirrel are fantastic.
They’re the least “gamey” out of most small game, less so than rabbit, and taste something like leaner dark meat chicken.
Awesome in a crockpot substituted for chicken in most recipes. Can fancy up squirrel with a Sous vide to make squirrel confit bánh mì tacos, or keep it old school and make squirrel pot pie.
I grew up eating squirrel. Its very common in rural areas,
Dove, too.
Knew someone that tried to eat possum once, said it was the nastiest, greasiest thing he’d ever tried.
You have to catch the possum first, then corn feed it for about a month or two to get the nasty taste out of the meat before you eat it. So basically, turn it into a pet, then kill and eat it.
Is… is that actually true, or are you having a laugh? I genuinely cant tell.
but if its true, thats an awful lot of effort to make something nasty taste decent.
Its how they did it for the Possum Festival in Florida when I was growing up, so its a thing, But I can’t imagine anyone would do it just cause they like possum though.
They’re good too.
“very common” is generous. I grew up in rural GA and never once saw someone actually eat squirrel
I’m from Kentucky, friend. I’ve definitely had a squirrel or two in my day.
Tennessee checking in - I’ve had squirrel as well.
I used to live in rural Kansas, so yes
Squirrel is actually pretty good. Some of those others though…
Man the size of the of the ones in my neighborhood could replace our thanksgiving turkey if it wasn’t illegal to hunt them (I checked).
I mean tbf, the majority of Americans don’t eat anything aside from chicken pork and beef, with the occasional turkey
True, but the majority of Americans also eat only a handful of plants, especially when counting brassica as one plant.
That’s only true because turkeys aren’t that good.
Turkey is amazing when done right. Though I guess that can be said for damn near anything.
Fucking heretic.
The amount of work required to make a decent turkey simply isn’t worth it when so many better poultry options exist. The best prepared turkey isn’t going to come close to a good roast duck.
yeah they’re mid af
To get 80k they’re obviously counting variations. How many breeds of cow have I eaten?
I don’t have access to that many animals, nor that many plants. Maybe 5 animals and about two dozen plants.
OP probably meant fish, octopus, and squid
lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats
Skip a bit, brother
Pls don’t eat fox or lynx, they cute.
Not after you cook them?
And the slothes, and the orangutans, and breakfast cereals
I eat meat AND vegetables
Maybe don’t contribute to the commodification of sentient beings.
You gotta let people be people. Shaming someone for their dietary choices is not cool. Not everyone shares the same beliefs and that is fine.
I personally believe that people should not eat meat unless they have what it takes to kill it themselves so they understand what goes into it. Too many people eat meat all the time without understanding that something has to die for it to get there. I also disagree with mass agribusiness indoor livestock operations.
Some beliefs lead to immoral outcomes. I’m absolutely certain you can think of quite a few beliefs like that, right? Just picture a hill billy from Alabama, are all his beliefs fine?
In the end, morals is applied ethics, and politics is applied morals. We absolutely should legislate and not tolerate bad beliefs. The vague idea that “everyone has their own belief/opinion and we have to respect it” is a thought terminating cliche that makes the world a worse place. My dad wants me to respect his antivax beliefs, my grandfather wants me to respect his climate change denialism beliefs. Should I?
Well said, I’m glad to finally meet someone with your views that is able to express themselves.
I would say no to your question as those beliefs are contradicting science and they could cause harm to people. My beliefs do not contradict established science. I would also point out that not all rural Appalachian people are bigots, but I understand the point you were making with it. The difference in our views is that I don’t see animals as people. I understand their intelligent, and I believe some may be sentient such as elephants and whales. I am against killing elephants and whales.
If you are curious to see it from my perspective, participate in a somewhat poor analogy. Imagine someone came out and said they believe that killing a tree is the same as committing murder, that trees are people. After all, we have proven that they communicate with other trees and with mycelium in very complex and even selfless ways, probably to an even higher degree than we have yet discovered. This person is adamant that the trees are being oppressed and that we need to stop farming trees for paper products. They say that you are a bad person for causing unnecessary suffering and destruction to trees. But imagine that you disagree with them, you do not see trees as people. You understand that trees are living and communicating and you would like to see less cut down, but you still use them for firewood to heat your house. You see it as no less humane to grow them and cut them down than it is to let them die from burning to death or being eaten alive by bugs or disease.
Not the best example, and there are plenty of holes you could point out of you feel so inclined, but hopefully the core of it can grant atleast a small glimpse into how I see the issue we are discussing.
More info on the trees talking thing. I find it fascinating that they have a whole complex economy going on underground, trading and even investing resources. DYK that as a last act when a tree is dying, it gives its resources to saplings that are of a different species than itself before it goes. There’s some good podcast on it “radiolab, from tree to shining tree”. Also an quick Google search article. https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/underground-mycorrhizal-network
Neuroscience agrees that other mammals and birds are able to experience suffering. They feel pain and stress and fear. The majority agrees they are conscious of their emotions even. To ignore that is a conscious decision on your side. You decide their suffering is worth it, but you don’t want people to confront you with it because it makes you uncomfortable. How ironic.
Lol it does not make me uncomfortable. Everything dies somehow, modern slaughterhouses are a lot more humane than mother nature.
There is an obvious difference between kicking a puppy and cutting a tree. Trees do not have brains. Trees also cant move to get away from a predator, so why would they develop emotions we have? As complicated as my right hand is, it isnt sentient.
I see what you are saying about digging holes, there are a lot of arguments we could go on but the issue doesn’t need to be overcomplicated. The animal industry absolutely is terrible for sentient beings and terrible for the environment, and being vegan vastly reduces the plants or animals we kill.
