Common sense goes a long way. Radicalism is always stupid.
Just eat meat once a week or month. Eat whatever in moderation.
Moderation is key.
The important thing is that you appreciat it.
Radicalism is always stupid. Moderation is key.
How often do you eat babies?
Personally, I’m radically against eating babies.
Equating human life to non human life is more psycho than meat-eaters tbh
Everything in moderation, including moderation. You’ve got to choose what you’re radical about, lest it choose you.
I only eat them as eggs.
I have got 3 maybe-babies lying in my fridge rn.
I’m a glutton for fish eggs.
Eat them up yum!
I had no idea there was a market for eating human eggs. Seems like an extremely low Calorie:Cost ratio, but capitalism gonna capitalism I guess.
Don’t know about a market, just snorkeling for clams and find a pearl sometimes.
Can’t confirm nor deny the presence of a single cell in a sea of red.
Does it count if you spit them out?
Either way, those aren’t “babies.”
Well they meet at least 1 or 2 common usage definitions.
A very young child; an infant.
An unborn child; a fetus.
The youngest member of a family or group.
A very young animal.
An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
A lover or sweetheart.
Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
Who defines “common sense” and “moderation”? Meat eaters?
If vegans were majority, then you would be, too, called a radical for saying “we should build a slaughterhouse to give people PTSD”
I am not even vegan, but we can’t trust meat eating majority to write the rules on what’s acceptable amount of meat eating. This is just biased and unfair.
Thank you for sharing my views I only murder once every 7 weeks but my friends say it’s not good.
“Murder” is a very strong (and wrong) word for killing animals.
Oh bloody vegans coopting murder. I wanted to make a joke that’d you’d murder (people) in moderation.
be careful. the blood mouths are not ready for your humour.
this is what I like about vegans, they call me the most metal “insults”.
Getting all meat eaters to cut intake by 50% is easier than getting 50% of meat eaters to turn vegan.
And that’s a more reasonable way of thinking. I tried being a vegetarian and a vegan. Not compatible with my body and factoring in supplements, too expensive.
Arguably carnivores have already cut meat intake, at least red meat, to greater impact than vegetarians.
While I’m going by anecdote rather than data
- vegetarians/vegans are a small minority so limited impact
- many people I know have cut back on at least red meat for health or environmental reasons.
Basically one fewer burger a week by 100 people has more impact than one person not eating meat at all
Even a switch from beef burger to chicken burger would have a substantial CO2 impact.
I think that’s not true. The easiest would be to ban animal farming, which would cut consumption nearly entirely.
“The easiest way is just me fiating this impossible idealistic nonsense in my own head”
You do you, man.
Well easier than cutting everybody’s consumption by 50% lmao
You’d first need to capture the current consumption for everyone, so yes, a ban would be way easier to implement
I agree an authoritarian ban would not be well received, and likely circumvented.
The 50% cut in consumption could be achieved voluntarily through subsidy, tariffs, education and health arguments.
I don’t think fighting a civil war qualifies as an “easy way”.
The government has the police and the military, there’s no way a guy with a rifle is doing something against an F15.
Yes and and the police and military will absolutely just enforce this ban without question … they are quite famously full of vegans.
I actually retract my statement. We’d only be fighting vegans, so we probably could knock out the civil war in a couple of days.
You think somebody would actually ban meat farming in the first place? I like how naive you are.
Probably not in a democracy, no.
I like how naive you are
It’s called a hypothetical, dipshit. Also quite rich from someone that seems to fundamentally misunderstand what a civil war is.
Um you know that historically lack of food lead to cannibalism right? … It’s still a thing today, everyday.
You’re aware that there wou’d be more food, not less if we banned meat?
Gimme some of of that listeria, e. coli, salmonella, the parasite thing I had from a salad, etc. There wouldn’t be more food. Diversity is what keeps us alive. You do you, but I don’t think you understand how the world works. And please tell me how rice and beans will keep me alive in -40 degree weather. I guess I should just chug olive oil.
And yeah, sure it was nice when I had my own garden in Vermont. But now I get to play Russian roulette, except 5/6 chambers have rounds. I hate to shit on you since you have good intentions but it’s a naive take.
You know that the e coli on the salad comes from the excrements of farmed animals that get spread on the fields because otherwise it would be expensive to get it all handled?
Also I live in the Midwest and I am fine as vegan, even during winter walking outside. And like most people I have a house and a heating anyways.
I’d actually argue that you’d have more problems cutting out the carbs during winter, than cutting out the meat.
heh there’s the human excrement as well. I mean you do you, if you’re willing to take up that lifestyle than good. I don’t think when it comes to food most of the time. It’s kind of like my buddies that like to hunt deer, they’re all about trophy shots and whatever. Tracking the blood trail. And get pissed when I shot to the back of the head (shutting down all function); no suffering no running away in fear.
