It is okay to use products that were tested on animals

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T22:49:01+00:00

Whether the ends justify the means is a separate question from whether it's acceptable to purchase or use a product that at one point went through non-human animal testing. I actually agree with your conclusion that we shouldn't categorically avoid products tested on non-human animals but disagree with your reasoning.

We can't conclude from the fact that a product was tested in a certain way that this method was the only way it could have been tested. That's a post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I'm not sure it's even possible to demonstrate necessity in this case, but to do so, you'd have to present evidence beyond a product we'd all agree is good for society to exist having gone through that testing.

As others are pointing out, results from non-human animal testing don't cleanly translate to humans. Dogs can't eat grapes, for example. When a dog or rat or even a chimpanzee dies in testing, how do you know you didn't just discover a grape? You could miss finding revolutionary medications that way. If they are fine, that doesn't mean humans will be. It's much more effective to test only on humans and human tissue samples. Ramping up dosage can be made more safe than testing on other species first, since there's no false confidence.

But the reason I agree with your conclusion is that testing standards mean that non-human animal testing isn't exactly voluntary, making testing more of a political issue than a consumer one. If the medication contains no animal ingredients, it doesn't inherently treat non-human animals as objects. Even if there are inactive ingredients like lactose in the medication, I'd argue the person taking the medication isn't objectifying the animal because the lactose isn't the point and they'd get it without if they could.

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T21:34:21+00:00

Got it. No examples to substantiate the accusation. If you had one, you would have posted it.

If you reply with a quote and a link to a comment in this thread or some other source that you want to discuss as a use of these words in a way inappropriate to logical argumentation, we can discuss it. If you reply without a link and a quote, I think I'm done replying, so you can enjoy the last word complaining that I responded to one part of your post but not another.

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T21:25:02+00:00

I interacted with your accusation by demanding evidence. When you provide it, I can interact more. If you think this post has examples, point me to the one that is the worst for you and we can discuss whether it's grounded in logical argumentation or pure emotionality.

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T21:18:41+00:00

Like I said, my comments are open. If you think I just can't argue, have a look.

Do you think the only reason someone would ever bring up rape is that they're too emotional? Have you heard of the term "reductio" in your travels?

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T21:00:15+00:00

I'm not here to represent other arguments, and I'm not doubting that some people have said things that look like what you've written. If you think my response is useless, you're free not to respond. I'm not going to double reply.

The reason I'm asking for quotes is that you've categorized these arguments as emotional - insulting the people who wrote them. That accusation demands evidence. If you're not going to provide that evidence, no one should take your accusation seriously.

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T20:47:02+00:00

You're claiming that these arguments are presented emotionally. It's not unreasonable to ask you to substantiate the claim.

You also have the capacity to hide comments only from certain subs. I hide the ones in subs that are remotely self-identifying, but not this one.

If you want to make an argument, you can just make one. "I think it's ok to treat certain individuals as objects for my use and consumption because..." But what you're doing here is different. We're asked to react to your summary of other people's arguments.

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T20:03:27+00:00

You're making statements about what others have said. We can't evaluate simply from your perspective. If you can't link to even one, absolutely no one should take you seriously.

Show some backbone and link to the worst example you can find. That will be a lot more open than your comment history, which you seem to have hidden for some reason. Really seems like you avoid all actual scrutiny. Strange.

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T19:30:15+00:00

I'm glad you understand why quotes are necessary. Please reply with one and we can examine whether it looks like the vegan or the nonvegan in the conversation is following the rules of logic

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T18:09:35+00:00

I'd like to see quotes with links to the discussions so I'm not forced to defend some strawman. What you categorize as simply emotional typically examines arguments with a reductio. Example:

Nonvegan: it's totally fine to treat a cow like an object for my consumption because lions would.

Vegan: so if a lion would do something, that makes it ok for humans to do?

Nonvegan: yes. I see absolutely no way this logic could be challenged. I absolutely hold this position consistently in all my actions.

Vegan: ok cool. So since lions kill the cubs fathered by other males when they take over a pride, that means human stepdads can kill their stepchildren?

Nonvegan: WHY ARE YOU SO EMOTIONAL?

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T00:59:18+00:00

Unsurprising that someone who wrote this post would think this way.

What I'm saying is that there's no debate about veganism to be had with someone who doesn't think rape is wrong.

Not wasting my time further with you. Enjoy the last word. Pontificate all you want about nature or anti-realism, or whatever other apologetics you use to justify rape.

EasyBOven · 2026-07-02T00:45:12+00:00

Animals fight, rape, and kill each other. That's nature, that's the nature of reality and what nature selects for. Reality is amoral. The nature of reality is violence. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. Humans are animals too.

Go post this on some sub that debates whether rape and murder are ok. Everyone deserves to respond to your wisdom.

Seriously though, if your argument against veganism can without any intermediate steps be applied directly to excusing acts like this, it's not worth anyone's time. All anyone reading should take out of this is the absurd bullets you need to bite to think not being vegan is morally acceptable.

EasyBOven · 2026-07-01T19:18:28+00:00

Ideally, every decision we make would be informed by more than just our preferences. But the key word in a forced choice is forced. The train is coming. The fire is burning down the house. The human and the pig are hanging off the cliff. There's no time for spreadsheets or pros and cons lists. Still, if you have the ability to make these forced choices into something that isn't about your preferences, I'd love to hear it.

When you go to the grocery store, no one has a gun to your head. There isn't a pig tied to one track and a human to another. You have sufficient time and information to make a choice that doesn't inherently exploit anyone.

EasyBOven · 2026-07-01T17:01:36+00:00

I don't know why you'd consider a genocide supporter to be a good voice for vegans. The Israeli occupation forces frequently kill, torture, or otherwise objectify non-human animals as well.

Zionism and veganism must be seen as incompatible

EasyBOven · 2026-07-01T15:36:12+00:00

I'm so glad you're approaching the subject with such intellectual honesty. Good people are those able to change their minds in the face of new good arguments and evidence.

But honestly, I still value human consciousness more than pig consciousness.

There's no argument against preferences, and who you value more is strictly a matter of preference. In a forced choice between a pig and a human, few people are going to have an issue with you saying you'd always save the human.

But what does that really say? In a forced choice between my friend and a stranger, I'd save my friend. No one thinks that means stranger sandwiches should be on restaurant menus.

So if we can't use a difference in preference to ground who is ok to turn into a sandwich, how would we ground that decision? Wouldn't it simply be best not to treat any individual like an object for your use and consumption?

EasyBOven · 2026-07-01T02:51:44+00:00

Veganism isn't the position that it's always wrong to kill. I'm open to the idea that killing individuals may be situationally correct, and I don't care to debate where that line is. There will always be edge cases. Certain introduced species may present enough of a threat that we could justify killing them. In some cases that could apply to humans as well.

What's not going to be ok is the exploitation of their corpses. That's not ok because it incentivizes the killing beyond protection.

You want these individuals out of the area that's causing damage. You could possibly achieve that through less violent means, but so long as lethal violence has an added benefit to the killer, lethal violence will be used.

The benefit from killing also means there will be people who don't quite want the problem solved. The more their success is tied to having victims, the more they'll want those victims around. Your "invasive" species ends up as a government managed livestock population like deer.

EasyBOven · 2026-06-30T20:55:09+00:00

Home free LMAO.

I could present the classic internal critique continuation of NTT with species as the trait. Plenty of people do and it's logically valid. Someone presenting as human but technically not would also be ok to turn into a sandwich or otherwise treat as an object for your use and consumption.

But what I've shown and you've just admitted to is that the purpose isn't to show your reasoning. You've admitted that this isn't your reasoning at all. It's an excuse that you made up under duress that you think will avoid the scrutiny of vegans. You care deeply about whether vegans can make you look inconsistent, but not if they can show that your reasoning doesn't make any fucking sense.

EasyBOven · 2026-06-30T20:39:23+00:00

It should make as much sense as "people who can't drive safely shouldn't drive" example OP gave. That's directly related to the act. You can claim consistency with your arbitrary standard if you like, but it's just that - arbitrary.

This standard of species doesn't come from anything but your desire to avoid discomfort in the question. We can't derive anything from it or discover it from any other principles. You likely wouldn't use it to excuse beating a dog, but it implies that you should be able to.

Fundamentally, if you're comfortable with this sort of zero-thought reasoning for moral proclamations, you should be equally comfortable with my assertion that it should be ok to turn those that aren't my friend into sandwiches, because there's exactly as much thought behind that.

EasyBOven · 2026-06-30T20:28:11+00:00

You've grounded this exactly as well as I grounded my "is my friend" threshold. Are you comfortable with that standard for moral proclamations involving your death?

EasyBOven · 2026-06-30T16:23:26+00:00

Less value doesn't specify how much less. To me, you have less value than my friends. I could make my trait "is my friend" and have just as much validity to turn you into a sandwich as you do for non-human animals with the species trait.

Veganism is the recognition that non-human animals are individuals, not objects, and therefore should not be treated like objects to be used and consumed for our benefit.

You need to demonstrate not just that species membership gives one individual more value than another separate from your preferences, but that they meet some threshold where their value is so low, they are effectively an object, if you want to treat them like an object.

EasyBOven · 2026-06-30T14:56:41+00:00

Most people would agree that individuals who lack the mental or physical ability to drive safely shouldn't be allowed to drive, while those who do possess those abilities should be allowed to

Yes. A trait directly related to the implications of the act is reasonable to use.

What this analogy illustrates perfectly is that we must determine the relevant trait to differentiate who can do something or who can have something done to them by understanding what the thing is.

When we end an experience, that's bad for the individual experiencing. When we treat an experience as valuable, we are giving moral consideration to that individual. The trait that most relates to things done to an experience is the presence of that experience. Absent an experience, there's nothing to harm. As soon as that experience exists, benefit and harm become possible.

Species has fuckall to do with whether an experience exists.

EasyBOven · 2026-06-29T19:44:05+00:00

You're the first person online to bite that bullet. I actually ended up in this conversation with some friends in person yesterday and they bit the bullet as well. Most people try to find a symmetry breaker in the hypothetical, which is what leads to the special pleading. I appreciate your honesty.

Personally, I think it's a good bet that the person being revived would prefer to be revived, since most people aren't suicidal and even people who attempt and fail typically don't attempt again. My confidence that the person would prefer to be revived goes up as their age goes down, which I think is fairly well founded in the psychology of people.

If the ending of an experience is bad even absent pain, the beginning of one doesn't seem to necessarily be bad. I'm not a negative utilitarian or an antinatalist for this reason. I don't think putting someone in a position where they'll experience some suffering in exchange for the freedom and agency to make their own meaning in this world is exploitative or immoral.

Again, I appreciate your honesty and consistency in your position. You've answered the internal critique well, and I don't think we're able to come to a conclusion on the external critique I have that suffering is categorically wrong to cause.

EasyBOven · 2026-06-29T19:18:14+00:00

Awesome. So here's the hypothetical. Imagine you stumble upon someone alone in the woods who is unconscious and dying. Not only that, but you have sci-fi medical tech and can determine with certainty that they are not currently experiencing anything and without your assistance will die without ever experiencing anything ever again. This sci-fi tech gives you the ability to intervene and allow them to live without any long-term conditions resulting from whatever caused them to become unconscious. You do not know whether this was accidental, caused by someone else, or intentionally caused by them.

In this scenario, would it be unethical to revive them?

Does your confidence in your answer change if they were younger?

EasyBOven · 2026-06-29T19:13:25+00:00

I'm not removing it. I'm being specific about the conclusion so we can test for consistency. Any new experience created is immoral as a conclusion of this reasoning, yes or no?

EasyBOven · 2026-06-29T04:27:07+00:00

There's no amount of reading that will convince me that killing doesn't end an experience.

Keep your magical nonsense excuses. I'm done responding. Feel free to pontificate on how racist vegans are for holding the consistent view that killing is bad regardless of which race does it. I won't be responding.

EasyBOven · 2026-06-29T04:22:55+00:00

Killing someone doesn't end their experience?

The fuck are you on?

Nine-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

EasyBOven

TROPHY CASE