When someones dietary choice causes huge amounts of needless suffering and death to the victim (the innocent animal that was exploited and killed) then that’s not “fine”. That’s a serious injustice that should be pointed out (at the very least)
Wait, fish can eat other fish, but I can’t? How’s that fair?
animals in the wild do a lot of unethical shit
Monsters, all of them. Someone should eat them, just to keep the others safe.
i know this may be a shock but fish haven’t reached the industrialization part of civilization yet. they do not have the capabilities to grow crops and harvest them and make dishes
I mean, meat is still murder, right?
So you’re using the “Lions rape and murder, therefore it’s okay to do the same.” argument?
Weak.
Think about the argument you’re making here: “Wild animals do X, therefore humans should be allowed to do X”. I hope you understand how horrible this argument is. Here’s a fun little list of things animals do:
- Eat their young
- Grape
- Murder each other for status or access to women
- shit on the floor in public
That’s your take on my argument. I haven’t extended it beyond the ethics of meat eating.
Than why am I not allowed to eat other humans? They are made out of meat, too. And why do we not allow animals to eat humans?
I’ll be thinking of you while I eat my steak today
I won’t think about you at all.
Watch dominion while you eat
Nothing like going to my local farm and eating their meat while watching a movie about how GOOD the meat I’m eating is because some other meat is so terrible.
Thanks for the idea :) I’m gonna bring it up for the next local farm-to-table
Let people be doesn’t apply when it involves harming someone else. The harm done to animals is unnecessary violence and cruelty to living thinking beings.
That is your belief. I respect it. My mom is a vegetarian and I respect her beliefs, she would cook meat for us as she respected ours.
To me, the world has been eating itself since the beginning of life. Wild animals die horrible slow deaths from sickness to starvation over the course of days/weeks to being eaten alive or left to die, and that is the natural way of things. If you want to live you have to die. You don’t have to agree with me, but you should accept that different people see things differently than you.
I don’t expect a person at the bottom of the economic scale to feed their family with expensive alternatives that they don’t understand, and you should’t shame them for doing the best they can with what they have or what they know. If someone has the means to eat along with their beliefs, then more power to them. But shaming others is not the way.
Lead by example. Offer affordable alternatives, give positive publicity, not negative publicity, to let people see how your way can be good. Allow people to see your way. Don’t force them or they’ll just dig in deeper on their own beliefs.
Animals are being slaughtered they want to live. I respect your belief that the rock music is not garbage not your beliefs others should die for your sensory pleasure. Not consuming animal products is not an expensive luxury at all its way cheaper than meat and dairy and that would be magnified if the subsidies stopped.
If you believe that then you should work to change people’s minds, like actually research how to do that. The way you currently approach it will only make people disagree with you out of spite. Good luck to you.
Some people really think being a good example of the product of their beliefs and being obnoxiously obtuse and argumentative about their beliefs are equally effective at persuading others to think like them.
I can tell you no person ever in the history of humanity was convinced by the latter.
If you help kill living beings out of spite then I’m not the problem. If nobody is challenged when they kill and oppress others they will never stop doing so.
Also who are you to tell me how to argue for animal liberation given whats been tried before has obviously not worked on you.
Wait do you think farming doesn’t hurt animals? I’m all for not eating meat, but pretending you’re not harming millions of insects, birds, and various mammals every time you eat a salad, you’re confused about how food production works.
The moral thing people can do is stop making so many people. And hopefully we find ways to produce food in a better way one day. But farming on the scale that feeds billions of people is absolutely fucked.
The majority of farming is for animal feed we could easily scale down plant and vegetable farming while eliminating animal exploitation and still see everyone feed.
Yeah. But not all of it. Factory produce framing is murder too.
Do you not see a difference if I step on an ant while walking or if I search for ants to drown for my pleasure?
Taking a step crazier, there are some animals that produce SO MANY calories that they represent less animal deaths per calorie than eating crops. Cows and Pigs are an example of that. I’m not going to get into hard numbers because everyone likes to hate on the other side’s numbers and my experience living in a farming community looks more like the numbers that make animals look bad. If you want to math it out, the farm industry estimates about 40 mouse deaths per acre farmed, and vegan advocates defend a 15 total animal deaths per hectare figure. Grass-fed cows are more death-efficient than corn (the gold standard efficient crop, if less efficient than potatoes) at around 10 deaths-per-acre of farmland. I’ve never seen an acre of farmland without at least 10 animal carcasses on it in a full growth+harvest cycle.
How many people do you estimate could be fed with grass-fed cows? What about the usage of water? What is with the thousands of hectare of forest that have been rode for pastures? What about the water you need for this type of farming? What about the fact that, if everybody would switch to a meatless diet you would need much less farmland overall?
I know why you do not want to get into hard numbers. Because they would refute your weak arguments.
How many people do you estimate could be fed with grass-fed cows?
Why are we going back to “grass-fed”? Do you have plans for that inedible plant waste that currently only ends up in animals or landfills?
What about the usage of water?
What about it? I’m not sure you understand how water works in agriculture/horticulture. Are you looking at “water footprint”? That’s its own complicated topic with as many landmines. I’d like to point out that cows are basically as efficient as nuts (or any real vegetable protein), and even the waterfootprint site just suggests having a mix of chicken and beef.
From your unkind reply to me elsewhere… If you had to pick between the environment and fewer animal deaths, which would you choose? I like to talk cows with vegans because a mixed diet with beef as the only meat clearly consists of fewer animal deaths than a vegan diet. 700,000 calories a death is pretty hard to beat. Environmentally speaking (and water), the best way to get protein is from animals that have to die and locally sourced chicken. Chicken are pretty death inefficient though, aren’t they?
What is with the thousands of hectare of forest that have been rode for pastures?
What about factory farms in third world countries with no safety controls? There’s as much of a veg-packing industry as there is a meat-packing one. Are you going to stop eating vegetables because SOME FARM SOMEWHERE does something wrong? The meat I eat doesn’t come from places where “thousands of hectares of forest have been rode for pasture”.