Removed by mod
An incremental step would be making it more expensive through taxes or regulation. A possible improvement rather than sitting on an impossible ideal
I’d take that, but is that going to happen? Doesn’t seem more realistic than a total ban.
Brb, giving up my entire means of livelihood in an environment where I can’t even sell off my assets because they are also banned, all in this job market. Sounds like a good way to quickly block major roadways with tractors, fuck cars should be happy.
I am sure farmers could get free money to compensate, just like they did when trump fucked the soy trade with China. I didn’t hear about tractors on streets when that happened.
Top down approaches are almost never the answer.
Ah good to know, let’s ignore all laws then, abolish religion and live in Anarchy. Wait that’s actually also fine with me.
How is that easy?
Thats not how world markets work though. 20% of meat eaters turning vegan would compound vegan movement more than 50% less meat consumed. The former grows vegan market explicitly while the latter just maybe shrinks the meat market only. You have consider availability, research and development, service, pop culture and the fact that we massive overconsume food so less consumption does not directly shrink the market in linear fashion.
A moderate genocide will do, local centrist claims
This approach isnt helping the cause, you can’t conflate that responsibility to everyone. Guilt tripping is a Christian method
I will hold people responsible for their actions, that’s not a radical thing. And about “Guilt tripping”… Well participating in a mass murder of living, feeling beings in a world where you don’t have to do that in order to survive is very much a thing that people should feel guilt about, and I will not stop shaming them for doing so. You see, from my perspective, that would make me an accomplice.
I know it feels bad when you get reminded of the horrors of meat industry. You should feel bad, that’s a good thing. But your feelings have much less weight than the actual countless lives lost for nothing.
Just for curiositys sake: what do you think will help the cause then, if I should not even speak about it because I could hurt peoples feelings? It (participating in the mass murder of living, feeling beings) is an active choice that most people in the world can choose to not do. Like fuck man, if I should just smile and nod in agreement I dunno…
Again, I do realize that blaming feels bad. That is the point.
I never said you shouldn’t talk about it. I didn’t even say you personally shouldn’t talk the way you currently are. But do you understand that cultural change doesn’t happen just because you shout and scream at people who disagree with you? Even when you’re 100 percent right.
You CANNOT blame regular people as much as you do. People are uneducated, evolutionarily primed to be manipulated, and defensive. I personally do not feel bad when I am blamed for that, I know it is bad, I agree. I already know I should eat even less meat than I do now, and slowly but steadily i am doing it. But it wasnt the shame that put me on this, it was the empathy, it was the curiosity, it was the EXACT OPPOSITE of shame that brought me on the path.
Shame is for Christians. It brings Christian results. Us vs them. The radical vegan approach to communication enables the idea that veganism is ridiculous, not because it is wrong, but because it seems like its the only communication that gets through.
You feel righteous anger, rightly so, but that anger when aimed at regular people you are trying (supposedly) to convince,just makes veganism seem a tantrum instead of a mission. The way you speak seems to me like you’re feeding your ego, not like you are saving the world.
And what are you feeding it with? Other people’s shame. By definition, not a vegan source.
Pardon my joke, but I felt like biting back since you took my honest attempt at communicating as just another excuse to bark and release your anger.
Your fight is just, your energy is right. But “making people feel bad” isnt really a method. Just venting. I dont know the blueprint for a better way, but telling you this is my way of looking for help in searching one.
Hey, thanks for responding.
First of all, I admit that I do get emotional on the subject. And I do realize that when I lose the calmness, it really is counterproductive on the cause. Here again was a great example. I don’t think I was unreasonable or “screaming in anger” when I initially disagreed with with the original point that “radicalism is always stupid” (hey, isn’t that a radical thought to begin with :P )
But my second post was just pure barking, as you said, and I was venting at you. Sorry for that. :/
It’s difficult to be calm, when you get constantly made fun of, get challenged and so forth. And it seems like whenever I speak about the subject, it’s always a bad thing. I have opted to not talking about it IRL for a couple of years now, and it’s frustrating, and that frustration sometimes overflows and I’ll get all emotional like here. It feels like I CANNOT say to an individual that “meat eating bad” without then being accused of being an asshole. That feels also wrong, and I’m at a loss as to what to do here.
You had some really good points, and I’ll retreat to contemplate them. Thanks for being reasonable when I wasn’t.
Hey, dont mention it, I totally get it. This society primes us for the reaction you had, we are constantly ready for a fight, and it is not your fault, it is our conditioning. Finding the way to dispel that curse is the way we get to people’s hearts.
Just a side not, I absolutely do not think that radicalism is always stupid, or stupid at all. “Deep roots are not reached by frost”, we need conviction and strong ideals, and to further clarify, I do think that veganism is the end goal for a truly advanced society and a healed world and people.
