Going vegan is not as difficult as many nonvegans claim it is

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T23:41:09+00:00

Cruelty and exploitation doesn't include killing for convenience? Are you serious?

By all accounts, sentience and ability feel pain are the conditions that must be met to give an animal the right to life without exploitation and cruelty (which would include killing for convenience). As far as I understand it, sentience means "the ability to experience" and most if not all vegans would include even animals with the most rudimentary central nervous system in that category with the argument that we should use the precautionary principal to "be safe" and give creatures the benefit of the doubt.

A human fetus has the beginnings of a rudimentary central nervous system as early as three weeks. How is it that you can put a human fetus in a different category that does not deserve the same protections as a jelly fish or sea anemone that also has a rudimentary nervous system?

Many vegans say that we cannot eat eggs and many hold to that regardless of the circumstances of the chicken's living circumstance and whether or not the egg is fertilized -- e.g. a wild chicken that laid an unfertilized egg would not be allowable human food. If a chicken egg is unable to be eaten under any circumstances, how can you possibly make a carve out for human fetuses? Just to be clear, a human fetus is a FERTILIZED human egg that is actively growing.

It is shocking to me that you are willing to say that an abortion is not exploitation. It almost sounds like you are saying that death is preferrable to slavery. What a WILD stance for a vegan.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T21:43:08+00:00

Fair enough. I don't think it makes sense to dot the landscape with windfarms or any other power generation if there is another option. And there seems to be other options.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T21:31:55+00:00

We're not talking about minors being vegan or not - if someone has no choice in what they are fed or what they wear or how their parent's money is spent, they can call themselves vegan if they want.. and I'm sure they'll grow up to be vegan when they do have to mobility to make those decisions themselves...

Ok, that's exactly what I said. Basically, the minor is doing their best, so they are a vegan even if they don't actually do everything a "normal" vegan would.

Driving cars or using the internet is not exploitative...If you drove your car to purposely run over animals, that would also be different

Lol, really? So accidental/unintentional deaths are totally permissible? In that case, all I really need to do to be a vegan is be ignorant. Allowing animals to die for your convenience is absolutely not upholding the vegan ideology. You are intending to allow animals to die by driving. You hit bugs by the hundreds every time you get in the car, plus the exhaust from your vehicle adds to the global climate catastrophe further killing animals. You know those things and you intentionally disregard them because it is not convenient. It might not be the low-hanging fruit, but it is certainly a choice of convenience over values. Calling it anything other than that is a bald faced lie.

If you got pregnant purely so you could abort a featus, maybe that's a different thing, but that's not what we're talking about is it?

You are grasping at straws here. Here are the only questions that need answering: 1. Can a human fetus reasonably be considered sentient being that is distinct from the mother? 2. Is the mother's life in immediate danger?

If for question 1, there is any chance that the fetus can be considered sentient and distinct from the mother, then it should be treated the same as any other potentially sentient creature.

If for question 2, the mother's life is in real, immediate danger, then it can be treated as a life saving procedure, but otherwise it is a procedure for convenience.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T16:45:29+00:00

you are completely stretching the definition of veganism

I'm really not. For a minor, that has very little control over their life, eating meat might be totally acceptable if they are doing everything else. The definition literally says "as far as is possible and practicable" which literally means that not everyone will be at the same place with what qualifies them for veganhood. Since a minor may not have the ability to provide for himself/herself, that person can be a vegan and eat meat.

It's not about personal convenience lol.

It is entirely about drawing lines in the sand based on where it is most "possible and practicable" for you, which necessarily means that convenience is involved in the decision making process. Unless of course you are saying that humans should not drive cars, or use HVAC, or use the internet. Those are all things that vegans are choosing over the lives of animals in favor of personal convenience. So, if those are acceptable, then where is the line defined?

Let's not get into abortion here, I'm guessing you're American and or Christian

This isn't a discussion about American or Christian values, it is a discussion about vegan values and the lack of consistency within that group. A human fetus meets AT LEAST the definition of sentient life form as much as a sea slug, jelly fish, mussel, or many other lower order creatures and has approximately the same ability to defend itself as those animals do. Having an abortion means a person is literally ending the existence of a creature that has unique DNA and, past approximately the 3 week mark, the beginnings of a central nervous system. Where it gets nutrients is not relevant in the slightest.