What about the fact that, if everybody would switch to a meatless diet you would need much less farmland overall?
You seemed to have backed yourself into a corner with a non-argument argument. Is this from a position that land usage is unacceptable? Because the world is nowhere near overpopulated yet. Is this from an environmental standpoint? Then land use is the wrong figure. Are you really happy if we use less farmland but produce MORE net GHG? We need more farmland per calorie of crop if we don’t have sufficient fertilization. But the fertilizers (synethic and manure) are the potential problem. To use less farmland overall, you need to produce more GHG overall. The balance for farmland is to have localized ecosystems of livestock fertilizing local plant farms which in turn use their waste to feed.
I’m gonna be crystal clear. I’m NOT saying beef is perfect. I prefer chicken and seafood from an environmental perspective. But I know a lot of vegans care more about “saving animal lives” than they do the environment. So I talk cow. I’ll concede it straight - beef should NOT be foundational to your diet any more than veganism should be if your goal is a single sustainable diet for the entire world.
If you dont want to contribute to the comodification of sentient beings you’d also have to quit your job unless it somehow has literally zero impact on your physical and mental well being. Anyone got a job like that?
So, unless they can reduce the harm they cause to 0%, any and all attempts to reduce it are futile and pointless? This is the nirvana fallacy, and I hope you understand how horrible that would be if we lived by that rule. For example, I can’t stop all racism, all human exploitation, all sexism because I live in a capitalistic hellscape built on the suffering of others. Therefore, I don’t actually need to try, correct?
So your “argument” is, if we can’t be 100 % cruelty free, we shouldn’t reduce cruelty?
My arguement is if you want to reduce crulety, you have options to do so in your own life, which are far more productive than simply yelling at people online for not doing it the exact same way as you. You refusing to work somewhere you can support less exploitative practices because your comfortable in your job is no different then someone telling you they’re not changing their diet because it works for them. You have the means and the capacity to change yourselves, yet you’d rather yell at people online to change themselves.
I don’t yell at people. And I also don’t think a Meme is similar to yelling at someone…
Perhaps people feel much more attacked than what is the intention of the one who posted the meme. It can’t be that we aren’t allowed to make jokes or talk about veganism online because people are selectively oversensitive. This meme is really really mild when compared to a lot of the other jokes posted here. Especially when you compare it to the amount of mockery and jokes many vegans and vegetarians have to endure in their personal life.
Meat eaters can’t expect to bite all the time but than get all cranky when someone stubs them back.
Good thing I wasn’t directly replying to the meme itself. I was replying to what’s a now deleted comment. Wonder why they deleted it, maybe all that yelling they were doing turned out to be ineffective.
Thinking diet shaming can work to turn people Vegan is like thinking body shaming can make people skinny.
You hate capitalism yet have a smartphone? hypocrite much
Imagine being a pro-capitalism vegan lmao
I’m not a capitalist that was just showing how absurd your argument was. Supporting the de commodification of living beings is basic praxis.
Nah.
Steak is delicious, and at the end of the day it’s only a cow.
Plenty of foods are delicious.
So ethics aren’t a concern for you. How about the adverse health effects, or environmental impacts of the meat industry? Any considerations there, or is all about how delicious steak is to you?
You know there’s a lot of valid ethical frameworks that do not espouse veganism?
It’s safer to say “YOUR ethics aren’t a concern to him”, or to me. There’s a lot of philosophers who eat meat. And it’s not hypocritical. They just think you’re wrong. You aren’t God (and even if you were, God doesn’t get to decide ethics).
As for adverse health effects, I have known dozens of ex-vegans, one with an degree in nutrition, who left veganism despite their ethics, for health reasons. Generally speaking, it’s easier to “accidentally” have an reasonably ok diet with a full balanced mix of foods than it is for a vegan to intentionally have one.
or environmental impacts of the meat industry?
This is actually an incredibly complicated accusation, and unless you enter the conversation with the conclusion in mind, there’s not enough evidence/arguments out there to show that it’s “the meat industry” that’s the real environmental problem with our food industry. As someone who has shared a table with experts on a few occasions and then done some of my own armchair research, I’m convinced the two real problems are non-local food and factory farming. The former creates polluting logicistical overhead in transport and over-storage of food (fossil fuels for driving, non-recyclable plastics, etc) and the latter in willful destruction of environment to get more output cheaper, when we have plenty of room and plenty of margins to “do it right”
As for “to do it right”, part of doing it right is acknowledging that we have a compost/manure shortfall against crops NOT because we’re not producing enough manure but because we don’t have localized meat farms balanced in each area around their crop farms, and/or that it’s considered acceptable to use fertilizers despite the presence of manure that would better fertilize a crop. So the better answer? Local meat, and transition away from factory farms. And if you’ve got the land and the courage for it, keep some chickens for eggs and goats for meat/manure.
My 2c anyway.
or is all about how delicious steak is to you?
AND it is about how delicious a steak is to me. Have you ever walked a local farm with the people who do all the work? Helped them pick out the pigs for the meal? Known the love that is involved in the whole process, and the fact that the animals have it 100x better than they’d have had it in nature.
So yes, there is nothing like cutting into that pork chop having a REAL appreciation for the pig’s sacrifice, a real appreciation for the work everyone put into it all.
My ethical concerns go beyond raising animals, it’s the unnecessary killing them without their consent where it becomes problematic. Particularly when the “sacrifice” is for the trivial reason to satisfy the killer’s taste buds; when our taste buds can be satisfied in so many ways that don’t involve a victim.
And yes, I grew up on a farm where we raised all our own meat, including pigs. I’ve personally killed more animals than the average person, and I can say with certainty that every animal wants to live. To violently take another’s life “because it tastes good” and then go through such convuluted reasoning to justify it is very puzzling to me. It suggests a lack of empathy that seems to be endemic in our society. To speak of “the love” that is involved in the process doesn’t hold much weight with me. Serial killers love to kill, don’t they?