The point is just that to communicate radical ideas we do not need to be in constant anger. Most people respond well when you engage with them and their differences with curiosity, asking questions instead of directly challenging their ways right away. Our communication must be like water, seeking the path of least resistance, yes, but always ending at the sea or a lake. People already know (in some level) that their lifestyles are wrong. That isnt the Epiphany. The epiphany is helping them build up the idea that it is not to late, that they are not irredeemable, and that change is possible.
People do not want to feel irredeemable and as you said, when talking to Normies abt veganism ppl get defensive. It is largely the fault of propaganda, but more critically, it’s the shame angle that always, always fails. Responsibility is a different concept, and it melds better in the mind
The only way to change is with grace, compassion, and when needed, severity and discipline, distributed sparingly.
You have to imagine current human society as a collective made of children, fragile, sensitive, impulsive. They will mirror what they perceive, despite your intentions
I hope this helps, and thank you for reading my comment and being graceful
You’re doing a moderate genocide every time you change your diet or even the ph of your mouth. Those bacteria didn’t consent to die
Was that an argument?
I avoid honey because european honey bees are an invasive species, devastating populations of native bees and threatening their existence, endangering plants who have specific pollinator relationships, where that pollinator is now threatened. They are helping facilitate ecological collapse. We are not the same.
Here is an article about why honey is not vegan. I’ll quote some notable excerpts.
The latest research in the field suggests bees are indeed sentient, and experience a host of sophisticated emotions. In his 2023 book What a Bee Knows, entomologist Stephen Buchmann states that bees are “self-aware,” highly intelligent, and possess a “primitive form of consciousness.”
The Guardian reported on the book earlier this year, saying bees’ apparent ability to recognize different human faces, process long-term memories while sleeping, and feel optimistic, playful, and scared raises “complex ethical questions” about our treatment of them.
…
…by using a piece of mesh that worker bees can pass through but [the queen bee] cannot, or clipping her wings. The structure contains horizontal sheets, where, because the queen bee is trapped nearby, the bees build their honeycomb.
To harvest the honey, beekeepers either smoke the bees to subdue them, or trap them with a clearing board over one or two days. Others kill the colony altogether.
Oftentimes, beekeepers replace the honey they remove with a sugar water substitute. This practice prompts honeybees to overwork themselves to replace the missing honey. Meanwhile, the sugar water lacks the nutrients, fats, and vitamins that bees need to be healthy.
Think of how labor rights, and even basic human rights are a constant struggle. Now imagine that you are a species that is regarded in such a way that everything you produce and everything you are is thoroughly classified a commodity. You do not have the capacity to speak against it. You are smart enough to suffer, but lack the degree of intelligence necessary to even begin to comprehend the enormity of what you are entrapped in. One species of animal has decided that all other species of animal are its products. None of the others can raise a voice against that. If human rights abuses abounds, how often do you think any kind of animal agricultural system is going to operate in a way that’s anything other than systematic abuse and suffering?
Is that really the kind of world you want to continue to create?
It’s easy to dismiss bugs, easy to think they don’t matter. But I think of them as a litmus test. We are the real equivalent to bugs, of what we think a God is like to us. Are we the kind of deitys that we would want to exist?
If you actually care about a mutualistic relationship between pollinators and humans, grow a garden.
You are smart enough to suffer
Not disagreeing with your overall point, just want to say that being smart is not a prerequisite for suffering. I don’t even think it’s possible to have a “primitive consciousness”, or a “sophisticated consciousness”. A being is either conscious or, well, it simply is not - it doesn’t exist. As an individual, you either exist independently or… you just don’t - not even blackness.
Let’s say that bees are conscious. Each individual bee has a unique internal existence just as you or I have. If you are a human (actually I’m assuming you are) then your experience certainly differs from the experience that a bee has, but that consciousness, that isolated spark of being, that is the same. If you were to shut your eyes and still your mind, and we imagine a bee could also do that (just give them imaginary eyelids for this thought experiment) then both of you would be experiencing the same thing, for that brief time you are both in that state of wordless shapeless existence.
You could perhaps wake up from this meditative state as the bee, coming to with a shake of your head, and fly off away from the flower you’d been resting on. “Woah what a weird dream” you’d think in bee language, then a new enticing fragrance from another flower fills your olfactory glands and you are drawn irresistibly towards it, quickly forgetting that funny dream of being a great big thing stuck heavily to the ground with two arms and legs hanging off your body.
Better to just eat cows. A cow is 1 suffering to feed many humans. A jar of honey is thousands of sufferings for one family to have sweeter tea.
Checkmate atheists
Ah yes the classic trolley problem: 1,000 bees getting bullied or a dead cow. Very useful.
Or just don’t eat either.
Just don’t eat.
Just don’t
I’ve been on the fence about honey for a while but tbh I’ve heard enough. I’ll just switch to maple spread or jam.
Awesome. Also worth pointing out, eating honey by choice is kind of weird too if you think about it. It’s literally nectar that’s been regurgitated by bugs, I don’t get why so many would want that in the first place.
