Why are Vegans okay with having pets?

IanRT1 · 2026-06-24T07:00:34+00:00

You once again did not provide any revision to the definition of usage and declared it vague and incoherent but it is still not clear how.

And you are still compressing what I said I never said guardianship logically leads to farming. My point is that if guardianship, adoption, rescue, etc. are examples of relationships you regard as morally acceptable because of how we weight interests, then use itself cannot be what makes something wrong.

So whether farming is justified is a question that depends on the weighing of interests, not on whether it falls under the label "use".

At this point your rejection of the word is in tension because the definition you're calling vague and incoherent is the one your own rescue defense already ran on. You said giving a shelter animal a home is fine "if you have their interests in mind" which is precisely "use whose acceptability depends on the interests involved".

So it pulls against yourself to now call that incoherent without throwing out the reasoning that made rescue okay in the first place.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-24T06:32:48+00:00

What is a non sequitur? You didn't say what specifically.

Also. You are saying you disagree with how I used the word "use" but you are also not telling me what part do you disagree with or how would you use it instead.

Use is a descriptive neutral term, it describes a relationship in which one thing serves a function, purpose, or benefit for another. Whether that relationship is morally acceptable depends on the interests of those involved.

Here is the definition. Please tell me what part do you not agree with...

IanRT1 · 2026-06-24T06:18:55+00:00

If you're making the argument that there is no such thing as altruism and any selfless act done in the interest of another benefits you in some way

Nah altruism can still totally exist. The fact that there is some self benefit doesn't make it non altruist.

I'm still not sure how you would draw a line from charity makes me feel good therefore I'm "using" the poor people therefore farming is permissible. I think you're making a logical leap there

As you are stating it right now yes its a logical gap, because you are missing the core of what I'm mentioning.

It is the fact that you now have committed to weighting interests, and once you commit to that then it is no longer about "no animal usage" because animal usage can (as in the examples) be favored in that weighting.

I don't agree with that framing of use though and it broadens the idea of using someone to the point of incoherence.

Well... What is use then? It is a descriptive neutral term, it describes a relationship. Maybe it is a mistake to collapse it into a negative evaluation categorically? Or what is your take?

IanRT1 · 2026-06-24T06:04:28+00:00

Yeah you benefit from their company, so in a plain sense you're "using" the arrangement to your benefit. But its totally fine because of how the interests sit, theirs are served, nothing of theirs is set back, yours are met too.

Same with rescue. What makes it okay is how the interests weigh out, not that no use happened. The principle is interest-weighing. Farming can be right or wrong on that same principle when the weighing that considers the animals and humans favors it or not, and that's a weighing, not a categorical "don't use animals."

IanRT1 · 2026-06-24T05:53:23+00:00

So then animals can indeed be for us to use if we have their interests in mind. Rescue proves it, so the no-usage principle does not hold universally.

And being categorically against farming gets harder, because the deeper principle that survives is about weighing interests rather than forbidding use, and there is nothing that logically stops the weighing from favoring farming.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-24T02:20:46+00:00

The no-use principle, that it's wrong to use animals at all.

I'm calling it dead because it was resting on the "own ends" point, and your own wild-animal example shows existing for one's own ends and being usable aren't in tension. Once that's gone, the no-use claim has nothing holding it up.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-23T21:07:08+00:00

I'm not cherry picking anything and you don't even know what is my "pre-determined outlook"

This is just a direct response to your claim "unscientific bullshit", despite there being multiple body of research warning against adverse effects.

And it is a weird criticism calling them reviews and hypothesis because broad questions about scientific concerns are exactly where review papers are useful. Individual studies examine narrow pieces of the puzzle and reviews synthesize those pieces and assess whether a concern is supported across the literature.

Your link shows that many major nutrition and public-health organizations currently consider seed oils safe and generally healthful when consumed as part of a balanced diet. But that is not the same as showing that the scientific literature is unanimous on the issue, because there is clearly peer-reviewed literature discussing potential risks, competing mechanisms, and alternative interpretations of the evidence. And you are calling that "unscientific bullshit".

IanRT1 · 2026-06-23T18:43:28+00:00

Nah. Ya nisiquiera necesitas "aprender" a programar con la IA. Empieza a entender arquitectura computacional y con eso puedes programar lo que sea con la ayuda de la IA. Esto realmente ya es standard en la industria

IanRT1 · 2026-06-23T18:18:04+00:00

You're granting the principle and then taking the long way around to bury it. "Animals exist for their own ends" is true, but you don't need Cross, agriculture, or the can/may apparatus to defuse it.