Understand that you don’t get to pen the ethical frameworks for the world, only for yourself. Even in ethical frameworks where “consent” and “killing” are given extreme weight, there are always other factors… And under most of the foundational ethical frameworks (Utilitarianism and Natural Law Theory come to mind), the argument for necessary-veganism is unsupportable.
So if you want to hate meat eating, say “I think it’s wrong to eat animals” or “my morals don’t allow it”. Don’t tell people who eat meat they don’t care about ethics, because that statement is simply dead wrong.
Particularly when the “sacrifice” is for the trivial reason to satisfy the killer’s taste buds
My biggest complaint about proselytizing vegans is the way they oversimplify the equation. Like every single person who ever eats meat for any reason stops with a fork in their hand saying “Is this bite of food more important to me than murder? YES IT IS”.
To violently take another’s life “because it tastes good” and then go through such convuluted reasoning to justify it is very puzzling to me.
With all due respect, reality is not as simple as you’re making it out to be. If you cannot see that there’s more to the discussion than “meat tastes good” and “animals don’t want to die”, then nobody can help you. But pretending that people use convoluted reasoning to justify it is an ignorant take, whether willful or out of being blinded by your own zealous position on the matter.
It suggests a lack of empathy that seems to be endemic in our society
You do understand that from a psychological point of view, human empathy and animal empathy are different factors and rationally exist in different amounts. Honestly, my personal take is that zealous vegans show less empathy towards fellow man than other people. LOOK at the way you’re thinking about supermajority of humanity? Why should I not see that as a lack of empathy as well?
And for that matter, there are several empathy-related disorders where a person’s mispaced empathy goes so far as to affect their relationships and quality of life. And again, that’s only for that rare person staring at meat on a fork commenting about how murder tastes good. The ones who simply categorize animals or plants or insects differently from you in their empathy don’t suggest anything of the sort.
Serial killers love to kill, don’t they?
Tell it to me straight. Are you so far gone that you cannot understand the moral, ethical, or psychological difference between being an actual serial killer and simply not being vegan?
So ethics aren’t a concern for you
Quite the opposite actually, as a farmer raising my animals ethically is a daily fact concern. I just don’t buy into your supposition that raising them is inherently unethical.
How about the adverse health effects
If I live long enough that eating meat is the primary thing that got me killed, I see that as an absolute win. I like riding motorcycles, I also like beer and sugar and baked goodies. I fully expect something else to get me well before a lifetime of eating meat has the chance. And I’m okay with that, I’d rather live a few years less and get to keep partaking in the things I enjoy. Plenty of people live into their 80s without giving up meat, and living into my 80s sounds plenty long to me.
environmental impacts of the meat industry
I believe that until nuclear is being seriously considered as the solution for clean electricity, then it isn’t worth worrying about which of my habits are supposedly causing the climate crisis.
Any considerations there, or is all about how delicious steak is to you?
I wouldn’t say it’s “all about” how delicious steak is. But I would say that in all of your examples “less steak” doesn’t seem to be the most prudent place to start, or to consider at all.
I’ve watched animals die in nature. Unless I’m talking to an anti-natalist, I cannot fathom how they think the life of a farm animal is worse than the life of a wild animal. To me, it comes back to a colorblind view of the trolley problem: “It only matters if we’re part of decision that leads to pulling the trigger”
I really feel like the preachy vegans have crossed some line and cannot be reasoned with. And the non-preachy vegans don’t go out of their way to have the discussion (more’s the pity, since they’d probabliy have a more balanced view before turning preachy)
A cow with thoughts of its own, with a family that wants to live as much as you do.
I’ve raised quite a few farm animals. They don’t have an urge to live. My goodness do they take every chance to get themselves killed…
Maybe a problem with your farm?
Except they blatantly do. Sorry your anecdotal experience doesn’t add up with the scientific evidence it must be wrong.
Is it still anecdotal if literally any farmer will tell you the same? Because they will.
A surprisingly large amount of effort goes into trying to keep the livestock from hurting themselves or getting themselves killed. That’s inevitable when essentially turn off natural selection, they end up losing any sense of self preservation. And why not, they do have multiple humans who’s entire career centers on keeping them alive until they’re ready for slaughter.
enslaved animals try to commit suicide after being forcefully impregnated and kicked around and having their children stolen from them immediately after birth
wow i fucking wonder why dude
Are they in danger from hurting themself because they are stressed at their confinement maybe? They are slaughtered at barely a fraction of their natural lifespan.
They are hearty for sure and that can be seen as an urge or will to live. Animals are dumb and have a shocking lack of self preservation. Are you talking about conscious ‘I want to live, I better not do that’ or ‘I will find a way to live in my circumstances’?
Animals experience pleasure and work to avoid pain. They have preferences and wishes and societies.
Oh boy I love leftists naivety
Most people, including leftists, are meat eaters.
Did you assume he was a lefty because he used a word with more than 4 syllables?
He has “anarchist” in the nickname lol
How is being against the mass slaughter of sentient beings “naive”?
I disagree with the comment on the point about it being a leftist naivety, but it is naïve nonetheless. Life feeds on life and all that. That they’re sentient doesn’t matter, some people argue plants are sentient too (not that I necessarily agree)
Plants aren’t capable of feeling pain and are not capable of subjectivity all science currently supports this. Even if you thought plants are sentient (they are not) the best way to lessen plant harm would include as a key precipice the end of animal agriculture.
Oh man, do I have some bad news for you…
You not understanding the pain or finding a way to measure the pain does not mean there is no pain.
This study shows nothing but plants respond to stimulus without a brain or nervous system to classify this is a pain response is reaching. Noting that the person interviewed in that article is a philosopher not a scientist and interprets that study very loosely. As I said already though even if you cede this ground you shouldn’t you just wind up at eliminating animal agriculture to lessen the “suffering” of plants as well as animals.