Because it tastes good? Anything we eat can sound gross.
Doesn’t change that it’s weird. And it doesn’t sound gross, it is gross.
There are plenty of other sweetener options out there, with whole blended dates or date sugar in particular being a much healthier option.
I’m failing to see what’s weird or gross about it, honestly. I don’t think bugs or their activities are inherently weird or gross. I don’t personally use honey in anything other than honey roasted peanut butter.
There are two layers to the weirdness. The first layer is that, when you remove your conflict of interest, it becomes clear right on the face of it how bizarre and macabre it is to consume the excretions or mutilated body parts of other sentient beings. The second layer builds on that, with it being a secretion that was previously consumed by a multitude of other sentient beings, partially digested inside their internal organs, and then regurgitated before being stolen from them.
To be clear, I eat a mostly plant-based diet due to environmental considerations, not because I find it bizarre to consume animal products. Do you somehow find it bizarre or gross that worms and other microorganisms breakdown dead matter from sentient creatures to produce the soil used to grow crops? Or the involvement of insects in the production of said crops? Do you find it gross for a baby to consume breast milk?
Don’t let PETA form your opinions. Plenty of good honey out there. Look for actual local beekeepers (not people selling ‘locally bottled honey’ because many of those are just buying mass market honey and rebottling locally). I wish that wasn’t a thing but it is.
There is evidence that plants have some form of sentience. They react to their environment and stimuli, and communicate with each other. We honestly shouldn’t be eating anything that was previously alive.
Removed by mod
Not saying it’s the case here, but I’ve never heard this argument raised in good faith, like by someone who is interested in reducing the amount of suffering caused by humans to non-humans. It’s always brought up as some thought-terminating catch-22 device to just keep doing wtf ever you want to do anyway.
I am genuinely curious what you think we should do with this information, though. Like how has it influenced your own actions?
I think my takeaway is that morality arguments for veganism based on subjective perceptions of sentience or suffering are not persuasive.
Many farms provide far better lives for animals than they would have in the wild. Many livestock species are far more successful and widespread because we eat them. Furthermore, if everyone was to become vegan, some livestock species would go extinct without human care. Do those who insist everyone should be vegan because animals are sentient and suffer think that we should just genocide the livestock?
Morality arguments totally depend on the perspective. I happen to agree with vegans on many points, but if your prime argument is moral, then yes I expect everyone to do wtf they want. Everyone’s morals are different.
The ethical argument was totally persuasive to me. I mean firstly it was a matter of challenge, but I also like opting out of cruel industries as much as I can handle.
I’m also not trying to universalise anything, but all your points so far are covered here. The use of inflammatory language to suggest I want you genocide animals is a new one I will admit.
You also didn’t answer my question.
putting a phrase on a vegan bingo card is insufficient to rebutt the argument.
If you click them they expand to the rebuttal.
Also why do I need to rebut my eating decisions? I just eat what I eat. Why don’t you rebut your own.
I saw your comments further down but I want to reply here because some people do sometimes make this argument in seriousness:
Like others said, if I could get all my nutritional needs met synthetically and/or photosynthetically (and still be healthy) I would be happy to. But as it stands, going entirely plant-based is the best and most practical way to minimize harm to all life - including plants. To consume animals you need to raise them, and it takes significantly more plants to raise an animal for food than it takes to eat the plants directly.
Unless you are recommending synthesizing food from base chemicals, there isn’t another option. All life, excepting that which can photosynthesize, consumes other life for energy and materials.
The best we can do is mitigate suffering and environmental harm - factory farming is abhorrent - but until we have the Star Trek replicator pumping out TV dinners from the ether, we have to eat something.
Damn I thought my sarcasm was obvious.
We are animals and part of the food web, there is nothing innately immoral about eating any other part of the food web to sustain ourselves.
There’s certainly stupid ways to sustain ourselves, such as practices that unsustainably harm the environment like factory farming, or practices that would spur other life forms to harm us, like eating other humans.
But my main point is that “sentience” is a really vague term that can’t be objectively measured.
"edit: the source author is quoting PETA. This whole article has zero merit, even if it does contain some real data.
Going to challenge the legitimacy of your source here.
Who is out there killing the bees to harvest the honey? That’s not how it works and makes no sense.
Also, ‘replace the honey with sugar water’? Yes, sometimes bees get additional sugars, but they aren’t “replacing honey”.
This reads like someone who got some information and then extrapolated their own details to fit their preconceived agenda.
For the record, I’m a fan of the bees. Vegetarian since the 90s. And I’m 100% against spreading false or misleading information.
Thank you very much for that insight! I wasn’t aware of those practices used in bee keeping and their negative effects on the colony, nor of their emotional range.
It feels like there’s a whole debate about honey I’m unaware of, but isn’t the point of veganism avoiding anything made by animals? If yes, why is honey an exception?
There are at least a dozen inter-related reasons to be vegan and no hard line of what diets are and aren’t vegan. All vegans check at least one of those boxes, many of us check multiple. Some vegans only care about avoiding the suffering of animals who experience life through a nervous system, therefore will eat shellfish which have no nervous system. When honey is exempted it’s usually utilitarian vegans doing logical gymnastics to claim that the way in which it’s farmed does no harm to the bees, or that while it harms the bees it doesn’t hurt their nervous systems and cause them direct pain. Veganism is no monolith.
Most of are agreed that the point of veganism is to reduce nonhuman suffering. Following absolute rules for no reason is silly. The point is the ethics.
But the other vegans have the wrong opinion about whether eating honey causes suffering.
Ahh thanks. But wouldn’t that make you a vegetarian?
(Not trying to be confrontational or disagreeing with your point, asking out of genuine curiosity)
No. If someone ate no animal products besides honey that doesn’t make them not vegan, it means they don’t share the opinion that honey causes animal exploitation. I do not wish to register an opinion there, I’m just saying what the rationale is.
I’m actually not a vegetarian. I’m a kangatarian.
Kangaroos have evolved over the past 60,000 years to breed in such numbers that their population can sustain hunting by humans. They have no other natural predators, unless you count parasites. Dingos in some places, but not many. The result is that if humans don’t hunt kangaroos, they over-breed. Destroy the local habitat, threatening endangered species, then starve. Some kangaroos must die at human hands for the good of everything else, including the other kangaroos.
So the government uses drone surveys to analyse the population, and then tells people how many kangaroos need to die. Each kangaroo in the quota can either be hunted, or culled. Culled kangaroos will be shot, and their bodies will rot in a ditch. Their meat will benefit nobody. If they’re hunted, then at least some good comes of it. If a kangaroo survives the initial shot, hunters will stun and then kill it. I’m unsure whether the same regulations apply to cullers.
So, I eat kangaroo meat. All kangaroo meat is hunted, there’s not a single kangaroo farm in the world. At least, not the western idea of a farm. Every kangaroo I eat lived a free life in nature, and then died for the good of the ecosystem. No animal slavery.
And I propose a bigger question than honey: is kangaroo meat vegan?
No. An animal died for it, it isn’t vegan. Simple as.
Veganism is about consequences or at least should be. If an animal was (and apparently in this case is) killing the ecosystem if you don’t kill it, I’m curious what the rationale for it not being vegan is. Veganism seeks to end cruelty and suffering. Whereas in this case not killing the kangaroo would be a choice that leads to more suffering and that’s not just for humans. If veganism isn’t about applying these “rules” for a purpose and instead it’s just about applying them without taking context into consideration, what’s the point of it?
Notice how your entire argument for ethical behavior applies to controlling the population rather than eating the animals after? The step of eating the animal is the not vegan act.
Control the population, leave the remains in the ecosystem it belongs to.
Notice how you’re not responding to my question?
They have no other natural predators
Counterpoint: this is because we killed off most of their natural predators.
The bees consent! Veganism is about consent! If a cow could say “Yeah, please take my milk” it would be vegan!
Theoretically domestic sheep wool is also vegan because theyll overheat and die if we dont shave them, and thus are probably pretty happy when we do and dont care what happens with it afterwards, but i dont think vegans are ready for that convo
Sheep wouldn’t need shearing if we wouldn’t breed them to grow more wool, and if we allowed them to live where they are native, instead of “farming” them e.g. in Australia.
Also I am pretty sure that those sheep get slaughtered after a couple of years, instead of being allowed a happy life.
But I don’t think your cognitive dissonance is ready for that convo.
They could just fly north for the summer if they weren’t so lazy.
I thought Vegans cpuld consume animal things if its done willingly.
Like if a cow walked up and said “Please gopd vegan, butxher me, it is my purpose,” they could totally make.and eat burgers from said cow.
That said, bee vomit feels like it sort of fall into that category.
Dang dude, turn on autocorrect
autpxprrext
I would but then the phone is all “I replaced entire words 3 sentnces ago and didn’t tell you! Ha ha ha.”
So fuck it, I will just take my typos.
If there is a way to turn on autocorrect from like, 2019, before it was assy, I would take that.
Why did autocorrect (and swipe predictions) seem to go to shit around 2019? I remember thinking it had gotten really good… and then it got gradually worse. It’s not AI, I think it started going downhill before that, but why? I can’t see a profit incentive and it didn’t make digital communication sufficiently more difficult for conspiracy-sounding reasons.
I feel like it’s just a case of “we must constantly iterate on everything.” So they started adding more and more “predictive” nonsense because where else do you go with autocorrect aside from the branch that is LLMs?
But then the predictive text was basically super duper light LLM. “Autofill the next most likely word or phrase” without realizing the nuance every person has to their phrase patterns.
The bees don’t want you to take their honey. They don’t make excess, they make what they need and we steal it and replace it with stuff that’s “just as good” according to us. Bees die in the process of harvesting honey.
These are reasons that honey isn’t vegan.
Have you ever kept bees? They make a ton of honey in excess of what they need.
And my cat always keeps an excess of food in her bowl. If I fed her only the amount she actually ate, she would just eat less to still have excess. These are evolved survival behaviors.
Right because cats and bees are the same thing. Are you a bot that gets paid to make vegans look stupid?
Compared to all life on Earth cats and bees are almost the exact same thing. I’m not a bot, I’m a human with ideas that are apparently so challenging to your own that you immediately resort to ad hominem.
I know some people who keep bees and absolutely none of that is true if you take care of them properly. Bees will try to fill the space they are in with honeycomb even if it is well in excess of what they need because they are anticipating that the colony will grow, but if you harvest regularly and consistently the colony will not grow larger than can be supported by the honeycomb that is left behind.
A quick web search tells me that bees don’t die when harvesting honey, unless you take more than they need to survive, too often and are careless when harvesting?
Yeah all of those things sound pretty likely in most honey farming settings.
“google ai overview told me exactly what I wanted to hear so I’ve decided to look no further”
“i’ve invented a reason to dismiss what you posted and decided that’s a good enough reason not to think about it any further”
Also a good restatement of the comment I’m replying to, yes.
I’m open to counter arguments
I’m don’t know much about beekeeping, but I could easily see large scale industry doing exactly that. I would have a hard time trusting them to be careful of the bees’ livelihood. It seems like if the farmers are actually careful the bees should be ok though
Me neither lol. But if there’s ethical consumption there’s no need to abstain from all right?
Vegans fight amongst themselves all the time, and plenty of them have different rules.
For example, veganism doesn’t extend just towards diet but animal products overall. A lot of people will only focus on the diet or certain animal products such as leather though.
Really wish people would just agree to do whatever they can, anything helps.
IMO, leather really isn’t a big deal. It’s a by-product of the meat industry. Nobody is raising and butchering cows specifically for the leather. If nobody used the leather, then the skins would just be thrown away … or maybe ground up and used in dog food or something.
it subsidises the meat industry.
Valid, lowers the price of the resulting meat and thus increases consumption
It’s also responsible for a not-insignificant portion of the meat industry’s carbon footprint.
I agree, as well with things like sauces from shellfish shells that would otherwise be tossed.
However, I recently heard the reasoning (of a buddhist who tries to avoid animal products, i.e. would not actively seek out a non vegan option, while accepting non vegan food if offered) - would the product in question still exist if the animal was seized to be killed? Even if it was for a different purpose and leather, seafish shells, gelatin etc were just byproducts, they would not exist if the animal it is derived from wasn’t killed for whatever reason.
I totally agree that it would be a shame to only use a part of an animal and let the other go to waste. Likewise, I get that “I’ll do X as long as everyone else does Y” is a way of reasoning that ends up counterproductive and keeps us locked in a status quo. So, if someone wants to stop using not just the primary products of the meat industry but also the secondary, I can understand.
Fur on the other hand…
I mean, to be fair there aren’t many if any first world countries that eat fox, bear, or really anything with fur. I understand some people shoot bears and such, but in talking about actual farms.
Yeah my bad, I meant the fur industry is almost entirely barbaric for the purpose of fur, as opposed to leather being a byproduct.
Though I have found a shop that allegedly has ethically sourced fur that they buy from Alaskan natives that hunt for food, but I don’t think I have the means to confirm that.
Leather is horrible for the environment plus you’re still supporting animal AG
So, basically like religion? Just follow the parts you want to and everything is good?
Yeah veganism isn’t a single set of beliefs, it’s a range of practices and the people who do those practices do so for a rather wide variety of sometimes-overlapping reasons. I’ve never had a more heated debate about veganism than one with a fellow vegan.
Ah, the spirited and rational debate of intelligent human beings
When the bees can engage in the debate, I’ll hear them out.
What’s the buzz about, I say.
Bzzzzzzz, they say back, then they dance.
Bees have deeply philosophical waggle sessions.
They work for each other, Morty!
That sounds like slavery with… extra… steps
I told them it means peace among world’s.
Honey debate this, wool debate that. Here’s a real debate for ya (/hj): is consuming human flesh vegan if the person explicitly and verifiably consented to being eaten?
This is my take now as a vegan: any person who is ok with eating animals should also be ok with eating humans*
.
*ethically raised, free-range humansI’m okay with you eating my flesh, just please not while I’m using it. Wait your turn
no. veganism eschews exploitation of animals for food
But is it exploitation if they deliberately asked for it?
“use” is a synonym of “exploit”
so, yes
But I didn’t say use. I said eat, consensually. Nobody is being used here just adults doing adult stuff consensually
You don’t even need to go to flesh. Cum is a much more common example. IMO, it’s vegan if its consentual in the practical sense, but technically not by a meaningless strict definition sense.
