this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
309 points (69.5% liked)
Funny
6818 readers
458 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The difference between veganism and religion is that one is based on facts, the other is not.
so get out of here with that nonsense that veganism is religious zealotry. I don't have time to cite a source for each point, but they're all super easily verified. Veganism is looking at the impact of your choices with clear eyes and choosing compassion over personal pleasure. It's choosing to live and let live, rather than forcing death and misery on other species because you like the taste of their flesh and secretions.
You are focusing on the word religious, but it's the zealot that's important here. Of course you lot are zealots. It doesn't matter what argument is made against veganism, you will defend it - vehemently.
OK, maybe not all of you are radical to the point of, I dunno, bombing meat processing plants, but online, you make a up very vocal group of people. Enough that there are memes about y'all. It's like linux folk, or the people over on lemmygrad, the anti-woke crowd, the feminists, and other vocal groups.
I'm zealously against rape, zealously against slavery, why should people not be zealously against what they consider industrial mass murder of innocent lives? Zealousness isn't bad in and of itself
"what they consider" being the important part here. People are zealously against what they consider the dilution of the "white gene pool". Does that make them right? People are zealously against what they consider robbery by the state of their hard earned money. Should we condone it because they are zealous?
Yes, zealousness isn't bad in and of itself, nothing is. Everything is a matter of perspective. Maybe murder of humans could be considered a valiant, virtuous, and veritably honorable thing to do if one thought it could fend of the mass extinction event we are in. Rape could be justified by rapists as a necessary action to spread their seed.
Vegans aren't the only people with justifications for what they do and what they consider right.
You get it :)
I ain't mad at what people do with their own lives, but vegans are so easy to troll with this because it's true.
I'm not vegan, but what are the counter arguments? It tastes good? It's convenient?
Why do you need a counter argument? X being valid/true has no impact on whether Y is valid/true. Attack an argument on the merits of the argument, not on the lack of merits of an alternative.
That said, the main argument in favor of eating meat is that humans evolved to eat meat, so our bodies need nutrients that are easier to find in meat (e.g. certain types of protein). However, meat was a much smaller portion of our diets in the past than it is today, so this argument is actually in favor of eating less meat, but still including meat in your diet.
The concepts of veganism aren't really at odds with meat consumption. In many (most?) cases, vegans care most about the ethical treatment of animals (as opposed to vegetarians, who are more often motivated by nutrition), and our current meat processing industry is a lot less ethical than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago when most meat was either free range or wild. So I think it's totally reasonable to take a middle ground and defend meat consumption on nutritional grounds while also defending veganism on ethical grounds.
Eh, the real counter argument isn't about their beliefs. That's fine. Most of it is sound logic.
The problem is their insistence on not only being right, but being better.
The part that makes it silly is the assumptions that chain from there being a right and wrong about what we do with dead animals. It's a corpse. What matters is how we treat the living animals, and they are utterly convinced that not only is their way the one true way, but that anyone who believes otherwise is a bad person. I've been using this troll for something like a decade, and it never, ever fails to draw someone throwing around terms like evil, heartless, cruel, psychopath, etc.
That's the thing to counter argue, not any of the ecological stuff, or the need to treat living things well.
That assumption of moral authority is the point of the troll.
Humans are omnivores, and have been for the lifespan of our species
There are a number of important nutrients that humans get from animal products that are difficult to get from plant-based sources, including vitamin B12, which is not present in land-based plant species (I'm not sure whether red algae counts as a plant, so I'm playing it safe with land-based)
This is one argument @darganon. We need nutrients from a variety of things. We can live without some of them but that can come at the cost of health later in life e.g Vegetarian women more likely to fracture hips in later life.
Furthermore:
Source
Then there's land-use:
Source
It wouldn't surprise me if we evolved to have balanced diet from multiple sources because they have the nutrients we require. We most likely don't need all the meat we're eating and we do a terrible job in developed countries with reducing waste. But just like a purely meat based diet, a purely plant based diet is just one of the extremes. To each their own though.