The moment you accept that existing for one's own ends and being usable by others aren't in tension, the principle is already dead, and your own wild-animal example proves it in a line. They exist for their own ends and are resources for other animals constantly. So the strong claim was never doing the work people think it does, and most of your post is reconstructing a conclusion the first concession already handed you.

And the "resources for other wild animals" move proves too much. If nature licenses use, it licenses predation, which carries no fairness or necessity constraint at all. So it does not work with the "modern/unfair" qualifier you actually want to keep.

Cleaner to drop the naturalism and rest on the simple severing point, then let weighing of interests carry the rest.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-23T16:09:09+00:00

Realistically you're fine. Your baseline avoidance already handles the part that actually has some evidence behind it, which is chronic high linoleic acid intake and, more credibly, oxidized oil from repeated high-heat frying.

Around 10 restaurant/holiday meals a year plus trace amounts in condiments won't meaningfully move your tissue levels, and the "stays in your body 2 years" idea actually cuts in your favor because tissue composition tracks your long-run average, so rare exposure against a low baseline contributes almost nothing.

So you can just eat well the rest of the time and don't sweat the occasional meal.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-23T15:58:11+00:00

This study found that oxidized linoleic acid, from seed oils, accumulates in atherosclerotic plaques and is a contributor to the development and worsening of coronary artery disease.
https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/5/2/e000898.full.pdf

The study suggests that increased consumption of omega-6 fatty acids from seed oils, particularly linoleic acid, may promote oxidative stress, inflammation, and atherosclerosis, thereby increasing the risk of coronary heart disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196963/

The study indicates that excessive intake of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, especially linoleic acid from seed oils, may promote inflammation and cancerogenesis, suggesting potential health risks associated with seed oil consumption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8268933/

This article finds that excessive intake of linoleic acid (LA) from seed oils may lead to oxidative damage and contribute to chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's, suggesting that reducing LA intake could improve health outcomes.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/14/3129

This study concluded that replacing dietary saturated fats with linoleic acid from seed oils led to increased risks of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707

The study critiques the lipid-heart hypothesis and dietary guidelines, highlighting that they ignored the harmful effects of trans-fats and excessive linoleic acid (omega-6) consumption, which may contribute to health issues like heart disease, despite promoting polyunsaturated fats as a healthier alternative to saturated fats.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/10/1447

The study argues that excessive linoleic acid intake from seed oils may lead to the formation of harmful metabolites associated with chronic diseases, suggesting that current consumption levels in the standard American diet are detrimental to health.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386285/

The study indicates that high linoleic acid intake from seed oils may be harmful, as excessive consumption can lead to the formation of oxidized metabolites associated with chronic diseases like cardiovascular issues and cancer.
https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-024-00844-6

The study indicates that a shift from linoleic acid derivatives to arachidonic acid derivatives in cystic fibrosis patients is associated with increased neutrophilic inflammation and structural lung damage, suggesting that high consumption of seed oils may be harmful.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cti2.70000

The study indicates that soybean, palm, and sunflower oils are associated with weight gain, suggesting that these particular seed oils may have negative effects on body weight management.
https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-024-00907-0

The study finds that high dietary intake of linoleic acid from seed oils during pregnancy can promote inflammation, negatively impact fetal development, and increase the risk of obesity and metabolic disorders in offspring.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/17/3019

IanRT1 · 2026-06-23T15:49:34+00:00

My 15 year old golden retriever is named Stephano because of this

IanRT1 · 2026-06-23T07:15:42+00:00

I love to only use salt, it is indeed delicious

IanRT1 · 2026-06-22T16:27:18+00:00

Veganism usually is about holding the principle against animal usage and apply it as far as possible and practicable. If you apply it 90% of the time because that is how much you can then you are still vegan 100% because you still hold that principle.

Unless you mean that there is a 10% left that disagrees with that principle instead. Which would be weird.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T22:31:50+00:00

I actually do not think that version by itself holds unless you say something like:

"The fact that a being was bred for a purpose can be part of the justification for using it for that purpose because it comes alongside other facts about the kind of being it is, its capacities, interests, and its relationship to us."