I don’t care for debate so I’m just gonna share this tofu stir-fry recipe I like. I sub gochujang for the sambal oelek and skip the peanut garnish
You can eat both vegetables and dead animals at the same time. We call that a stew.
I call it a balanced diet… Who the fuck is exclusivly eating meat?
Jordan Peterson? That is if the has a few moments inbetween crying on cam in his messy room.
No idea who that is, but I bet he has Gout.
This guy fucks his own mom!
Why are you trying to cyber bully me, I’m 12.
Why are you trying to cyber bully me, I’m 12.
I’m not even arguing with you, you’re just resorting to name calling, can you not see when someone isn’t arguing with you?. Plus what makes you think im a guy
“DiD yOu jUsT aSsuME mY gEndEr?!” Bloved madman asked, smirking to himself.
Yeah bro, because you would only pretent not to be to try to play a gotcha.
Let’s call it an educated guess based on your lack of education.
What do you want from me? Are you going to stalk me all over Lemmy?
Haha. OK, if it makes you feel better.
Why were you downvoted? You’re comment is absolutely salient
If you ask every vegan I’ve ever had a discussion with, that would be every non-vegan in the world.
Personally the only people I dislike for eating meat are the kind who have it in literally every meal in excessive amounts
I also think people should have to kill the animals themselves if they want to eat them rather than be disconnected by buying them in stores to be morally consistent but that’s just me
I think if you’re going to post things on the internet you should have to build the device you’re using to do that yourself. And write all the software needed to do it.
Or maybe it’s silly to put arbitrary moral requirements on other people. If you think it’s wrong to eat meat, sure whatever. But trying to set some arbitrary goalpost that you know isn’t feasible to make it so something you already think is morally wrong to be extra morally wrong because it’s hypocritical or whatever is kinda weird.
Not sure this is the best example becauss there is a similar issue there of phones being made via basically slavery, I hypocritically say typing on my Samsung phone (though looking into buying a fairphone next which is the best I can possibly do while still having the practical neccesity of a smartphone)
The difference there is though that I would have no moral problem with building the phone and writing the software, physically capable or not. I’m not saying people should need to physically be able to kill the animal all by themselves, just that they should be morally able to, if given a gun pointed at an animal’s head, pull the trigger and be ok with that decision
My point is not to be the gatekeeper of what’s right and wrong, my point is to force people to make those decisions themselves and to be morally consistent. If people are ok with killing animals then that’s fine by me, the bit I don’t like is the level of abstraction we have that means people don’t have to think about the consequences of their choices too deeply
I actually hate how distanced we are from meat in general, and agree that in general people should have the opportunity to kill their own meat.
That said, here’s a real counterpoint. PTSD. I know people with severe PTSD from witnessing some unspeakable brutality like the violent death of a loved one or friend. Nobody should ever ask a PTSD patient to kill an animal themselves. Which is the problem with the whole “have to kill animals” thing entirely. Too many people have some traumatic event.
Honestly, I think that’s where a lot of vegans come from. I have an extended family member who snapped after watching one of those vegan documentaries. She was weird before then for reasons none of us really knew, but she starved herself until she was hospitalized for malnutrition and her hair started falling out. When she got out, she wouldn’t eat meat anymore and wouldn’t talk about it. She isn’t a “vegetarian” in any good meaning of the word, constantly struggling with nutritional issues and avoiding meat entirely because she can’t bring herself to eat it. It has become a quiet ethical thing to her, but it’s more than that.
So IMO, we gotta cure PTSD before making people kill. I DO think we should offer “kill and butcher your own meat” as an elective field trip in school. I got to visit my first farm in middle-school and it really helped give me a balanced view of the world of food. Even if it was just a chicken, if I could’ve killed my own, cleaned it, and cooked it, it would’ve really rounded out my head on the topic back then.
I think if you’re going to get PTSD from killing an animal then you shouldn’t eat meat. If the act is so traumatising for someone then clearly they have some kind of conflict about it.
If you already have PTSD fine those people get a pass don’t want to cause more harm but that’s an incredibly small subset of people
I don’t think people who are incapable of killing an animal (mentally not physically) should be allowed to eat said animals
I’m a vegetarian and am perfectly healthy, on the higher side of BMI, regularly go to the gym and have above average muscle mass so the argument that you can’t get the nutrients you need is bullshit. I’m sorry about your family member though that sounds like a full blown eating disorder, not veganism
I think if you’re going to get PTSD from killing an animal then you shouldn’t eat meat
PTSD is a reaction to trauma, not a measurement for whether something is ethical. I have a MASSIVE problem with that idea. Sounds like this isn’t about anything rational, just an excuse to discourage people from eating meat.
And PTSD is often about a situation and not just something in that situation. You can see a dead body without getting PTSD, but if it’s your best friend hanging from a rafter, a little different. Ditto with animals. I know at least one person (alluded above or elsewhere) who got PTSD by being very impressionable and young and watching very specific documentaries about animals dying on a day she was also sick. I’m sure I could come up with an animal-kill scenario that would give most who experienced it PTSD. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t eat meat if you can. There’s almost certainly people out there who has gotten PTSD that relates or triggers by something plant-based.
And how exactly can you confirm which people do or do not already have PTSD? It’s one of the most underreported disorders, and in certain circles (including those with a high rate of severe PTSD) stigmatized.
I don’t think people who are incapable of killing an animal (mentally not physically) should be allowed to eat said animals
Do you agree this extends to plants? I am incapable of growing plants because I have a common HFA symptom (despite not having HFA) that things like dirt and paint drive me into a panic. My wife does all the gardening in my family because I can’t grow a tomato. By your logic, I should ONLY eat meat (as I do not have a problem killing an animal, though I’m not sure whether or not I could butcher one based on the same reasons I can’t grow vegetables).