Yeah but I wanted to know about flesh not jizz
Yes, obviously.
I think I would doubt they’re mentally all there if they said hey eat me after I die, but assuming they were then I don’t see a problem with it.
The real debate is with figs.
And don’t get me started on mushrooms
I’m really interested now
Mushroom aren’t classified as either plants nor animals, with some arguing they’re much closer to animals. I’m not a vegan or vegetarian myself, but that’d be an interesting point to consider.
Eh, the parts people eat are not the mushroom itself. The mycelium underground doesn’t give a shit if you eat its reproductive organs. Hell, it probably likes it.
Freaky-ass mushrooms… That’s why the shapes are so tantalizing!
Huh, I’ve not heard any vegan talk about that. In fact mushrooms are a staple in many of the vegan foods I’m aware of
That’s cause we don’t, the only time I’ve ever heard this mushroom fud come up is from non-vegans. “Did you know that grass screams when you cut it?”-tier territory.
No one said any of that here.
I think you misunderstand me, I’m comparing the mushroom claim to an equally silly claim that often rears it’s head in these sort of discussions, not saying it was made here.
soo true
By definition are vegans those that don’t eat or use animals or animal byproducts.
Fungi aren’t animals. If this group doesn’t consume fungi then they should call themselves something else entirely to avoid further confusion. Maybe they should go strictly by herbivores.
Not some. They are taxonomically more related to animals than plants. Just a fact.
We’re also technically eating their peepees.
Same with all fruits and some vegetables. The reproductive organs are the tastiest part!
Vegans are unwilling to come to terms with the fact that they aren’t special. Taking honey is fine. Bees aren’t going anywhere any time soon. You know what? Taking honey had no downside for society. There is sooo much other stuff to worry about. Have you heard about our Lord’s, and Savior: Corpse Bees! An obscene amount in cemeteries, and grave yards. Can’t wait for some for you to get offended. Yes, the journey of most animals/insects is tragic. I like having the ability to travel cost to coast in hours on a full stomach. Until my belly aches.
The fun part is that this doesn’t even tell me which side of the honey debate you’re on.
Not a vegan but I am surprised to learn there is a debate amongst vegans about honey.
Honey is an animal byproduct, so technically it is non-vegan, but I think that’s kind of pedantic because the bees (ideally) aren’t harmed by the apiaries, and the relationships is more of symbiosis rather than exploitation.
I’ve tried explaining this to vegans and they get really hostile about how apiaries are bee slavery and we need to abolish all forms of subjugation and exploitation, and that I’m a colonialist pig for not seeing it that way.
They also talk about some of the problems with large-scale apiary practices. But those problems are very much known within beekeeping communities, and the average small-time beekeeper is as upset as any vegan about giant corporate monocultures spreading parasites and diseases.
The beekeepers are also very active in trying to solve that problem by regulating large-scale apiary practices, monitoring bee colonies, medicating, funding (and participating in) research, etc… All stuff that most vegans couldn’t be bothered to do.
It’s a bit like being against backyard chickens because Tyson and Perdue are an evil industrial ag duopoly.
Do/can domesticated bees swarm/rewild?
If so it seems like it would be the best argument that bee keeping was mutually consensual.
It’s a bit like being against backyard chickens because Tyson and Perdue are an evil industrial ag duopoly
Are there apiary industry standards/certifications? It seems unlikely most folks are buying the backyard chicken version of honey.
Do/can domesticated bees swarm/rewild?
It is possible. When a colony grows too large for the hive it produces a new queen and then splits itself in half. Usually beekeepers who monitor their colonies notice this and start a new hive, but if left to do their own thing (and if there’s not a queen trap on the entrance) then one of the queens will take half the colony and go search for a place to build a new hive.
If so it seems like it would be the best argument that bee keeping was mutually consensual.
I generally agree, but how do you define that? You can’t exactly get a bee to sign a legal document. Sure you could opt against using a queen trap, and make your hive as enticing as possible so they stay. A good apiary will provide ideal conditions, and cultuvate botanical and herb gardens in the immediate surroundings. Basically make it a paradise for bees, and give them medicine too.
Just because some people abuse their dogs doesn’t mean pet-keeping as a whole should be damned. Punish the abusers and prevent the abuse as much as you can. But don’t take away granny’s sweet little shitzu just because Dale down the street kicks his pit.
Are there apiary industry standards/certifications?
That unfortunately depends on the state. Some do a better job than others.
It seems unlikely most folks are buying the backyard chicken version of honey.
Yes but try asking a vegan “Is it fine if I only choose local honey?”
So… they saw the bee movie and considered a documentary?
Critical thinking skills are on an all time low
Again, can’t tell if that’s because you think it’s an insignificant issue, or if you think the answer is obvious, and if so which answer you think that is. Are you being funny on purpose? If so bravo.
Again, can’t tell if that’s because you think it’s an insignificant issue, or if you think the answer is obvious, and if so which answer you think that is. Are you being funny on purpose? If so bravo.
Again? Have we talked about this before?
As a non-vegan who doesn’t spend much time in vegan spaces I wouldn’t say it’s insignificant, but if it hadn’t been brought to my attention as a topic of debate amongst vegans I never would have considered it. I’ve just had a pretty cut and dry understanding that animal products are not vegan.
You can see in my other comments here, my speculation as to how that could be the wrong take. Not because I think any one side or the other is right or wrong, but just trying to understand each position.
I usually am trying to be funny, but not in this case. I’m mostly just disappointed in myself for not knowing why my comment would be funny 😒
yeah the fda classifies it as a meat product.
That’s just a myth spread around the internet.
Their actual definition is:
Reference materials in the public domain define honey as “a thick, sweet, syrupy substance that bees make as food from the nectar of plants or secretions of living parts of plants and store in honeycombs.” FDA has concluded that this definition accurately reflects the common usage of the term “honey
a definition is not a classification though. how do they categorise it?
As “Honey, jams, jellies, fruit butter, molasses”
ah, neat!
There is far more debate about veganism within veganism than there is outside of veganism. Honestly it makes debates with non-vegans look fucking boring.
I’m not at all, vegan as a personal trait is a bit of a broad church these days.
There’s the people that are mostly motivated by the not-killing-animals thing
Then there’s the ones doing it predominantly for environmental reasons
Then you’ve got the ones doing it for various health reasons
Then you’ve got people doing it predominantly for cost reasons (fewer here, given vegan is still treated as a luxury aspect in a lot of food categories)
Those groups do not have to overlap in views at all. It’s entirely expected for there to be disagreement and purity test drama given that IMO
Yeah, I’m not in any vegan groups but I’ve seen (what is hopefully) a vocal online minority of those who use the label for killing-is-wrong reasons come off as angrier at folks using it for any other reason than they are at folks who do consume animal products, and insisting that the other camps should use “plant-based (diet)” instead.
I’ve known people who called themselves vegan and still ate fish, there are basically no rules
That’s pescatarian, not vegan. Whoever said that was wrong.
But I recognize that confidently saying something is wrong is viewed as arrogant these days. We have to respect everyone’s subjectivity, even if that means not saying anything even when they’re blatantly wrong.
Like “No, don’t keep walking forward. There’s a cliff in front of you.” “DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! YOU CAN’T CONTROL ME.”
Toxic positivity has seeped way too far into the collective unconscious…
Removed by mod
That’s pescatarian, not vegan. Whoever said that was wrong.
(And for some reason, ‘vegetarian’ has gone completely out of fashion…)
Probably because vegans bludgeon anyone who calls themselves vegetarians, because apparently we’re worse than carnists because we see that there’s a problem yet only go partially through with the solution.
Like I’ve tried going vegan before, but after a few days I get really cranky and then the cravings start and I end up crashing. I never made it a full week, and it made it harder to even stick to vegetarian foods.
But apparently I’m a terrible person if I ever call myself a vegetarian within earshot of a vegan…
Also there are some obnoxious asses out there who insist that it’s really “ovo-lacto-vegetarian” because apparently vegetarians only eat plants? I’m like no, that would be vegan.
Not that it’s ever been convenient to be vegetarian. But now you get hit from both sides…
The
fungenius* partIf you can make both sides of an issue think you’re on their side, you win both of their support.
Even better: make both hate you.
I did assume vegans would be majority against honey consumption.
Hah! It’s roughly 50-50 but even the 50% that doesn’t mind honey would usually buy some sort of syrup. It’s usually about it being an Ingredient.
Some otherwise vegan sweets are coated in super thin bee’s wax, so they don’t stick together. Many don’t mind, especially if the alternative is wrapping them in plastic.
This wouldn’t get the vegan packaging label in Germany. As well as products with ingredients derived from lac insects (shellac), scarlet scale insects (carmine), lately mealworms/crickets in salty snacks, pasta and bread.
The right side
In Lemmy you have to be on the left side.
No matter how hard you try, in this industrialized world, some animal has been harmed by your activities. So, is true veganism even possible, in a practical rather than philosophical sense?
Its almost as if its just another thing for assholes to feel elitist about.
the vegans i know are great
Yes, it is. “Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
Yes, it makes a huge difference. Animal agriculture is one of the most environmentally destructive things we are doing.
if being vegan made a difference this might be true.
If that were true, there wouldn’t be an industry for plant-based foods. Vegan activists also drive real change, like exposing abuses, getting facilities shut down, and even driving legislation for better protections for animals.
It only seems like it makes no difference now because something like 95-98% of people globally still consume animal products, but throughout the course of veganism as a social movement, the percentage of vegans has grown.
The overton window just hasn’t moved enough yet. But it’s going to have to, because industrial animal agriculture is sheer madness and utterly unsustainable.
