this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
34 points (64.4% liked)

Vegan

489 readers
1 users here now

The vegan place to discuss things.

Vegans Only

Resources:

Vegan Cheat Sheet

Animal Products to Avoid

Vegan Company Guide

Rules:

  1. Be Vegan.

  2. Don't be not vegan.

  3. Arguments and debates will be removed.

  4. No bigotry.

  5. No JAQ offs or Sealioning. (Just asking Questions)

  6. No promoting of plant based capitalism.

  7. Vegans only.

  8. Vegan btw.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] socsa@piefed.social 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Are there any vegan communities on the internet which actually lift up veganism instead of seeking confrontation?

[–] Well@vegantheoryclub.org 7 points 7 months ago

You're cherry-picking friend. This server has lots of tasty recipes, food photos, gardening tips and interesting articles.

No social justice movement has ever been successful by appealing to the sensibilities of the oppressor, I fully support confronting animal abusers to change their behaviour, it worked on me and it worked on the 8 people I've directly helped go vegan, I'm 4y vegan btw

[–] murtaza64@programming.dev 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm not vegan or vegetarian but why the fuck is it that whenever I come across a post like this, all the comments are people from other instances whining? If you don't like the movement then block and move on.

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Most people understand that killing for culinary pleasure is extremely fucked up. It's a self evident conclusion.

In our age using animal products is done because it is either pleasurable or convient. It takes active effort to deny the sheer horror of the reality of that. Anything that threatens to undermine the denial is thus hostile, and so needs to be attacked.

you know this, it's why you're here attempting to salve your conscience with sympathy.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

killing for culinary pleasure is extremely fucked up

i’d argue that that’s simplistic

people all have a line; vegans included… we kill yeast to make bread, and people are fine with that. there’s a line between yeast and humans, and we all draw it somewhere… which is to say nothing about the difference between vegetarian and vegan

having a conversation about morals is fine; passing judgement on someone for their alternative views on where the line is is what most people don’t like

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 6 points 7 months ago (4 children)

my mistake, wiping down a surface with 70% ethanol is equivalent to strangling a puppy. Barkon tomorrow morning it is!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yeast is a single celled fungus and not an animal. The line is at animals.

It is absolutely ok to pass judgement on people for doing something cruel, torturous, environmentally damaging and unnecessary.

I pass judgement on Israel for carrying out a terrorist attack.

Get the out of here with this no one can pass judgement and what about the plants nonsense.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

swatting a mosquito then? the argument remains valid

[–] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not really, you aren't systematically torturing mosquitos when swatting them to protect yourself. Vegans are against large scale insect control.

[–] Well@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 7 months ago

You have the right to defend yourself.

I am against that yes, there are more humane ways to protect yourself from insects including mosquito repellant and I think theres like a super high pitched noise they don't like

[–] general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If the line is at animals we commit genocide of small multicellular animals in order to get clean water

[–] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 3 points 7 months ago

You are being purposefully fucking obtuse and ridiculous to make a shitty point.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

People don't look at the community, browse all, and find the post. It's how I'm here.

Anyway, I've been cooking with quinoa more. Anyone got some good recipes?

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 8 points 7 months ago

"I'm in this picture and I don't like it."

[–] oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

While there are logical arguments to me made for veganism, many rely on emotional reasoning.

[–] november@lemmy.vg 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As opposed to the extremely non-emotional arguments such as "But I like how meat tastes" and "cheese tho" and "for every animal you don't eat I'm gonna eat two"?

[–] oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org 3 points 7 months ago

Sure emotional arguments are used by everyone.

[–] josie@vegantheoryclub.org 7 points 7 months ago

This is a completely arbitrary point and makes no sense.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

And what exactly is a logical reasoning?

Pretty much all political reasoning is emotional, but for some reason, only the "other side" gets emotional.

Wanting equality is an emotional reason. Wanting absolute freedom is emotional. Freedom of speech, aristocracy, fascism, anarchism, progressive income tax are all, if you keep asking "why?" emotional choices.

If, at any point, someone says something is good or bad, well, that's emotional, simply because these are purely human categories that are not rational.

[–] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 5 points 7 months ago

Vegans: Violently killing animals for no reason, ruining the environment, destroying cultures with animals is both logically and empathetically wrong

Libs: BOTH SIDESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[–] oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

You can make a purely rational environmental argument with reducing CO2 emissions.

A pure appeal to emotion is showing slaughterhouse footage or other animal suffering.

A utilitarian philosophical argument about reducing suffering is also logical, not emotional.

A emotional spiritual appeal can be made with karmic debt accumulated or similar.

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can make a purely rational environmental argument with reducing CO2 emissions.

Please do this without resorting to an emotional motivation such as "People enjoy being alive and not suffering" or whatever.

[–] oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That’s not an emotional argument. The drive to survive is universal for all living beings.

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 3 points 7 months ago

What do to mean when you say "emotional argument"? I understand it as something like "an argument which rests on an appeal to an emotional experience" or similar.

For example a mathematical proof is not an emotional argument, as a being without any emotions would be able to verify it as true.

However "people don't want to die, so you shouldn't kill them" is an emotional argument as it fundamentally rests on the counterfactual "a person assumed to have qualia observing a universe in which they had been killed might experience negative valence". Which only makes sense if the notion of another being you assume to have qualia being sad in a way which is impossible in reality upsets you.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Of course that's emotional.

Reducing suffering is based on the idea that I don't like suffering, therefore I don't want others to suffer. That's emotional.

[–] oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

There are whole schools of philosophy around suffering, its necessity, and its reduction. Utilitarianism is one of that. Philosophy is based on logic, not straight emotions.

If you say, “I don’t like suffering” to someone with a “no pain, no gain” shirt, your argument is weaker.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 2 points 7 months ago

Philosophy is based on logic, not straight emotions

Yeah, sorry, but that's straight untrue.

As I wrote before, every time you're doing a value judgement, you're arguing based on emotions.

Saying shredding two animals causes more suffering than shredding no animals is a rational, provable statement. But whether suffering is bad or not, is a value judgement and thus not rational.

If you say, “I don’t like suffering” to someone with a “no pain, no gain” shirt, your argument is weaker.

And both of these statements are value judgement, you're doing a category error here.

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 7 months ago

This is nonsense. you should study philosophy and stop reading "rationalist" blogs.

[–] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't give a flying fuck about CO2. I care that you are murdering an animal and ending its life for no reason. Animals have rights including the right to live without your torturing them and mudering them. Everything else is out of scope for veganism. It is an ethical position advocating for the rights of animals, not a utilitarian calculation.

[–] ambiguous_yelp@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Please don't call animals it, they are someone not something, changing the language around the oppression has a widespread knock on effect to changing people's negative opinions towards non human animals

[–] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I'll try but please also be considerate of other users and the fact English isn't everyone's native language. English isn't my first or only language. I will try my best but I will make this mistake often because this is difficult and I am not contributing to animal suffering because my native tongue doesn't make this distinction at all.

[–] ambiguous_yelp@vegantheoryclub.org 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

ok i will try to be considerate

[–] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 7 months ago

Thank you, I appreciate that and I agree with you

[–] Well@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can use the pronouns he/him, she/her and they/them for the animals.

[–] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My native language that I only spoke until I was about 8 years old doesn't make any distinction between gender or distinguish between living and non living objects. Everyone and everything is it and its lol.

You can feel free to police language on Wikipedia or bring awareness to this, and I said I would keep this in mind and try but I don't really want anyone policing users who may not speak English natively or have learning disabilities.

[–] Well@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That's fair enough, That's a cool way of speaking. As I always love hearing about how languages are unique.

On another point Spanish and french have gendered words that are to keep track of lol.

[–] hamid@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It is funny because I speak bad spanish and I really struggle with it, then of course there are exceptions like el mapa and la mano

[–] Well@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 7 months ago

You can learn it if you keep practising learning the words and sentence structures like through apps like Duolingo or handbook guides like lonely planet or by speaking with others.

I'm planning to learn b2 french that I will use to help with my Spanish (one wall I ran into is that I didn't know enough words to describe certain things) when I get back to it lol.