[yesenadam]

It makes me ashamed to be human. Reading stuff like that, and thinking about what we do to cows, sheep, lambs, chickens, etc, it dawned on me a while ago that humans have no right to treat animals like they're just a bunch of cells to be treated however we want, like a serial killer treats their victims. But that animals are fellow beings, a lot like us in many ways. I didn't want pain, or someone to kill me, so I figured they didn't either.

It was so easy to stop eating animal "products". The whole thing started to seem obscene, like a nightmare - ads on TV trying to tempt people to eat slaughtered baby sheep etc. I thought I'd miss the taste of meat but never have. (I feel so weird writing that sentence now.)

I encourage everyone reading this not to be a part of the problem, to stop contributing to this desecration. If no-one ate meat, this genocide of sea life would just stop. For every person that stops, we get closer to that. I realize in some cultures, it's not so simple, but in many, it is.

[jterrys]

>But that animals are fellow beings, a lot like us in many ways. I didn't want pain, or someone to kill me, so I figured they didn't either.

I respect your noble pursuit of not eating meat, and I have encountered arguments similar to yours enough times now that I feel compelled to respond in genuine kindness as someone who does like to eat meat (within "reason").

Animals are benignly cruel to each other beyond your imagination or the production of what nature documentaries will show you. Nature is a fight of survival. No animal wants pain or to be eaten, yet that is the reality that every wild animal faces. The conversation of humanizing animals is very interesting, but in the process we disregard the reality of their natural existence. Their lifespans are short, and often brutal. I weigh the reality of wilderness to the reality of industrial farming and ask myself if there isn't some kind of middle ground. I think there is. You can raise animals in pastures where they free range outside. They have a relatively peaceful, predation, free life after which you consume them (by killing them quickly and painlessly).

I deplore the reality of industrial farming and "agricultural waste". Chickens being raised for one singular body part and then thrown away. We do not treat any of our food with respect, living or otherwise. We are not efficient. We do not care about quality. We don't even try consuming the whole thing. That's where I find this industry disgusting. Meat should not be this disposably cheap.

[myshpa]

> Animals are benignly cruel to each other beyond your imagination

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/animals-eat-animals

> They have a relatively peaceful, predation, free life after which you consume them

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/humane-meat

[amrocha]

They're not fallacies, they're fundamental disagreements.

1. No, animals do not have rights.

2. No, animal lives are not morally equal to human lives.

3. No, eating animals is not cruel.

If you disagree with these then that's fine, we can have a discussion about that, but you have to understand that not everyone agrees with you on these points otherwise you'll become that annoying vegan that pushes their beliefs on everyone.

[myshpa]

Let's ;)

> No, animals do not have rights.

What about pets? Let's talk about dairy industry ... why don't we switch to dog milk? Nothing wrong with dog's milk. Full of goodness, full of vitamins, full of marrowbone jelly. Lasts longer than any other milk, dog's milk.

Why?

No bugger'll drink it. Plus of course the advantage of dog's milk is that when it goes off, it tastes exactly the same as when it's fresh.

> No, animal lives are not morally equal to human lives.

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/animals-are-not-intelligen...

> No, eating animals is not cruel.

I won't talk about this until you watch this: https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch (warning: very graphic content).

Then come back and tell me that what we do to the animals is humane and morally ok. Killing (and skinning alive) living beings who don't want to die when you don't have to is not humane.

> otherwise you'll become that annoying vegan

I'm already there ... and I don't care. I'm using my voice for those who can't speak. And they don't matter less than you do.

[amrocha]

Ok, but it might get long. And again, I'm not looking for an adversarial discussion.

1. Animal Rights

Animals don't have rights because rights are a human construct. Absent humans, animal rights don't make any sense. Animals can only have "rights" in their relationship to humans, and humans are the ones enforcing those "rights". Therefore I don't think animal rights as a term makes sense. To me, they're closer to societal rules (or laws) for interacting with animals. This also goes for pets.

I don't know what you're getting at with dog's milk. Sure, I'll drink dog milk. Lots of people eat dog all over the world too.

2. Animal lives

Morality is a concept that applies to humans as they deal with other humans. You can only be judged immoral by another human being. A human being slaughtering a cow isn't judged to be immoral by the cow, because the cow has no concept of morality, only survival.

Therefore, the unprovoked killing of animals is not inherently immoral, like killing humans is. However, the purpose and method can be deemed immoral.

3. Eating animals is not immoral

Killing an animal for food is acceptable to me, and to the vast majority of people, since it is something we are all subject to in nature. Having food preferences is also not immoral. Bears and other animals have food preferences. Therefore choosing to eat meat instead of something else is not immoral.

However, I believe causing undue harm and cruelty are immoral. I don't want to contribute to a system that enables that cruelty.

4. Dominion

I don't know why you linked me this. I've already seen it. I know how fucked up industrial farming is. That doesn't mean eating animals is immoral.

Lastly, I disagree that they don't matter less than me. They do, I think humans are more important than animals.

[drewm1980]

> I know how fucked up industrial farming is. That doesn't mean eating animals is immoral.

These two things are intrinsically tied in practice. The utopia where well cared for animals feed 8 billion people does not exist, and cannot exist without many more earths.

Try going vegan for say... a year. Make it a fun game. You get to try out some new foods and restaurants! You can always start eating meat again if you decide you want to take part in the stuff you saw watching Dominion.

You don't even have to give up pedantic moral discussions and infighting (i.e. the distinction between "fucked up" and "immoral"). Those are deeply entrenched traditions in the vegan community!

[mellavora]

> the cow has no concept of morality, only survival.

Actually, many non-human animals have been shown to have strong view on fairness .

If we assume evolution is mostly correct, then the assumption that "morality" only originated in humans is rather suspect; it should be a component of every social animal.

Cows are herd animals. Thus very likely to have a sense of morality.

[myshpa]

> A human being slaughtering a cow isn't judged to be immoral by the cow, because the cow has no concept of morality, only survival

> Therefore, the unprovoked killing of animals is not inherently immoral

So, killing a human newborn is not immoral because it cannot judge its killer?

> Killing an animal for food is acceptable to me, and to the vast majority of people, since it is something we are all subject to in nature. Having food preferences is also not immoral. Bears and other animals have food preferences. Therefore choosing to eat meat instead of something else is not immoral.

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/eating-meat-is-personal-ch...

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/animals-eat-animals

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/ancestors-ate-meat

I would also argue that food preferences / choices leading to the destruction of the environment / ecosystems are not moral.

> I know how fucked up industrial farming is. That doesn't mean eating animals is immoral

> I believe causing undue harm and cruelty are immoral. I don't want to contribute to a system that enables that cruelty.

But you contribute to it ... you vote with your money and purchase animal products. It's nothing else than your choice, it's not a necessity. A life of those animals is full of harm and cruelty. You've seen Dominion, you know.

> I think humans are more important than animals.

That thinking got us here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene

[kortilla]

> I won't talk about this until you watch this: https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch (warning: very graphic content).

False equivalences abound. Do you argue against people legally consuming marijuana because the cartels skin people alive?

> And they don't matter less than you do.

Do you think life in prison or even the death penalty should be on the table for a drunk driver that hits and kills a pregnant skunk? Because that’s what would happen if it was a pregnant woman instead.

[drewm1980]

> Do you argue against people legally consuming marijuana because the cartels skin people alive?

Skinning people alive is not vegan. Humans are animals too.

> Do you think life in prison or even the death penalty should be on the table for a drunk driver that hits and kills a pregnant skunk? Because that’s what would happen if it was a pregnant woman instead.

Driving over a sentient being with your car is not vegan, skunk or woman, pregnant or not.

I'm not being sarcastic. Vegans are so often accused of not caring about humans that some people actually believe the FUD, and you might be one of them.

[richiebful1]

We drink dairy milk because our culture has evolved along with dairy cows themselves. Maybe in an alternate timeline we'd be milking dogs. The cultural connection is why people are so attached to their meat (me included).

As a member of an older school farming community, livestock make natural fertilizer and meat from grass, bugs, and surplus grain. They play an important role in completing the nutrient cycle. Meat ends up being a bit of a luxury (limited quantities), but it's a product of sustainable land use imo

[BobbyJo]

Your first point isn't consistent as a counter argument. Parent wasn't saying "animals do it so it's fine for us too". That's obviously wrong given the broad range of behaviors animals have that would be absolutely ridiculous if a human did them.

Parent was saying killing animals to eat them is not necessarily cruel. All animals die. In nature, this death is often painful and drawn out. Farming, with very little compromise, can be immensely more humane that what the average wild animal experiences. It is often not, but that can be fixed, both by the individual (buy from local less horrible farms) and by society (better regulation).

All that being said, I mostly avoid meat and dairy due to concerns over animal treatment.

[c54]

nice, thanks for the links

[jmkr]

Animal rights is the most important movement. Everything every other movement says applies to animals as well, yet they get ignored, and they do not have a voice.

From the article

> "It's devastating," he said. "This is more than just an income issue for me. It's an inability to do what I love. So, on a financial level and on a personal level, it's devastating."

I'm glad it's a financial loss. Nobody should be a commodity. And it's wrong that it's what somebody loves to do.

[CalRobert]

We moved to the Irish countryside and hearing the dairy cows wailing for their calves that have just been taken away from them is an uexpected meat/dairy deterrent.

[beckler]

When I was much younger, we had a donkey that had a breach birth, and the foal became stuck. It was awful, in every sense of the word. The foal ended up dying mid-birth, and we then did everything we could to save the mother. To the point where we were had a chain wrapped around the dead foal for pulling, and we had to cut up and break its bones to get it out.

We eventually saved the mother, but that donkey was truly scarred. For about two years, I would of said that donkey was clinically depressed. It really changed my perspective on just how intelligent animals actually are, and I’m sure they feel complex emotions just like us.

[cmrdporcupine]

Heartbreaking story.

I had never paid much attention to donkeys until the neighbours got one a couple years ago. They really are a fascinatingly emotive and sensitive animal and more like a pet than typical livestock. It comes up to the fence to socialize with us and get snuggles, and rubs noses with our border collies. It plays with their German Shepherd and with their kids in the yard. It likes to snuggle. It is protective of the miniature goats and sheep that it cohabits with.

I expected it to be more similar to a horse, but it's different. Far less aloof. Kind of want one of my own now.

[mellavora]

I wonder if today's epidemic of depression isn't in part fueled by the consumption of milk from grieving cows.

That distress has to get into the milk; this is one of the pathways of epigenetic regulation -- meaning the distress is heritable, and may impact cross-species.

And it is a completely unneccessary practice. See https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/find-connect/project...

On this farm, calves are kept with cows for 5 months after birth.

[uoaei]

I've always been impressed by vegetarians, because of their comfort in the moral convictions that keep cows alive and suffering for their dairy and children, but never dead for their meat (and an end to their suffering).

[CalRobert]

A lot of them don't seem to realize dairy and veal go hand in hand. Or some are vegetarian for other reasons (health, ecological, religous, etc)

[uoaei]

The thought-terminating cliche raises its head again.

There is nothing "ecologically" sound about keeping cows alive and burping on the cheapest feed available. This is not a criticism of your response, just pointing out that these kinds of cliches become culturally embedded after a certain amount of time, even if they do not reflect the reality.

[CalRobert]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that people have lots of different reasons for choosing to be vegetarian, and animal welfare isn't always their concern. I certainly recognize dairy has a large ecological impact (I live in Ireland after all; we're choking on dairy) but someone who eats dairy and beef probably has a greater impact than someone who eats dairy and plant-based foods.

[belorn]

Humans need to start living in harmony with nature. We need to stop using artificial fertilizers that end up in the ocean and slowly suffocating and starving animals. I like oxygen and so do they. We must also stop spraying literal poison on the land and exterminating the insect population that other animals need to survive. We must stop cooking the planet and especially the oceans, and stop burning forests in order to grow things like avocado.

However I understand that people do need to eat something, and thus I would encourage people to consider their diet based on the more complex plane than vegetarian vs meat. Most food, especially cheap food, do have negative consequences on the environment. If you can, look into the background of food you buy, alternative raise and farm your own food (chickens are excellent pets and one of the best way to keep grass down without using machinery, and they eat practically everything that would go into a compost). It doesn't scale but it do reduce the problem. Those that want to take a even bigger step can try the few environment friendly choices like say seaweed and shellfish. There is zero risk of mussel genocide, through one has to be aware of the farming method.

[tap-snap-or-nap]

Humans cannot help themselves disturb the delicate balance in many natural systems. Corporations are the real extremists today and a difficult challenge our society faces due to the effects it has on human society and all other species on this planet.

[kortilla]

> We need to stop using artificial fertilizers

80% of the population will starve to death if we do this. Is that what you want?

[belorn]

As I began in my second paragraph above, people do need to eat something. Right now that means sacrifice the environment if we want to keep everyone alive in the short term.

Long term we could have farming that has zero environmental impact, like vertical farming with fully contained and controlled environment. It would cost huge amount of money and with the current economical system it would be impossible to feed everyone on the planet, but the technology is technically there.

Right now however, a person should to take into account the environmental impact that different food has. Going into a store and buying a avocado will leave the buyer with some blood on their hands. They can try to reduce the amount of blood by making a difference choice depending on how a specific food is produced, but it will be more complex than just looking if it contains meat.

[drewm1980]

IMHO going vegan is the only practical strategy for reducing the impact of your diet. You have no practical way of knowing most of what's going on in the supply chain for most products, or their true carbon footprint, but overall, the footprint of growing plants and feeding them to animals is way higher than just eating plants yourself. The laws of physics are, to some extent, "on your side" when it comes to boycotting animal products for sustainability reasons.

There ~are some plant products with well publicized ethical or sustainability scandals like coffee, chocolate, date palm, and avocados, that are worthy of looking into once you've already gone vegan. By all means look into those and try to source them carefully if you can or add them to your boycott, but be careful not to buy into the greenwashing false-equivalence that because some plant products ~are wasteful, it's OK to eat meat.

[belorn]

For some people it will feel like the best way to only have some amount of blood on their hand will be a vegan diet. Obviously not all vegan diets are the same, and foods like avocado which is popular in vegan diets are quiet bad and should be avoided. Basically anything which on the purchased packet says imported from an country that has rain forests should be avoided if one want to avoid having the blood of animals that live in rain forests.

Being a mass murder of fewer victim than some other mass murders can be an important distinction for some people.

Still I would highlight that a small scale farmer or hobbyist who raises his own animals has likely less blood on their hand than a vegan who live in a city and eat imported fresh veggies.

There is also the aspect of long term strategies. Vegan diets are not sustainable and long term we do need to change how we produce food. Shell fish and seaweed are one of the few sources of food that we could produce in very large quantities without harming the environment around us. Insect farms would be an alternative, but those seems much less likely to be effective in term of changing the world.

There is a lot of green washing in crop farming. Practically all production of artificial fertilizers uses natural gas, and leaks from those operations is one of the major contributors to global warming. We have waters as large as the Baltic ocean being turned into a desert from runoff. People may feel happy to not eat fish, but fish were killed in order to produce the food that people eat. The deaths "just" happen to be a byproduct that accumulate slowly under the surface, and slowly moves towards mass extinction.

[myshpa]

> Basically anything which on the purchased packet says imported from an country that has rain forests should be avoided

Animal farming in EU is reliant on Brazilian soy from Amazon. Nowhere on the packet you'll read this. But sure, blame avocado toasts, and ignore the fact that avocados grow on trees and as such are (may be) very sustainable. Just don't do the same stupid stuff as californians do with their almond monocultures.

> small scale farmer or hobbyist who raises his own animals has likely less blood on their hand than a vegan who live in a city and eat imported fresh veggies

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

> Vegan diets are not sustainable

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding... - Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets - if the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares

https://talkveganto.me/en/facts/suitable-for-all - a well planned vegan diet is suitable for people of all ages

https://plantbasednews.org/news/plant-based-lifestyles-imper... ... Plant-Based Lifestyles Now ‘Imperative’ For Survival, IPCC Climate Expert Says

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-chea... - Sustainable eating is cheaper and healthier - Oxford study

https://www.tech-paper.com/2022/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-b... - Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

"Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8 to 3.3) billion ha (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5to 7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45 to 54%); eutrophication by 49% (37 to 56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (−5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year."

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw9908

"In total, the “no animal products” scenario delivers a 28% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy relative to 2010 emissions (table S17)."

https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114449

"Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely."

> There is a lot of green washing in crop farming.

Sure.

https://www.salon.com/2022/11/11/the-meat-industry-is-borrow... - The meat industry is borrowing tactics from Big Oil to obfuscate the truth about climate change

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/dec/09/academy-nutr... - group shaping US nutrition receives millions from big food industry

> artificial fertilizers uses natural gas, and leaks from those operations is one of the major contributors to global warming

At least 75% of those fertilizers are used for animal farming ( https://ourworldindata.org/land-use )

[paulcole]

Wealthy people in developed countries won’t change. They either don’t want to inconvenience themselves or acknowledge that they’re the problem - or both.

People will instead say nonsense like, “corporations are the problem.”

I think it’s great that you’re taking steps to reduce your impact on the world (I’ve made many myself: no meat, no kids, no driving, no flying, small dense housing), but honestly don’t get your hopes up for anyone else following suit.

[dzdt]

Wealthy people's habits may be the problem, but its important to understand that putting the blame on individuals' choices is a trap and distraction. The solution is regulation. Heavy, obtrusive, expensive regulation, which is required because as you say most people won't change.

[mr_toad]

> Heavy, obtrusive, expensive regulation, which is required because as you say most people won't change.

People will just vote it down. And not just the rich; the middle classes, the working classes, practically anyone who stands to lose even a few dollars or a few luxuries. People will only accept regulations that don’t affect themselves.

[paulcole]

Yeah, I honestly don’t care if most people won’t change. I’ve done what I want to for the planet and I’ll be long dead before the bill for climate change really comes due. It’s their kids’ problem not mine. Good luck to them.

[hexatin]

At the risk of being trite, your comment did make me think of the line from the end of The Lorax:

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”

[paulcole]

I’ve cared enough to live a drastically different life from most Americans (albeit, it’s a way of life I prefer and I’d live this way even if it was worse for the environment). That’s about all I’m willing to do.

[Gordonjcp]

The meat I eat comes from a ten minute bike ride's distance from my house.

The heavily-processed vegetable-based "product" aggressively marketed to you has been shipped halfway round the world, having been farmed using just about the least sustainable farming practices imaginable.

Which one is harming the environment?

[myshpa]

Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.

Very little food is air-freighted; it accounts for only 0.16% of food miles.

Many of the foods people assume to come by air are actually transported by boat – avocados and almonds are prime examples. Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate ... only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint. Even when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

[drewm1980]

If your grocery doesn't have locally produced, affordable, delicious vegan junk food by now you should be pissed off at the people producing your food and demand better.

[Gordonjcp]

I don't eat junk food.

[14]

If someone said I could live my life and be happy but at the end I have to die or not live at all I am going to choose life. The same is true for the animals I raise. They get to have a very peaceful life where they are spoiled. They get heat in the winter, fresh water daily, the correct amount of calories each day, treats which they love like fresh picked berries and other foods they love, protection from predators, and all and all a very privileged life. But in the end they do die as painlessly as I can make it.

If I didn’t raise these animals they just wouldn’t have existed to begin with. So I do feel bad they have to die but I also gave them a great life.

[wyre]

All those things could presumably be said about Scandinavian prisons but anyone would still prefer freedom ;)

[olyjohn]

What's an animal going to do with it's freedom? Go get a college degree and launch a startup?

[drewm1980]

Your animals are pets, not a food production system. Those animal farming practices will not scale to feed 8 billion people. Most ~humans are not receiving the standard of care you claim to be providing your animals with.

The idea that continuing to live is a personal decision is tempting as a part of a moral code (Ayn Rand takes this idea to absurd conclusions, for example.), but depression/suffering must be ~extremely severe for people to get over their self-preservation instinct. You are ~not, in any meaningful way, making a conscious decision to continue living for the rest of your natural life. You never gave consent to be in the situation you're in as a human being, and the animals you're raising ~certainly didn't.