this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Memes

45317 readers
163 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] unions@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This meme changed zero minds but made a few vegans feel pretty special.

[–] norawibb@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Vegans aren't doing this to feel special, stop projecting. We just want people to stop harming animals and the only way to do that is to keep talking about it. Of all the responses vegans get, this is the most annoying one to hear.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I find vegans tend to have less empathy for their fellow man than we meat-eaters have for animals. It comes across as smug (and let's be honest, it's less insulting to call them smug).

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You do realise that meat-eaters eat animals that were killed for them to be eaten? Please explain to me how this is more empathetic than posting a meme that triggered some meat-eaters.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You do realise that meat-eaters eat animals that were killed for them to be eaten?

Yup. Animals that lived lives in the first place because they were going to be eaten. Why should anyone have an ethical problem with that? But honestly, I don't think it's just "were killed for them to be eaten" to you. I live in a deer population control zone. Hunters have a critical task of preventing deer overpopulation from devastating the area. Got any problems with the venison steak I had last week from deer that HAD to be killed?

Please explain to me how this is more empathetic than posting a meme that triggered some meat-eaters.

More empathetic? Because I'm not an anti-natalist. I know those animals would not have been born if not farmed. This is not a vacuum choice between "cows die" and "cows live". It never was, and it never will be. I know that most of them live better lives and die easier than their non-domesticated counterparts. Ever watch a cat play with a mouse, slowly torturing it to death? My local farm (plants) have animals that do exactly that every day with the goal of killing off pest animals so they won't destroy the harvest (a single pest animal like a squirrel can destroy 40 or 50 tomatoes in an hour).

Let's go another way. Statistically, odds are pretty good that my death will be 100x worse than how a farm animal dies. So no, me being ok that death exists in our world is NOT a lack of empathy. You don't get to make up my morals for me. The way I see it, giving farm animals a peaceful life is the height of empathy... so I look at you (your words) "triggering some meat-eaters" and note that statistically many of the people you go out of your way to "trigger" are going to end up dying long and painful battles with cancer. My view of empathy? Give them just a LITTLE bit more bloody peace while they're alive.

Here's my empathy. I fight for animal right laws. I strongly supported the free range chicken law that just passed in my state. I reject unethical and inhumane ways of treating and killing animals. But I'm not uneducated. I know how farming works. I know how the delicate relationship between agriculture and horticulture, while not perfect, leads to less death and less environmental impact than EITHER side of those alone.

Vegans are letting some crayola-colored dream be the enemy of good. And it's nothing more than flat-earther, tinfoil, antivax gibberish to me. And I don't care as long as they leave people alone.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I occasionally think about all the gametes I'm eating in vegetables. Other than rocky mountain oysters, I'm rarely eating sperm or ova when eating meat. There's roe occasionally, I suppose.

[–] EatsTheCheeseRind@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Tell me with a straight face that you eat a fucking squirrel

[–] EatsTheCheeseRind@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] swancheez@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Sorry, was I supposed to eat them while they are alive?

[–] SternburgExport@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Who's gonna fall for this ragebait?

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Is it vegan to sit on that high horse?

[–] norawibb@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] norawibb@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] norawibb@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] norawibb@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

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

[–] Lininop@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure you can even have one without the other tbh

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] lavadrop@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

You can eat both vegetables and dead animals at the same time. We call that a stew.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago

80k plants and vegans only eat like 20 anyway

[–] sputtersalt@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

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

[–] ThePac@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Maybe it goes to show you just how yummy those 3 animals are?

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I'm French so I'd eat Kermit too.

[–] BassaForte@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Cool, vegans are invading this community. You're all insufferable.