That being said, a lot of people (myself included) eat far more animal products, particularly meat, than needed
There are a number of factors at play there, including government subsidies for feed crops and meat production artificially driving up its availability
From the research I've done, I think the most responsible diet would be a mostly plant-based one, but with the addition of chicken eggs from a responsible source, along with a basic mineral supplement for calcium/iron
And you start from a base assumption that any of that matters in terms of food.
It's like a retronym, picking facts to claim as a basis for a belief that's rooted in a moral code.
No, veganism as a conclusion is a combination of facts and basic moral understanding, principles like "live and let live", "do no harm", and the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do to you. If you're a psychopath who doesn't care how much harm, death, and suffering is caused in order to get sensory pleasure, I probably can't convince you why veganism is worthwhile
Lmmfao.
There it goes. Straight to "oh, we're super moral, and you're evil/crazy if you don't agree"
And you're not a zealot talking like that. Okay champ, you are good boy, sure, you go.
do you disagree with all the ethical principles I mentioned, or the facts I listed? Or do you think that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises?
Somehow, you think this is a debate. It isn't. It's me fucking around because vegans are zealots that call people that don't agree with them psychopaths (which isn't really a useful term now, the dsm classifies things differently, but I'm okay with the colloquial usage here, no worries).
What I do disagree with is the assumption that a cobbled together set of beliefs makes someone better than another, which is exactly what someone is showing when they start throwing around terms like psychopath willy nilly like that.
Seriously, dude, you already proved my point. It was inevitable that someone would, or just happened to be you. I've had my laugh, you've had your moment of feeling superior, so I think we both had a good time :)
I don't think people who disagree with me are psychopaths. I think that given enough time and discussion I could convince most people that based on their own principles, veganism is the right thing to do. On the other hand, people who don't give a fuck about how they affect others, would not be sympathetic to any line of reasoning I could think of. That's all I was trying to say there
Well, that's a very nice way to say it :)
I'm not sure why you went there, but hey, we all fuck up, right?
But you're still making a huge assumption. You're assuming that anyone that isn't vegan doesn't give a fuck about how they affect others. You're assuming that anyone you can't convince would be wrong, because your logic, your arguments are the right ones by default.
You've been pretty busy trying to debate and argue. Did you ask what kind of meats I eat, how often, how I source them, or anything else that wasn't meant specifically to debate, convert, or otherwise change my stance? No.
And that's not unexpected. I've had this conversation maybe a hundred times. I can count on two hands the number of vegans that went as far as you just did by walking back their aggression. That's actually pretty impressive tbh, because this all started with me baiting vegans. Kudos :)
Now, there is a fundamental gap between the usual vegan perspective on human/animal interactions/usage and personal beliefs. That gap is different at a level that, I agree, would not result in me converting to the vegan system. I don't have a problem with people being vegan, I don't want anyone to stop being vegan, or whatever. But I know vegans irl. Vegans that matter enough to me that I've sat and listened and done the whole Jehovah's Witness thing (I'm poking fun, not trying to troll there, it's meant to exaggerate the silliness of the whole thread), with laptops and phones and sources. I cook vegan for these people. Gladly, and I used to even haunt a vegan recipe C/ to expand my recipe base to make better food for them.
I only say that to let you know that it isn't being vegan that I'm baiting and making fun of. It's the accoutrements.
Do you see what I'm getting at? If you don't, that's okay. You don't even have to take the time to try (especially if you've gotten this far, that's a lot of verbiage).
I get what you're saying.
Have you seen don't fuck with cats? I haven't, but from what I understand it's a guy abusing kittens and posting it online, so people doxx him and go to great lengths to bring him to justice. Would you bait those people? Because I have a way lighter reaction than them to orders of magnitudes more animal abuse
Wellll, first fight I ever got in was over a puppy.
But, yeah, I'd fuck with those people. Amateur detectives got it right that time, but it's been a pretty dumb idea overall. Dunno if I'd bait them, I'd likely just directly poke fun at them because they don't have a unified set of beliefs that make them open to a broad troll like this. In other words, the amateur detectives can't be baited, only insulted. The difference may not seem big, but it is in trolling terms.
What makes vegans such a ripe target is the arrogance. It wouldn't work without that. Remember, I don't have a problem with vegans qua vegans. It's the ones that insist these they're right, and anyone that isn't vegan is bad/lesser/wrong/evil/crazy. The normal vegans going about their life see my pitiful little troll, roll their eyes and go on doing their thing. It's only the ones so certain of their own holiness, and the righteousness of their cause that rise to the bait.
That's zealotry, and that's what I bait.
Again, I don't have any problem with people living their beliefs. More power to them. I know and love multiple vegans irl, and cook for them. Vegetarians too, but they don't have the same kind of belief system usually. Hell, one of my vegetarian friends came through this thread and gave me shit lol.
Also, don't watch "don't fuck with cats" if you have strong emotional reactions to that kind of thing. They don't show anything bad, but the story itself will leave you wrung out. It's a good documentary, and an interesting story, but it can be difficult to get through.
The thing is, those people do have the arrogance you describe, and they think that anyone that abuses cats is bad/lesser/wrong/evil/crazy
Yup. And I would fuck with them. But you can't bait them.
So, there's multiple ways to troll. The method I'm using here is baiting. That's where you dangle something to elicit a response from your target audience. The bait has to be something that will set off relatively reliable chains of thought to draw out a relatively narrow range of possible responses.
That's why religious zealots works better than most zealots, or something like religious crazies, or maybe just crazies.
You have to ride a line between an implied insult and an outright insult most of the time with baiting. The closer you get to a direct insult, the more you shift the probable responses into aggression and insults, which isn't fun for anyone.
With the amateur detectives, there isn't really a good bait. You can't draw them in with short and pithy word choices, you'd have to pick specific sub-groups or individuals to make a good bait. Like, maybe something along the lines of armchair cops as an example of why it wouldn't work. There's no cohesion to the group, there's no underlying ethos.
In the specific instance of the documentary, they didn't go after anyone and everyone either. They didn't go around to cat meme subs and bitch about it being abusive to put hats on cats. Those amateurs were after a single person who committed a specific set of crimes.
Contrast that with rude vegans (the target of my bait). They'll show up when meat is mentioned, or when non-industrial farming is discussed and intrude on the discussions.
It's an entirely different way of thinking. Vegans, by virtue of having a semi-dogmatic set of beliefs actively seek out non believers and hassle them in one way or another. The rude ones; I'm aware it isn't every vegan, and it's pretty rare to run into offline. This also isn't referring to direct action and protest irl, that's a different thing than the kind of behavior that makes vegans easy to bait.
If you want a better comparison, instead of amateur detectives, you go to christians knocking on doors, or complaining if you leave a comment like "Jesus fucking Christ". That is much more like online vegan rudeness than the armchair cops.
And, again, that's why using "religious zealots" is so effective it's at least partially true, and it goes right to the kind of thinking that the rude vegans indulge in. They're are a lot of vegans that treat it just like a religion. And when that's the case, you're going to have individuals that are prone to zealotry involved. It's inevitable when there's a movement, an ethos involved.
You know the term carnist? That's perfect example. It's a divisive term, and it directly functions to form an ingroup/outgroup barrier. Infidels, carnist. You see what I'm getting at? Those two words are used the same ways, and they serve the same function.
So, if you want to troll a group with bait, there has to be a bait that will work. You can bait christians, muslims, buddhists, and any other religion. There's a ton of ways to do it. Vegans work the same way in terms of trolling. You dangle something that the rude ones won't be able to resist.
For the armchair popo, there isn't a bait that would be reliable. I'd have to use other methods. It would be harder, it would take more setup, and the chances of failure would be higher too. That means I'd really have to resort to condescension and/or sarcasm. Which, I would if any of them ran around bragging about it and I ran across it, but I haven't run across any of them.
Now, get ready, you're going to love this. I agree with them. Anyone abusing an animal is an asshole, and I would be fine with any of the terms listed being applied to them. The person that for what the documentary was about? They were batshit, and needed to be put in a cell away from anything else for a very long time.
That first fight I mentioned? Dude was kicking a puppy, and my punk-ass six year old self jumped him before my dad even knew what was happening.
Here's where a vegan is going to try and make a case that any animal farming is abusive by default. That's the gap that can't be crossed. I grew up in farm country, if not on a farm. I've worked on smaller farms, I've helped family on their farms. The issue is industrial farming, that's where humane behavior disappears, and that's where I draw my line personally. I'm lucky that I can source my animal foods from people that treat their animals well, and not like a commodity alone. If not, I'd be vegetarian. Not vegan, because the kind of shit vegans stretch to be a bad thing is (and I'm trying to express my opinion, not be insulting, even though it's insulting when it's expressed outside my own head) inane.
But, here's the rub. I don't go bothering other people online about my preferences. I protest mainly with my wallet, though I did engage in peaceful, non obstructive protest in my younger days regarding industrial animal farming. I've also engaged in non peaceful, obstructive protest against other things, but that's a big tangent and this is already super long.
Interesting, well thanks for the look into baiting tactics
No worries :)
Have a good one!
Baby boy, you at it again.
You done gone and kicked the beehive.
Shut yo damn fool mouth and make me a mess of collards and pintos like a good kitchen monkey. I'll be there Saturday.
Lmao!
Dude, you want a plate, I'll hook you up, but you gotta pick up the supplies, my back is fucking wrecked. And it'll have to be next Saturday.
But, yeah man, drag your giant ass fish feet over next weekend. It'll be good to see your punk ass. Why the fuck you can't just text me like a normal human being, I don't know.
Oh, wait, that's right! Not a normal human.
Seriously, fucking text me dude.
Wait, including newborns? I mean, I doubt there's a vegan alive who's against breastfeeding, but for people who can't breastfeed, baby formula isn't vegan, is it?
Not trying to rag on the point you're making btw
I think there is vegan formula, and using breastmilk is vegan since it's consensually given, including breastmilk shared by other mothers
the definition of veganism says nothing about consent, only exploitation. breastmilk is as vegan an cows milk.
You're not being exploited if you consent. Cows can't consent, mothers can. That's the argument.
If we could somehow communicate w/ cows and get their consent, then cows milk could be vegan.
i think this is a tenet of so-called "anarcho" capitalism.
the definition of exploitation makes no mention of consent, and no clarification about consent is made in the vegan society definition.
It's strongly implied in the negative sense. If we want to play the definition game, here's Merriam Webster's definition:
Definition 2 is what I'm referring to. A baby consuming is certainly using milk for its own advantage, but the mother also benefits from the exchange. The mother cares about the health and comfort of the baby, and providing her milk can certainly be something she wants to do. Your argument only makes sense if you think children "unfairly" use the parents' labor for their own gain as well (they consume far more than they contribute to family finances), vs parents willingly giving food and gifts to their children because they want to see them be happy and healthy.
The point here is "meanly or unfairly," and a mother willingly giving her milk to her baby goes exactly counter to that.
Now, if the baby snuck into the mother's bed and suckled without any consent or if the husband refused to purchase alternatives and essentially forced the mother to provide milk, I could see your point. But if the mother is choosing to give it, I honestly don't see how that has anything to do with exploitation, at least in the negative sense. In the positive sense, humans absolutely exploit animals (e.g. vegans eat fruit and veggies pollinated by bees; humans are "exploiting" the bees, but the bees are also "exploiting" the flowers for pollen and nectar).
that's a contradiction for vegans to resolve.
and i'm referring to definition one, and the vegan society doesn't distinguish at all.
Maybe your point would stand if humans had been bred to massively over-produce milk and had their babies taken from them so even more milk could be taken from them for profit and they had no agency in how their life went, from being bred in captivity and then impregnated in order to cause them to produce more milk to being killed when they stop producing milk.
This is a stupid take, even for you
therefore
#3 is wrong (under normal circumstances, assuming the fluid was voluntarily given), and so obviously so that I'm going to assume you're trolling and stop responding. Have a good one ✌️
#3 is a bare fact.
it's the very definition of exploitation. consent plays no part in it.