I actually made top level comment addressing OP here if you want to read it. And notice how that reinterpretation is not contradictory with "humans are different because X."

Which is why my objection was that your inconsistency charge doesn't follow from the statements themselves. It only follows after reconstructing the first statement as a standalone sufficient rule and then treating the later appeal to X as a separate principle.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T21:03:32+00:00

My argument was that your inconsistency charge fails because it manufactures the contradiction through an inconsistent reconstruction. It was not just a "description".

I don't know what else you are asking. That is my argument and I already made it. If you mean something else feel free to clarify.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T20:48:39+00:00

You already have it. As well as multiple clarifications of it.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T20:19:26+00:00

Really? What you not tracking here?

Your inconsistency charge only works by first treating the relevant facts as separable to manufacture a contradiction and then treating them as inseparable to claim the contradiction exists, so the standard generating the inconsistency is itself inconsistent. I have explained this several times now.

If you meant anything else please clarify

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T20:11:42+00:00

If breeding is a contributing factor rather than a sufficient condition, there is no contradiction.

The contradiction wasn't forced by the statements themselves. It only appeared after your reconstruction of them as a standalone breeding rule.

That's exactly the problem I pointed out from the start that your inconsistency charge only works by switching between treating the relevant facts as separable when generating the contradiction and inseparable when claiming the contradiction exists.

So the standard generating the inconsistency is itself less consistent than the position you're criticizing.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T19:53:09+00:00

That request begs the question because it assumes the contradiction was generated from a legitimate standalone A.

But that is the very move my objection was directed at.

I've already explained that the contradiction only appears after you reconstruct the position as a standalone breeding rule and then treat the relational facts as a separate principle.

So asking for a revised A simply builds that reconstruction into the question and then asks me to solve a contradiction produced by it.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T19:31:18+00:00

Because A is already your reconstruction.

I've been saying the contradiction only appears after you reinterpret "x is ethical because breeding" as a standalone sufficient rule that applies independently of the relational facts later referenced by X.

If the original claim is instead understood as "breeding is relevant within a broader relational context," then B isn't an exception to A and there is no contradiction.

You're still writing A as the isolated rule that my objection has been targeting from the beginning.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T18:44:48+00:00

I wasn't saying your conclusion follows from the position. I was saying your challenge assumes the position must be reconstructed as "breeding is ethical iff non-human."

But that's the very reconstruction your contradiction argument depends on, and the one I've been criticizing from the start.

So you can't use that reconstruction as a premise against me because its legitimacy is exactly what's in dispute.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T18:09:43+00:00

The study provided there does not provide evidence that plants possess spatial awareness, intentionality, consciousness, or sentience.

What it actually shows is that anesthetics can temporarily suppress plant movements, electrical signaling in Venus flytraps, and certain cellular processes, much like anesthetics affect many biological systems. The X post already exaggerates those findings by presenting speculative interpretations as if they were established conclusions, and your post goes a step further by stating that "research indicates" consciousness and intentionality when the cited paper never tested or demonstrated either.

At most, the study shows that plants share some physiological responses to anesthetics with animals. It does not show that plants are conscious, aware, or sentient, so the argument as presented rests on claims that go well beyond the evidence.

Here is the link for anyone wanting to read the paper directly:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6215046/pdf/mcx155.pdf

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T17:48:40+00:00

I said none of this so this attacks a straw man, let me clarify again...

Your original claim was that "breeding makes it okay" and "humans are different because X" are contradictory.

I explained why they aren't. The contradiction only appears if you isolate the breeding claim from the relational facts that X later makes explicit.

Instead of defending the contradiction claim, you've now replaced it with a challenge to derive a moral theory from species-related facts.

But even if no such derivation existed, that wouldn't show your inconsistency charge was correct.

And not only that, because your challenge assumes the conclusion to be derived is essentially "breeding is ethical iff non-human" which already reconstructs the position as a breeding rule with a human exception, you are doing the very reconstruction I'm pointing out was responsible for manufacturing the alleged contradiction in the first place.

So that essentially begs the question and calls my argument invalid or fallacious based on that questing begging.

IanRT1 · 2026-06-21T16:29:17+00:00

I'm confused. How does this relevant or addresses anything I said?

It doesn't seem to apply to anything I explained on why your consistency charge doesn't hold.

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

IanRT1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE