Support NeoGAF

[typist]

So in conclusion Don't force your beliefs on me especially not when I am eating. I would never do the same.

What exactly do you mean by "don't force your beliefs on me"? Because to me it kind of sounds like "don't advocate veganism," or "stop putting uncomfortable thoughts in my mind!" Unless someone is invading your private space or putting a gun to your head or somehow coercing you, they're not forcing beliefs on you, they're just starting or continuing a dialogue.

There's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with meat eaters who also identify as liberal. They like to pretend to themselves that they care about the environment and using resources smartly and animal rights and things, but if actions speak louder than words then in reality they don't give a fuck and they just like the illusion of having moral high ground. When it's pointed out that they don't practice what they preach they feel uncomfortable -- that's the dissonance or sense of hypocrisy. The only permanent way to resolve that feeling is to modify your actions so that they align with your beliefs, or to accept that you don't really care as much about environmentalism/liberal ideals as much as you thought.

Vegans can and should be aggressive in their attempts to spread veganism, because they're right that it's a much more sustainable and ethical lifestyle. It should always be remembered that nobody is perfect though and we should always be ready to accept valid criticism from others on other topics. The fact that many vegans know they are right can (and sometimes does) promote a self-righteous or "holier than thou" attitude. People trying to convert others should try to avoid that style as it comes across rather badly. If everyone rushed very quickly in the shower each morning then a lot of water and electricity would be saved, how many of us do that though? If everyone remembered to unplug electronics when they're not using them, well a lot of electricity would be saved and so the environment would benefit, but how many of us do that? If we didn't spend so much time playing games or using electronics (etctera etcetera, hopefully the point is conveyed)

 

[Unhandled Exception]

And this is why veganism can't be taken seriously. Vegan radicals ruining it for the rest of normal people who just try to not use or consume animal products and get better rights for them.

People who think that they have more of a right to enjoyment than another species has a right to be alive can be taken seriously, and the people who call those people out can't be taken seriously because some of them get aggro about the topic.

edit: Also it's "normal" to be quiet about immoral choices being made by the people around you even when you don't agree with them.

 

[kingkaiser]

21st century puritanism, the highest moral high ground, the purest purity test.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Aggressive vegans definitely exist. My sister and her husband belong to the this group.

They are all in on the "meat is murder" "milk is rape" rhetoric. They show disdain for mere vegetarians. If they live together with non-vegans for any amount of time, they insist that no animal products be kept on the same freezer shelves where they keep their food (wtf?) They refuse to eat at the same table where other people are eating fish.

So please, cool down a bit with the whole "aggressive vegans are a myth" thing. You're basically saying that us who have personal experience with these people are hallucinating, or making it up. Which is a bit insulting, you know?

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Aggressive vegans definitely exist. My sister and her husband belong to the this group.

They are all in on the "meat is murder" "milk is rape" rhetoric. They show disdain for mere vegetarians. If they live together with non-vegans for any amount of time, they insist that no animal products be kept on the same freezer shelves where they keep their food (wtf?) They refuse to eat at the same table where other people are eating fish.

So please, cool down a bit with the whole "aggressive vegans are a myth" thing. You're basically saying that us who have personal experience with these people are hallucinating, or making it up. Which is a bit insulting, you know?

Aggressive vegans are as much of a myth as morally passive meat eaters.

21st century puritanism, the highest moral high ground, the purest purity test.

That's just general leftism. Lets not confuse issues of life and death and general suffering with whether or not it's cool to masturbate.

 

[AppleSeason]

People who think that they have more of a right to enjoyment than another species has a right to be alive can be taken seriously, and the people who call those people out can't be taken seriously because some of them get aggro about the topic.

The example of that is bullfighting and / or San Fermines. The defenders of it will always put themselves sane logical persons defending an "art" or "tradition". In the moment they clash against the animalist demonstrator, two things will happen:

- Animal cruelty defender begins attacking. Animalists defends themselves. Animalist gets the savage treatment.
- Random agressive animalist among the demonstrator begins an attack. Shit rains on them from all media and animal cruelty defenders victimise themselves.


The thing is that animalism / veganism already has a disadvantage bias . Any aggressive act will tip the scale even more against them. Being educated even in the adversity, keeping the cool and not going aggressive while also not going full "office kitchen preacher" is the only way of making.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

There's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with meat eaters who also identify as liberal. They like to pretend to themselves that they care about the environment and using resources smartly and animal rights and things, but if actions speak louder than words then in reality they don't give a fuck and they just like the illusion of having moral high ground. When it's pointed out that they don't practice what they preach they feel uncomfortable -- that's the dissonance or sense of hypocrisy. The only permanent way to resolve that feeling is to modify your actions so that they align with your beliefs, or to accept that you don't really care as much about environmentalism/liberal ideals as much as you thought

You can definitely eat meat and still have a sustainable diet.

Just cut beef and your CO2 output will be cut considerably. This holier-than-thou attitude that you have to be vegan or you may as well not bother is keeping people from making significant improvements. It's perfect as the enemy of good.

I hope that people who tell others to stop eating chicken for CO2 reasons don't eat fruits

 

[Unhandled Exception]

The example of that is bullfighting and / or San Fermines. The defenders of it will always put themselves sane logical persons defending an "art" or "tradition". In the moment they clash against the animalist demonstrator, two things will happen:

- Animal cruelty defender begins attacking. Animalists defends themselves. Animalist gets the savage treatment.
- Random agressive animalist among the demonstrator begins an attack. Shit rains on them from all media and animal cruelty defenders victimise themselves.


The thing is that animalism / veganism is already at a disadvantage bias already. Any aggressive act will tip the scale even more.

But the problem with this example is that it is beholden to the assumption that what matters is spectacle dynamic. Whether or not I agree or disagree with the dynamics of the spectacle you've proposed here, one side represents the truth and one side does not. Spectacles come and go, and they don't go any faster when one is silent about their beliefs, nor should one tell another to keep a tight lip about matters of suffering and death because they may not win the spectacle war immediately.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned already but I find people complaining about vegans more annoying than vegand themselves. Is it really difficult to ignore "aggressive" vegans? Just tell them to go away or are they stalking you guys?

 

[AppleSeason]

But the problem with this example is that it is beholden to the assumption that what matters is spectacle dynamic. Whether or not I agree or disagree with the dynamics of the spectacle you've proposed here, one side represents the truth and one side does not. Spectacles come and go, and they don't go any faster when one is silent about their beliefs, nor should one tell another to keep a tight lip about matters of suffering and death because they may not win the spectacle war immediately.

It's not about shutting up. Is about never ever going aggressive or violent while doing it. In every minority group, any use of violence or aggression will be responded by the majority. Remember the orange transphobic bus some months ago? In the moment they started spray painting it,puncturing the wheels, breaking the glass and punching the driver, they gave them more ammo.

Being aggressive about something does never have a positive effect. You either are quicky seen as the bad one, or they use it to paint you as aggressive.

 

[Sec0nd]

Vegans can and should be aggressive in their attempts to spread veganism, because they're right that it's a much more sustainable and ethical lifestyle. It should always be remembered that nobody is perfect though and we should always be ready to accept valid criticism from others on other topics. The fact that many vegans know they are right can (and sometimes does) promote a self-righteous or "holier than thou" attitude. People trying to convert others should try to avoid that style as it comes across rather badly. If everyone rushed very quickly in the shower each morning then a lot of water and electricity would be saved, how many of us do that though? If everyone remembered to unplug electronics when they're not using them, well a lot of electricity would be saved and so the environment would benefit, but how many of us do that? If we didn't spend so much time playing games or using electronics (etctera etcetera, hopefully the point is conveyed)

Honestly... no. Stop.

Like this study implies and a lot of anecdotal evidence suggests it just doesn't work like that. You honestly can't force someone to change their believes like that if they are not already open to the idea. It's a choice (unfortunately) for everyone to choose what they eat. Eating meat is something that is normal to everyone from birth. You are asking someone to radically change someones view on the world and customs. Even though it's a small thing to change. It's at the very center of everyones lives.

Not to mention people really don't like change. How matter small that change is. Like the backlash the change from "Ladies and Gentlemen" to gender neutral greetings. It's a change that literally doesn't impact your life. Yet, because it's forced upon people, there was a severe backlash. And you're advocating for a forceful approach to have people change something about people their lives that will severely impact their day to day? Not really sure why you think that'll be the right approach.

There is a really large chance that you drive a gasoline car. Should Tesla owners come up to you and aggressively tell you you're harming the environment and immediately stop driving and/or get an electric car? Will you say "Thank you sir, you are right! I'll bring this car to the scrapyard right away and save up for a Tesla! Thanks for you words of wisdom."

 

[Unhandled Exception]

It's not about shutting up. Is about never ever going aggressive or violent while doing it. In every minority group, any use of violence or aggression will be responded by the majority. Remember the orange transphobic bus some months ago? In the moment they started spray painting it,puncturing the wheels, breaking the glass and punching the driver, they gave them more ammo.

Being aggressive about something does never have a positive effect. You either are quicky seen as the bad one, or they use it to paint you as aggressive.

Being aggressive about something when the opposition is apt to mental gymnastics and general handwaving when anything even suggesting that they're being selfish gets mentioned, even when backed up by mountains of data and basic moral exploration is a lot different from being violent about it. This study is about aggressive vegans aggressively speaking out about the issues of meat consumption, not about violent vegans. They are not the same, do not lump them together and use the worse of the two in an attempt to shut them both down because you are a spectacle biding citizen. Sometimes things need to be said that bruise some egos. That's a farcry different than physical violence.

Honestly... no. Stop.

Like this study implies and a lot of anecdotal evidence suggests it just doesn't work like that. You honestly can't force someone to change their believes like that if they are not already open to the idea. It's a choice (unfortunately) for everyone to choose what they eat. Eating meat is something that is normal to everyone from birth. You are asking someone to radically change someones view on the world and customs. Even though it's a small thing to change. It's at the very center of everyones lives.

Not to mention people really don't like change. How matter small that change is. Like the backlash the change from "Ladies and Gentlemen" to gender neutral greetings. It's a change that literally doesn't impact your life. Yet, because it's forced upon people, there was a severe backlash. And you're advocating for a forceful approach to have people change something about people their lives that will severely impact their day to day? Not really sure why you think that'll be the right approach.

There is a really large chance that you drive a gasoline car. Should Tesla owners come up to you and aggressively tell you you're harming the environment and immediately stop driving and/or get an electric car? Will you say "Thank you sir, you are right! I'll bring this car to the scrapyard right away and save up for a Tesla! Thanks for you words of wisdom."

I'm curious as to whether or not you'd advocate a lighter touch for issues like bigotry/racism that is learned from birth? Does aggressiveness work for you in those instances, why or why not? The reason I ask is twofold:

1) Typically racism is met with aggressive backlash and some people think said backlash only emboldens, doesn't deter, Apple Season's position is an example of this. Would you agree with Apple Season's line of reasoning from their previous posts?

2) I don't personally see a passive attitude about death and suffering as all that convincing to someone who already believes their own enjoyment is more important than the life and wellbeing of another creature, and I'd like to get your take as to why being passive means better results longterm. Does short term backlash automatically mean longterm rejection?

 

[Unhandled Exception]

edit: DP

 

[VivaciousSoul]

Though the aggressive vegans obviously need to calm down I find something very wrong with the idea that people let others deter them from making a personal and positive life change. It's like were you actually serious about this to begin with? How do you get to the point where you decide that veganism has merit enough to change your lifestyle but the attitudes of other people have so much power over you that you decide not to go through with it? This is for you not for them.

I guess I'll also add that I am vegetarian. For every aggressive vegan or vegetarian there's plenty more like myself who are silent and non aggressive. I haven't eaten meat in years but I am not proud of my "streak." If someone were able to sneak some meat onto my plate and I ate it, it's not the end of the world. Life goes on.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

I haven't eaten meat in years but I am not proud of my "streak." If someone were able to sneak some meat onto my plate and I ate it, it's not the end of the world. Life goes on.

I am an aggressive vegan and I am also not proud of my streak, nor have I flipped my shit when a restaurant cook got a little meat in my pasta. Nice to meet you.

 

[AppleSeason]

because you are a spectacle biding citizen

Did you just fucking said I am in favour of animal cruelty spectacles???? I am the person who has to make a fucking effort to not punch those sadistic motherfuckers and thinks every time a bullfighter dies it's some kind of justice.

I have seen two types of vegan activists. One goes the full campaign of gory pictures, guilt inducing and ultimately paint meat eaters as evil persons who eat baby cows. I was that kind of the activist. I pull pictures of goose with overgrown livers whenever somebody talks to me about the wonders of paté. Another person just educated them in veganism without resorting to an aggressive stance, gory pics and guilt inducing. She explained things, and she cooked vegan meals for the people she was trying to convince.. She obviously was far more successful.

Done with this thread.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Did you just fucking said I am in favour of animal cruelty spectacles????

That's not what I said or was trying to say at least. The implication I was making is that you seem to be much more concerned with how a spectacle perceives the actions of outspoken, aggressive vegans rather than with whether or not aggressive vegans and violent vegans should be lumped together in the No-No club. Apologies for the miscommunication.

edit: Also, congrats to your friend. I'm more than willing to speak normally to meat eating folks when they're able to approach the topic with some self awareness. When they lack that self awareness I am less willing to start on that foot. That lack of self awareness is typically followed by piss poor logic as you surely know. The kind of logic that deters someone from adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet because someone like me said something that made them angry, regardless of what the facts of the issue are and will continue to be even when they try to ignore them. It's also not simply an issue of convincing people to stop eating meat from a purely logical standpoint. Ultimately if they never address the morality component of their choices they will continue to make decisions with the same broken morality. That's where this study comes in: people don't like to consider that they've made bad moral choices when someone else points them out. But vegans/vegetarians are the ones who appeal to emotion.

 

[kingkaiser]

Lets not confuse issues of life and death and general suffering with whether or not it's cool to masturbate.

Well, both have in common to zealously convert as many heretics as possible while reeling off their superior morality rhetoric.

 

[VivaciousSoul]

I am an aggressive vegan and I am also not proud of my streak, nor have I flipped my shit when a restaurant cook got a little meat in my pasta. Nice to meet you.

Fine. You don't do that. Some aggressive vegans do. There are other ways to be aggressive. Whether you're aggressive or not is your choice. The point is that vegans and vegetarians don't only come in the aggressive variety.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Well, both have in common to zealously convert as many heretics as possible while reeling off their superior morality rhetoric.

Sure. The principal difference still being that one of these zealotry campaigns is based off of basic morality and the other was based off of dogma. Should I explain the difference next?

 

[jufonuk]

I like you vegans , I like you meat eaters I like humanity in the main.

Why can't we all just get along ?

That is my final response.

I said good day to you all. Have a wonderful day 🙂
toodle pip.

 

[Madame M]

I like you vegans , I like you meat eaters I like humanity in the main.

Why can't we all just get along ?

That is my final response.

I said good day to you all. Have a wonderful day 🙂
toodle pip.

I'm sad you edited out your shoutout to the madames

 

[jufonuk]

I'm sad you edited out your shoutout to the madames

My apologies Madame may you have a wonderful day.
Sending my love to all in GAF, peace out

 

[typist]

You can definitely eat meat and still have a sustainable diet.

Just cut beef and your CO2 output will be cut considerably. This holier-than-thou attitude that you have to be vegan or you may as well not bother is keeping people from making significant improvements. It's perfect as the enemy of good.

I hope that people who tell others to stop eating chicken for CO2 reasons don't eat fruits

Regarding gg emissions you're right that chicken and lots of other animals aren't nearly as bad as beef, and actually seem to be better than some fruits which is quite surprising. I wonder if the importation emissions are factored in for fruits though, otherwise how are fruits producing emissions? My understanding was that plantlife in general tends to capture carbon at least. This is kind of a tangential question though. I don't really eat fruit anyway lol, except maybe raisins in muesli

You're right though, the perfect can often be the enemy of the good, asking too much of people can lead to them giving up without taking even a single step in the right direction. Cutting beef should really be celebrated and encouraged. But at the same time it seems like the logical conclusion of small steps in the right direction is big steps in the right direction. Climate change has never seemed like the most compelling reason to go vegan to me, it's more about the colossal amount of water and food we give to farm animals. People are literally dying of starvation and thirst, meanwhile we prefer to feed pigs and chickens instead of other human beings. Veganism seems a good way to end world hunger

Honestly... no. Stop.

Like this study implies and a lot of anecdotal evidence suggests it just doesn't work like that. You honestly can't force someone to change their believes like that if they are not already open to the idea. It's a choice (unfortunately) for everyone to choose what they eat. Eating meat is something that is normal to everyone from birth. You are asking someone to radically change someones view on the world and customs. Even though it's a small thing to change. It's at the very center of everyones lives.

Not to mention people really don't like change. How matter small that change is. Like the backlash the change from "Ladies and Gentlemen" to gender neutral greetings. It's a change that literally doesn't impact your life. Yet, because it's forced upon people, there was a severe backlash. And you're advocating for a forceful approach to have people change something about people their lives that will severely impact their day to day? Not really sure why you think that'll be the right approach.

There is a really large chance that you drive a gasoline car. Should Tesla owners come up to you and aggressively tell you you're harming the environment and immediately stop driving and/or get an electric car? Will you say "Thank you sir, you are right! I'll bring this car to the scrapyard right away and save up for a Tesla! Thanks for you words of wisdom."

Well, I actually don't drive at all lol. I take public transport because it's more sustainable, might buy an electric motorbike or a hybrid vehicle someday when it's more affordable though. If Tesla vehicles were as affordable as regular gasoline cars I think they would have the moral authority to be aggressive in the way you described as well. Some rich guy who buys a $100,000 BMW or something is a bit scummy in my opinion, dude could easily afford an electric alternative which doesn't poison people or our planet. His aesthetic preferences are irrelevant in contrast. Sometimes expressing righteous anger is necessary in my opinion, if people won't fight for their convictions then they don't really seem like convictions to me. Sometimes a more timid approach is better though, it really depends on the situation.

 

[Timedog]

Ego vs ego always makes both sides of an issue more entrenched.

 

[Mihos]

Sure. The principal difference still being that one of these zealotry campaigns is based off of basic morality and the other was based off of dogma. Should I explain the difference next?

All I see is someone lamenting that the world evolved the way it did. I have no more morality concerns with eating the fish I catch than a cat when it kills a mouse.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

All I see is someone lamenting that the world evolved the way it did. I have no more morality concerns with eating the fish I catch than a cat when it kills a mouse.

And if someone were to chop up and eat your cat or dog?

What about evolution has you convinced that humans have more of a right to a cheeseburger than the cow has a right to not be dead and likely tortured on their way out of this life?

edit: Going to bed for now. Will catch up with responses in a few hours.

 

[Mihos]

And if someone were to chop up and eat your cat or dog?

What about evolution has you convinced that humans have more of a right to a cheeseburger than the cow has a right to not be dead and likely tortured on their way out of this life?

edit: Going to bed for now. Will catch up with responses in a few hours.

Dogs and cats are bred because they are good companions (well dogs any way). Cows were bred because they are delicious.

If eating salads only make you feel good or self consistent, rock on, that is as good as a reason to do anything.

Trying to impose your morality or actively berate people based that sense, just be prepared for people to ask who the hell are you and how do I vote against whatever you pushing

 

[Sec0nd]

Being aggressive about something when the opposition is apt to mental gymnastics and general handwaving when anything even suggesting that they're being selfish gets mentioned, even when backed up by mountains of data and basic moral exploration is a lot different from being violent about it. This study is about aggressive vegans aggressively speaking out about the issues of meat consumption, not about violent vegans. They are not the same, do not lump them together and use the worse of the two in an attempt to shut them both down because you are a spectacle biding citizen. Sometimes things need to be said that bruise some egos. That's a farcry different than physical violence.


I'm curious as to whether or not you'd advocate a lighter touch for issues like bigotry/racism that is learned from birth? Does aggressiveness work for you in those instances, why or why not? The reason I ask is twofold:

1) Typically racism is met with aggressive backlash and some people think said backlash only emboldens, doesn't deter, Apple Season's position is an example of this. Would you agree with Apple Season's line of reasoning from their previous posts?

2) I don't personally see a passive attitude about death and suffering as all that convincing to someone who already believes their own enjoyment is more important than the life and wellbeing of another creature, and I'd like to get your take as to why being passive means better results longterm. Does short term backlash automatically mean longterm rejection?

I'm not going to pretend I know the perfect way of solving the problem. I don't have it at all. For people to decide to go vegan it is something that 100% needs to come from the inside. It needs to be their decision from the start. It's such a radical change to oneself, both in view of the world and daily routine that it's not something that can be forced upon you (unless maybe if meat will be taxed to hell and back). People need to make up their own mind.

For me the most important thing is that there needs to be more and more understanding about the topic. More information. More news articles and studies. At least that worked for me. I read articles about the environmental impact and that made me think. It kind of depends on the term aggressive when it comes to this topic. I'd totally support more 'aggressive' flow of information. Be it in the spread of studies or news articles. What I don't support is the personal aggressive approach of forcing ideas. That will make people clam down and stick to their guts imo. When people ask my why I switch to being a vegetarian I'll calmly explain the reasons why. Pointing them to articles and whatnot. Hopefully that'll stir their minds a bit. If that in the end doesn't help, I'm not sure forcing myself on them would've worked.

Not saying this is the only way to get things done. The spread of shocking images of how animals are treated absolutely work (if it's not a constant barrage that we desensitize people). But it's in my opinion absolutely a change that needs to start within people themselves. They need to be open to it. Forcing yourself on people at your neighborhood BBQ or work lunch will make people clam down and stand by their believes without considering new ideas.

But to answer your questions about racism. I get the comparison. And I honestly don't have an educated answer for you. But I think the difference with both issues is that the quest for veganism is that you are actively attacking peoples comfort, habits and world view that have been there since birth. And you are fighting for a side that has no voice or active presence for society. Therefor might feel more like an attack on ones person. Whereas, though similar on many points, fighting against racism feels more like an 'attack' on society as a whole rather than on ones person. Therefor I think a heavy handed approach against racism might work better compared to a heavy handed approach against eating meat. But I all honestly this is something I don't have much knowledge or experience about.

Geez, debating something like this is extremely difficult to do a language that isn't your native one. I hope I expressed my opinions in a somewhat coherent way lol.

 

[Zakalwe]

This is still going....

Honestly, by this thread and my own experiences IRL, it seems more that sensitive meat-eaters simply don't like being made aware of where their food is coming from rather than it being the norm for vegans to be aggressive preachers.

As I said earlier, 95% of all arguments I've seen online stem from someone making a shitty vegan joke and vegans becoming offended. Relative to this, I've very rarely seen anyone preaching veganism in an obnoxious way.

This thread is another example of this.

 

[Circinus]

All I see is someone lamenting that the world evolved the way it did. I have no more morality concerns with eating the fish I catch than a cat when it kills a mouse.

Honestly, very weird reasoning. You can of course have a different morality concern, because you are a human, not a cat. We have human brains that allows us to do just that and we have always been doing so.

I don't mean to object you for eating fish or something (I do so myself on occasions), I just don't get the reasoning at all.

The animal kingdom is of course full of all the most bizarre behaviours you can imagine and lots of things done by animals would be considered reprehensible when applied to humans. Do you also have no different morality concerns for infanticide, murder, cannibalism, rape etc than the animals that exhibit these behaviours? How do you even assess the morality concerns of animals?

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Regarding gg emissions you're right that chicken and lots of other animals aren't nearly as bad as beef, and actually seem to be better than some fruits which is quite surprising. I wonder if the importation emissions are factored in for fruits though, otherwise how are fruits producing emissions? My understanding was that plantlife in general tends to capture carbon at least. This is kind of a tangential question though. I don't really eat fruit anyway lol, except maybe raisins in muesli

Those calculations were made for an American consumer, so yes they include CO2 from the supply chain. Growing fruits locally is not much better though, as you need a lot of electricity and fuel for greenhouse heating if you want to grow these fruits in colder climates

You're right though, the perfect can often be the enemy of the good, asking too much of people can lead to them giving up without taking even a single step in the right direction. Cutting beef should really be celebrated and encouraged. But at the same time it seems like the logical conclusion of small steps in the right direction is big steps in the right direction. Climate change has never seemed like the most compelling reason to go vegan to me, it's more about the colossal amount of water and food we give to farm animals. People are literally dying of starvation and thirst, meanwhile we prefer to feed pigs and chickens instead of other human beings. Veganism seems a good way to end world hunger

World hunger is more a question of economic inequality and lack of infrastructure in poorer regions than of insufficient food supply

 

[typist]

Those calculations were made for an American consumer, so yes they include CO2 from the supply chain. Growing fruits locally is not much better though, as you need a lot of electricity and fuel for greenhouse heating if you want to grow these fruits in colder climates

Right that makes sense. Maybe we shouldn't eat fruit during winter then, though with such large populations we probably need to grow food all year long. Can't say whether we should grow fruits or foods which use less water though. Like, technically if we only grew and ate cacti that would be really sustainable from a water preservation perspective but in the end there is something to be said for a balanced diet. These issues are kind of complicated because various types of sustainability can sometimes come into conflict

World hunger is more a question of economic inequality than of insufficient food supply

This is true. But if we stopped feeding the animals food and water we would effectively be increasing our supply of food and water, and an increased supply generally drives prices down if my understanding of economics is correct.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

This is true. But if we stopped feeding the animals food and water we would effectively be increasing our supply of food and water, and an increased supply generally drives prices down if my understanding of economics is correct.

Yes, but it is not all that simple. A big problem is that food production in poorer regions is relatively low as agriculture in those regions is not sufficiently developed. The Food and Agriculture of the United Nations has performed calculations on the yield gap between actual and potential agriculture yield in different regions

As you can see there is a large untapped agricultural potential in poorer regions. Expanding and modernizing agriculture will be a huge part of combating world hunger as the world population grows to 10 billion (where it will likely stay). Increasing supply to lower costs may actually be counterproductive as domestic food production in these areas is uncompetitive when imported food can be bought more cheaply. People may not be willing to do the necessary investments in such a climate. Of course, matters are not helped by rich countries like the US and the EU competing unfairly on the world market for food with huge agricultural subsidies

 

[HiredN00bs]

The people arguing that plants feel pain must have excruciating experiences at the barber shop.

 

[typist]

Yes, but it is not all that simple. A big problem is that food production in poorer regions is relatively low as agriculture in those regions is not sufficiently developed. The Food and Agriculture of the United Nations has performed calculations on the yield gap between actual and potential agriculture yield in different regions

As you can see there is a large untapped agricultural potential in poorer regions. Expanding and modernizing agriculture will be a huge part of combating world hunger as the world population grows to 10 billion (where it will likely stay). Increasing supply to lower costs may actually be counterproductive as domestic food production in these areas is uncompetitive when imported food can be bought more cheaply. People may not be willing to do the necessary investments in such a climate. Of course, matters are not helped by rich countries like the US and the EU competing unfairly on the world market for food with huge agricultural subsidies

So you're saying it would make things more difficult for the local agriculture industries in less developed areas, if Western agricultural products were even cheaper? That makes sense. But the US and EU (and economically strong regions in general) should be making that investment and subsidising the agricultural industries of less economically developed areas. Someone has to make that investment because it really is better to eat locally, and that's a lot of untapped potential. The environmental costs of transporting foods (and stuff in general) are currently pretty high. Those investments will probably take years to pay off though.

But to feed people in the short term, exporting food to LED areas still seems like the best solution to me.

 

[richardhawk]

Despite being vegan myself I agree. Funny enough I've had someone go on a rant about how I wasn't "really vegan" because I'm not doing it out of any animal rights reasons. I switched my diet simply because of health reasons. I wouldn't put my life down for an animal so if that makes me not a real vegan so be it. I had a discussion with my girlfriend about this and we came to a semi agreement that if more vegans informed people of the health aspects instead of "YOU MURDERER STOP EATING ANIMALS" they would have more of an audience. Anytime someone asks me about my diet the only information I give them is "Yeah I lost like 28 lbs in a few months and I generally feel way better. It's been going great so far". Calling someone a sack of shit for eating a burger is something I'll never cosign.

 

[Pandaman]

Sure. The principal difference still being that one of these zealotry campaigns is based off of basic morality and the other was based off of dogma. Should I explain the difference next?

There is no difference, in both cases one mistakes their own system of morality to be the arbiter of what is actually moral. Veganism is utterly inconsistent with lots of modern liberal values because it bases it's valuation on right to life on sentience, which is an utterly garbage metric.

Terry schaivo could smile at her mother occasionally, are the doctors who pulled her life support now murderers because of this evidence of 'emotion'?

A fetus can cry as early as 18 weeks, do we now need to heavily scale back abortion?

Or can we all accept that the reason we value a person over a plant isn't because he or she feels but rather because he or she thinks. Sapience, not Sentience. Hell, in our society people whose feelings get too much in the way of their ability to think have their autonomy heavily restricted, are vegans going to rally against mental hospitals now?

 

[Ogodei]

Incidental to the topic, but this isn't true anyway. Nature takes time to adapt to changes. A new mammal appears in an area and might cause massive disruption, and after a hundred thousand or a million years an equilibrium is established. We're still in that adjustment phase for humanity and altering things on a far larger scale, but if you look at it from a geological perspective then we're well ahead of the curve compared to other species in our efforts to curtail our disruption to the pre-existing natural order.

 

[typist]

There is no difference, in both cases one mistakes their own system of morality to be the arbiter of what is actually moral. Veganism is utterly inconsistent with lots of modern liberal values because it bases it's valuation on right to life on sentience, which is an utterly garbage metric.

Terry schaivo could smile at her mother occasionally, are the doctors who pulled her life support now murderers because of this evidence of 'emotion'?

A fetus can cry as early as 18 weeks, do we now need to heavily scale back abortion?

Or can we all accept that the reason we value a person over a plant isn't because he or she feels but rather because he or she thinks. Sapience, not Sentience. Hell, in our society people whose feelings get too much in the way of their ability to think have their autonomy heavily restricted, are vegans going to rally against mental hospitals now?

Animal rights are not the only reason to adopt veganism, though they do remain quite a compelling reason all by themselves. The examples of abortion and euthanasia that you gave don't seem, to me, very analogous to the breeding and slaughter of animals.

We breed and slaughter animals because we enjoy the way they taste, we kill living feeling creatures for a relatively small pleasure. Afaik people are euthanised and fetuses are aborted generally because the cost of doing otherwise would be intolerably high, emotionally or financially or whatever. The motivations are completely different, and motivations are quite an important factor in whether something is ethical or not. I expect the reason we value people over animals is simply because we are people and have not given much thought to the issue. But if I had to choose between saving my dog and saving some despicable human, the life of my dog would be worth more to me. Even if it were some random animal the calculation could be much the same

 

[bman94]

While I have no plans of becoming Vegan, one of my friends is. It's annoying as fuck when I'm eating and he has comments like "I can't believe your eating that" or "You're destroying your body with that stuff". Like really ninja, just let me eat my damn burger in peace.

 

[Aureon]

Doesn't necessarily help? Apart from broccoli (which is far from an essential component of a vegan diet) all the top spots are taken by meat and dairy. You've got to have some weird vegan diet to produce more co2 than an omnivore. The least environmentally friendly plant food after broccoli has a 33% lower footprint than the most environmentally friendly animal product, and it just gets better from there...

The point is that the real gain is removing lamb and beef.
Food co2 is far from the only co2, and once you remove the big hitters, remaining gains are marginal. Plus, transport and variables in the process further squeeze them into nonmeasurability.

And selling "No beef" is one of a hell lot easier than selling "No Meat".

 

[Professor Beef]

Despite being vegan myself I agree. Funny enough I've had someone go on a rant about how I wasn't "really vegan" because I'm not doing it out of any animal rights reasons. I switched my diet simply because of health reasons. I wouldn't put my life down for an animal so if that makes me not a real vegan so be it. I had a discussion with my girlfriend about this and we came to a semi agreement that if more vegans informed people of the health aspects instead of "YOU MURDERER STOP EATING ANIMALS" they would have more of an audience. Anytime someone asks me about my diet the only information I give them is "Yeah I lost like 28 lbs in a few months and I generally feel way better. It's been going great so far". Calling someone a sack of shit for eating a burger is something I'll never cosign.

this is the kind of decision making i can respect and fully support

 

[Mau ®]

I've been a vegan/vegetarian for almost two years and have only met one "aggressive" vegan in real life.

I could however tell you stories of plenty of people being invasive or rude of my lifestyle choices. It's honestly annoying.

These days I'd rather not say I'm vegan because it invariably leads to awkward conversations and lectures on why I "need meat to survive".

 

[Professor Beef]

I've been a vegan/vegetarian for almost two years and have only met one "aggressive" vegan in real life.

I could however tell you stories of plenty of people being invasive or rude of my lifestyle choices. It's honestly annoying.

These days I'd rather not say I'm vegan because it invariably leads to awkward conversations and lectures on why I "need meat to survive".

you're a vegan!?

 

[HiredN00bs]

There is no difference, in both cases one mistakes their own system of morality to be the arbiter of what is actually moral. Veganism is utterly inconsistent with lots of modern liberal values because it bases it's valuation on right to life on sentience, which is an utterly garbage metric.

Terry schaivo could smile at her mother occasionally, are the doctors who pulled her life support now murderers because of this evidence of 'emotion'?

A fetus can cry as early as 18 weeks, do we now need to heavily scale back abortion?

Or can we all accept that the reason we value a person over a plant isn't because he or she feels but rather because he or she thinks. Sapience, not Sentience. Hell, in our society people whose feelings get too much in the way of their ability to think have their autonomy heavily restricted, are vegans going to rally against mental hospitals now?

In regards to abortion, we ought to reduce the amount of fetuses that suffer from abortion by promoting sex education, contraceptives, plan b, and early term abortions as strongly as possible.

What is your definition of sapience? Do dogs and cats meet it? What about pigs or chickens? If they don't meet your test for sapience, would you have any moral quarrel with a sadist who bred dogs and cats to torture them?

What the fuck is "actual morality"?

 

[Hypron]

The point is that the real gain is removing lamb and beef.
Food co2 is far from the only co2, and once you remove the big hitters, remaining gains are marginal. Plus, transport and variables in the process further squeeze them into nonmeasurability.

And selling "No beef" is one of a hell lot easier than selling "No Meat".

Okay so you are looking at it from that point of view. In that case I agree with you.

Although personally, after gradually reducing my meat consumption over a year's time, I thought "heh, might as well make a little bit of extra effort and go vegan all the way" to reduce my consumption even further.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned already but I find people complaining about vegans more annoying than vegand themselves. Is it really difficult to ignore "aggressive" vegans? Just tell them to go away or are they stalking you guys?

Not really stalking. I have two vegan acquaintances who I regularly see at parties. One is super cool about it and casual, she'll even organise her own stuff if she feels it's too much of a hassle and all that. She'll also eat stuff that she's sure is vegetarian but has absolutely no way of confirming is vegan on occasion.

The other will make a point of asking if every dish on a menu or food at a party is vegan or not, including dishes which obviously are not vegan, and will make a "dry reaching, I'll be sick" motion every time "No sorry, that's not vegan" is said. Even if there are vegan options, she'll ask if individual components to the meal were stored with meats or dairies and if they were prepared in the vicinity of meats or dairies. Refuses to eat if they are and goes on and on with "I'm starving, oh my god this sucks" until she leaves. Just a generally irritable person to deal with who is completely unreasonable.

I do think the people who post pictures of steaks or burgers in response to any vegan post or topic are stupid though. Like, I don't really consider eating meat as part of my identity, yet some people must, because it appears that they get offended at the idea of veganism. I try to eat chicken and fish only, but if someone prepares a beef meal or something for me I'll partake. I don't think I've eaten a pig product in like 6 months maybe.