I’m a vegetarian and am perfectly healthy, on the higher side of BMI, regularly go to the gym and have above average muscle mass so the argument that you can’t get the nutrients you need is bullshit
I really wish you’d leave the reddit 'tude at the door. I’m trying to treat you like you’re an intelligent person, but your reply to me pointing out that some vegetarians/vegans have irreperable nutrition issues is that it’s bullshit. Is it your opinion taht anyone who even lazily tries a non-meat diet is automatically 100% healthy? Is it your opinion that you can prove ALL humans can be healthy on a vegan diet, even those who have intolerances to common staples of said diet?
Also, more directly, is it your opinion that every person with a high BMI that goes to the gym and has muscle mass is automatically healthy? That seems like a severe underrepresentation of health. There are real long-term risks of hair loss, weak bones, muscle wasting, skin rashes, hypothyroidism, and anemia in vegan diets as well as an elevated risk of severe strokes. Ask any honest nutritionist and the claim that we actually know enough about nutrition to zero out those risks is nonsense. Claims that veganism is 100% healthy is similar to claims that vaping is 100% safe. In both, there is an unspoken “if done right” AND an unspoken “we think, and except a few studies we don’t personally accept yet”.
Is it vegan to sit on that high horse?
Vegans will literally eat slave labor picked Avocados but still think the best way they can help reduce comodification is by yelling at other people online, instead of not eating the slave avocados.
Are you a farm animal when you shit on the environment?
The horse is only high because it got into the special plants.
I know why people think vegans do this for some smug reason, but we don’t, I promise you. We just want people to change and stop hurting animals, and the only way to do that is to keep talking about it.
Funny thing is that many of us feel the same way about vegans. We just want them to change and stop getting in our face like street preachers with what we consider to be flawed logic and more flawed ethical philosophy.
And the only way to do that is to keep standing up to vegans the same way we do JWs. It sucks because it’s exhausting and we just want to be left alone.
But the difference between vegans and JWs is that the issue vegans have is real, and we have more than enough evidence for our case. Religion is a personal choice, but actions that harm others are not. You can call it preachy but that’s how things get better.
JW’s would say the exact same thing to vegans. YOU think the issue is real, but all the rest of us see is you throwing around junk science and fabricated propaganda. Ultimately, you think you can force your morals on us because you think you’re better than us… and think we have no right to do the same to you. That’s where the “smug” part comes in. You know we’ve thought about the ethics. You know we might even be more educated in right-and-wrong than you are. But you don’t care what our conclusions were as long as they differ from yours. You’re infallible on that topic, are you?
Religion is a personal choice, but actions that harm others are not
You don’t think what you’re doing is harming people? Or is it that you don’t care because your ethics are more valuable than others are? Proslytization hurts people. Which means preachy vegans hurt people.
You can call it preachy but that’s how things get better.
You’re pushing people AWAY from veganism. I’ve been on a constant mission to improve my footprint, but every time I end up in an argument with a vegan I end up so exhausted by their zealous crap that I start questioning whether it’s worth all the effort I put into MY part of the environment. It literally just makes me want to go out of my way and eat a steak, but that’s not much better (but it is a little better) than what preachy vegans do.
junk science and fabricated propaganda… how? Besides the scientific consensus on the benefits of plant based diets on the environment, veganism is an ethical stance to stop unnecessary harm towards sentient beings. The only science we need is to prove that plant based diets do that, and they do. No I don’t accept your conclusion until you stop violating the rights of others.
Proslytization hurts people.
Hmmm killing vs proselytization, which is worse? We are asking you to stop physically harming others then you call it abuse, its silly.
Also I’m definitely not pushing people away from veganism, I’ve been at this for a long time and the truth is you weren’t going to change your mind. I’m just providing opposition to your points for everyone who reads this thread.
junk science and fabricated propaganda… how?
Different discussion, and feel free to read my MANY other comments on this thread if you’re interested in my take on that. I said that’s how we see the vegan side. If you want to cover whether that opinion is accurate, my answer here is going to be RTFM in the other comments, sorry.
Besides the scientific consensus on the benefits of plant based diets on the environment, veganism is an ethical stance to stop unnecessary harm towards sentient beings
That “scientific consensus” has tons of asterisks. The consensus is that reducing global meat intake would have an environmental impact in a vacuum. And I agree with that. And as long as it’s not too many people “doing their part” by going vegan, go ahead. And as long as you don’t think that’s the ONLY thing you should be doing.
And no, veganism is not “an ethical stance to stop unnecessary harm towards sentient beings”, it’s just not eating animal products. And here’s how I can show that. If someone handed you a shotgun and said “this deer has to die; feel free to eat it. If you don’t kill it, 5 more animals will starve to death” what would you do? Trolley problem. If your stance is actually stopping unnecessary harm, you kill the deer and you feast. You kill the deer because it saves lives, and you feast because at least the death served a purpose directly.
If you don’t do those things, you’re not doing what you can to “stop unnecessary harm towards sentient beings”. But if you DO do those things, you’re not a vegan. Words have meanings, and vegan doesn’t mean “stop unnecessary harm”, it means “won’t eat animal products at all costs”.
The only science we need is to prove that plant based diets do that, and they do
I disagree. I think too much veganism, especially preachy veganism, costs more lives and causes more suffering. I see what overpopulation does every day, and I’ve seen many times how many animals die on a farm.
Also I’m definitely not pushing people away from veganism, I’ve been at this for a long time and the truth is you weren’t going to change your mind
No, I wasn’t going to change my mind because I’m educated on this matter and have been dealing with smug vegans for a decade now. Unlike a lot of dupes you might talk to, I have a background in philosophy and ethics, as well as at least some knowledge about agriculture and how farming actually works. But my wife toyed with veganism until she got annoyed by someone not very much unlike you. It led her to stop. She un-quit red meat, which was a huge win to me.
But think about this. Anyone on the fence who reads this comment chain is going to see the preachy vegans overreaching with what arguments they have and come to the not-quite-true conclusion that NONE of what you’re saying is accurate. Which is funny because we SHOULD still be trying to improve our overall relationship with food.
I’m just providing opposition to your points for everyone who reads this thread
Actually, quite the opposite. This all started because you insisted vegans aren’t smug. Readers can come to their own conclusions. At this point, I’m convinced any non-vegan reader will agree that you came across similar to a JW.
I’m not even going to argue science with you at this point because you are so far off of what even nonvegans who care about the environment usually agree on and you clearly have an issue believing or understanding research.
Your trolly problem point is a nothing sandwich. Vegans get a win win in that refusal to eat animal products results in overall harm reduction in our real world. So it doesn’t matter whether or not they are rights-based or utilitarian vegans.
You can deny evidence and think what you want but now you are really just arguing for your sake instead of being honest with yourself.
If you are so into philosophy you would probably know your anecdote about your wife means nothing to me.
Also YOU see preachy vegans, stop assuming what others see. I’ve seen more people go vegan and its better evidence for this than your wife anecdote.
Again, JWs preach something no one sees. Animal agriculture is a real thing and its a false equivalence, Mr. Philosophy
I’m not sure you can even have one without the other tbh
Sorry, was I supposed to eat them while they are alive?
No, just supposed to let them live
Says who?
Basic empathy for fellow sentient beings
I’m French so I’d eat Kermit too.
A lot of people in the comments can’t seem to make the distinction between what they have been fed since they were little and that they are used to, and what is good, or tastes good.
Most people who eat meat also eat some subset of vegetables and know they like/hate some other subset of vegetables.
The human body loves getting addicted to the unhealthy sugar carbs found in some plants, but our taste buds do tend to have a healthier long-term relationship with the umami balance you get more easily from meats and seafoods.
My comment was more about the knee-jerk reaction to new ideas and new ways of looking at things you may think you are already familiar with.
Well, yes. It’s doubly true with food because our tastebuds tend towards liking the foods we are used to eating.
This can only be because you probably have no idea how to cook and always eat and buy the same dishes and ingredients all the time. Otherwise I have no idea how you would arrive at that conclusion.
…well, I did audit a culinary program when my wife took it. I have restauranteers in my family. I could probably survive in a small restaurant kitchen. But I guess I don’t know how to cook :)
(fixed that part of my reply was to the wrong comment)
As for umami, it is the most stable flavor profile. You can get umami outside of meat, but like the protein you get out of meat, it requires a tremendous amount of effort and processing. And even then, my favorite way of making tofu involves just a little bit of bacon fat. And after I eat an incredible plate of falafal, I still want a nice cut of beef on the main plate.
I’ve probably eaten a well-above-average variety of meals from almost every culture (in some cases, blessed with the chance to eat in the country in question)… and yet, as enjoyable as the vegan ones are they are at best a shadow of themselves. The “not fake meat” ones are far better, but I rate food on quality. If “A+B” is simply a better meal than “A”, then that speaks volumes. Most vegan or meatless meals are “A”, and adding “B” elevates them. “B” usually happens to be an animal product.
Now IF I had some sort of moral or religious requirement to avoid meat, there are "A"s that would be good enough. I’ve had some Indian coworkers wow me with some of their meat-free food. But I ethically feel that eating meat is a good thing, so I have to admit that the best Samosa I’ve had was lamb and not veggie.
Sorry, I am not convinced. Someone who can’t find umami flavour in plant based food easily isn’t a good cook. You perhaps reach a satisfying result when you stay in your area of expertise, which is cooking meat based dishes. That might make your job a cook, but it certainly does not make you good at it.
But I ethically feel that eating meat is a good thing
I am very interested in how you argue it’s “ethically good” to breed lifeforms just to have them suffer and then eat them.
I kinda hoped moving away from reddit would lead to less “you hold a different view than me so you must be an absolute idiot”. I suppose I’m sorely disappointed.
I never called you an idiot or even implied anything like that.
Re-read your previous comment and try to consider why I might have taken it that way. Otherwise, have a great day.
Who’s gonna fall for this ragebait?
So you love plants? Name all plats then!
There’s more than three affordable animals lmao. Even if you count fish as one you still have crawfish, shrimp, fish, beef, chicken, pork, lamb, venison, turkey, etc. This also doesn’t even account for the million ways to prepare the meats
There is even a difference from breed to breed: https://www.elwooddogmeat.com/
Yeah, and if we run out we always have bugs.
Real talk, where you buying venison? I gotta wait for a friend or family member who hunts to occasionally grace me with it.
I hunt, so no need to worry about buying, but Broken Arrow Ranch sells wild venison and boar, and I’m pretty sure they ship nationwide from their website.
Which nation, out of interest?
Moose are almost free, except the $2 bullet.
Never count fish as one! That’s such a disservice to fish. Salmon, tuna, red snapper, swordfish, catfish, they are all delicious in their own way and have unique textures. And don’t forget scallops and other delicious mollusks!
I was going for the cheap angle, which is why I left out scallops. I like fish, except tuna, can’t stand tuna for some reason.
Man, here’s the thing. I can’t digest fermenting ogliosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols.
So no beans, mushrooms, onions garlic wheat rye or barley, apples, apricots, most berries, etc etc etc.
I also lead a “fairly” active lifestyle against my own wishes. So where does my protein come from? Meat. Chicken, eggs, and hard tofu.
If I cut meat from my diet, I’m eating three meals a day of hard tofu. What even is the point of life, then?
I’ve been vegetarian for around 3 years after I discovered how badly we treat animals, and also by connecting meat and animals in my mind… Realising that the same pets that I adore are the steaks that I ate. But still, I went vegetarian because I could. I could manage to find time in my life to change my diet and to make sure I had no deficiency in nutrients… So don’t be too hard on yourself mate, your situation is totally understandable! Actually I strongly disagree with people saying that anyone could become vegetarian if they wanted to, it takes a lot of thought, trial and error, time and obviously a lack of allergies… Saying that, anyone can fight for animal rights in their own way, being vegetarian is only one of the many tools we have…
I’m grateful that you say that (not OP). So many vegetarians/vegans are convinced anyone who isn’t vegan hates animals, or is at least “worse” than them on some magical scale they came up with.
I fought for my state’s free range chicken law, but I wouldn’t fight for bans of consuming chicken or eggs. I would love a law that banned chick-killing (the practice of immediately killing all newborn chickens of the “wrong gender” when reselling chickens to farms or growing egg breeds). I’m sure they’d find a way around that. Despite that, I’ll still eat chicken.
Same here. I’m nominally vegan but coeliac disease limits most meal options - I’ll still glady eat meat if available.
"You ever plow a field? To plant the quinoa or sorghum or whatever the hell it is you eat. You kill everything on the ground and under it.
You kill every snake, every frog, every mouse, mole, vole, worm, quail… you kill them all.
So, I guess the only real question is: how cute does an animal have to be before you care if it dies to feed you?”
-John Dutton
Cows and chickens gotta eat too, and that food is coming from fields as well.
By reducing meat consumption also way less critters will end up dying.I’m not here to reduce my meat consumption. It’s at the perfect level.
You’re free to do whatever you want, all I meant is decreasing meat consumption not only will reduce the amount of big animals killed, but also the number of smaller ones. Growing a cow takes a whole lot of grain.
Are you from a farm town?
A supermajority of animal feed comes from the waste product of crops we that were being grown anyway, or grass from a fallow field that needs to be harvested anyway (not enough the latter due to logistics, but my local farms all do). That whole “8 to 1” calorie to cow thing leaves out the part that it’s 8 calories of landfill material to make 1 calorie of beef. Nobody has an “animal only” corn field. And nobody is using harsh animal-killing chemicals on the fallow fields.
And cows are still being fed things whether you eat them or not. We need their manure and it’s overall better for the environment than synthetic fertilizer. Without some form of fertilizer, we need much more farmland, which means more animals killed per calorie. All compared to 700,000 calories in a cow.
Unfortunately, nobody has ever demonstrated in a defensible manner that a horticulture-only scenario would be anywhere near as efficient on animal lives as what we have now. It’s one thing to cut animal intake 10%, entirely another to try to rebuild our farming industry without animals.
A supermajority of animal feed comes from the waste product of crops we that were being grown anyway
According to the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association, 80% of the feed is composed of corn. According to the USDA itself half the corn grown in the US was used for animal feed, and 78% of the world’s soy production is made for animal feed.
Is the waste product of corn and soy included in these numbers?The ACFA link you sent doesn’t seem to say what you referenced, that I could find. In fact, I’ve never seen anyone say that cattle is fed decent corn in any stage of life except “finishing” (which reduced gaminess), and even then 80% is the high end.
A more accurate number is that 86% of a an animal’s diet is human-inedible (see below), roughages and byproducts. That number CAN easily be moved closer to 100% at the cost of gaminess, but I have had beef that was not “finished” and it was ok. I’m definitely ok sacrificing a little corn to get the improved flavor.
Note the 86%? That’s animals in general. If you focus on cows, that number crosses to 90%. And if we’re talking all non-vegan products, MILK (for those not allergic to it like myself) is incredibly nitritious compared to the total potential human nutritional value of a dairy cow’s intake.
Is the waste product of corn and soy included in these numbers?
Since I cannot seem to trace your references, I’m not sure. But it’s covered in the numbers I linked. Every single reputable or researched reference I have ever seen on the topic (as well as the actual cattle ranches I’ve lived near) put a bare minimum of 85% of a cow’s diet as inedibles. And why would it be anything else? Those inedibles are dramatically cheaper than buying edible corn.
…and stepping back, I’d like to point out that we’re discussing the paltry percent of some of the least nutritionally valuable crops in the world are eaten by cows, who by any honest analysis produces one of the most nutrious staple foods known to man.
The figure was almost by the middle of the page, search for the string “AT THE FEEDLOT, CATTLE ARE FED A DIET OF 80% GRAIN AND 20% FORAGES. (SILAGE AND HAY)”, on the section “Start weight, finish weight”.
As for the others:
Here’s the USDA source: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-grains/feed-grains-sector-at-a-glance/:Corn is a major component of livestock feed. Feed use, a derived demand, is closely related to the number of animals (cattle, hogs, and poultry) that are fed corn and typically accounts for about 40 percent of total domestic corn use. The amount of corn used for feed also depends on the crop’s supply and price, the amount of supplemental ingredients used in feed rations, and the supplies and prices of competing ingredients.
And regarding soy, here’s from the WWF: https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/soy/
We may not eat large quantities of soy directly, but the animals we eat, or from which we consume eggs or milk, do. In fact, almost 80% of the world’s soybean crop is fed to livestock, especially for beef, chicken, egg and dairy production (milk, cheeses, butter, yogurt, etc).
You obviously know way more than me about the subject but you gotta excuse me for taking anything from a website called “sacredcow” talking about the “plant-based industry” at the top of the page with a grain of salt, everything else I’ve seen online points to animal farming being incredible inefficient and a huge contributor to global warming and water waste.
-
There’s more than three animals that you can eat.
-
You don’t even eat all 80000 of those plants.
-
Plants make excellent side dishes, unfortunately I can’t spend a third of my day shoveling quinoa and lentils by the bucket load just to get enough protein, so meat it is.
I cut beef out of my diet almost entirely, both because it’s unsustainable for the ecology (cattle require more resources per pound than any other animal) and because red meat isn’t as good for you. Also it’s expensive.
-