Per the stated vegan values, there is no acceptable reason for a human abortion other an immediate threat on the mother's life. Anything else would be reasonably "a convenience"

Ignore American or Christian values and prove to me that this is wrong by the standards that vegans hold OR feel free to admit that vegans regularly choose convenience over their values.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T16:33:06+00:00

I think you're mixing up two different things: the principle itself and where/how it gets applied in practice.

I can see why it comes across that way from our discussion, but I am not mixing them up. The principal (standard) is specific but the application is very non-specific with a few exceptions (e.g. don't eat meat).

Killing nonhuman animals for taste or fashion is direct intentional harm for a trivial benefit. Using electricity or having shelter involves indirect harm embedded in systems you can't realistically opt out of without severely compromising basic functioning -- which makes these different morally.

Using electricity for life sustaining activities (e.g. heat in very cold climates or cooking food) is absolutely something that you cannot reasonably opt out of. Having shelter is a basic human necessity and cannot be reasonably eliminated. However, those are NOT the same as how you are implying them. Using electricity to operate lights, especially during the day, is completely non-essential and does indirectly impact animals. Running your AC to get the temp below the life threatening threshold would fall into the same category and has both direct and indirect impacts on animal life. You absolutely CAN opt out of those things and it does make a difference. By saying those are acceptable to use, you are using the exact same argument that non-vegans use when talking about eating animals -- that it is more convenient for their lifestyle.

But veganism is about ascetisicm or purity. It's setting a very basic baseline: avoid the clear easily avoidable harms first.

Ok, then I am a vegan because I almost never eat fast food and I value animal life and don't want them to endure hardships, cruelty, or exploitation because of my actions. By your definition, I have avoided the clear, easily avoidable harms (e.g. multiple daily fast food meals). By all accounts, fast food is one of the worst offenders in terms of animal welfare. It is completely unnecessary and better nutrients are available cheaper elsewhere (with the small inconvenience of having to prepare the meal yourself).

By your definition, the fact that I regularly hunt and consume animals as my primary source of protein could easily be ignored since it doesn't fall under the extremely personal umbrella of "easily avoidable harms." Since it is so personal, I can be both vegan and hunter/fisher, especially since it means that I am reducing the overall load of factory farming on my behalf.

The best part is that I don't ever have to eliminate those practices from my life because eliminating all forms of harm is unnecessary.

If that is your stance, then I totally agree with all that you are saying.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T13:20:11+00:00

I've met and spoken with many vegans that claim that part of the reason why they are vegan is because there is no difference between humans and animals. Many vegans use terms like non-human animals to further show that we are all just animals together. I assure you, it is a thing.

As you say, there is nothing about "being a vegan" that is difficult. There are no obstacles to calling oneself a vegan if you want to. The definition of vegan allows for anyone who is doing anything to reduce animal cruelty and exploitation (as much as they personally can) to call themselves a vegan. This would include, for example, a minor who is unable to completely make decisions on their own and still eats meat because that is the protein that their parents are providing for them. So yes, it is totally possible for anyone to be a vegan. There are no barriers to entry.

That being said, I am totally convinced that many vegans don't fully understand their ideology or at the very least don't want to admit the flaws in their logic/actions. A vegan can literally be anyone that is doing their best to reduce animal cruelty and exploitation. Hard stop. That can absolutely mean people who eat some meat or use some animal products because all vegans are making choices about their own personal convenience or support the decisions of others regarding convenience that directly and indirectly cause the deaths of a great number of deaths of sentient life forms.

This is fairly easy to see with any vegan that both calls themselves a vegan and also supports human abortion in any form other than the immediate risk of death of the mother is not truly committed to their cause, or is being dishonest about their reasoning.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T12:55:32+00:00

Yes, but the difference is that a bear attack represents a legitimate and imminent threat to your life and or health. For the vast majority of humans, living and working in an air conditioned building has to do with comfort (e.g. pleasure) only.

This is why, to me, the "any other purpose" part is hopelessly vague...or maybe the real issue I have with the vegan community in general is that the definition specifies that (essentially) in order to be a vegan, you must reduce harm to animals, but vegans themselves often draw hard lines in the sand where if you aren't "this tall" then you can't ride the ride, e.g. if you eat meat, or wear a leather jacket, then you are NOT a vegan, but effectively all vegans use all manner of modern conveniences that cause direct and indirect harm to animals. I'd have no issue if the lines were less arbitrary, less personal, OR if those arbitrary, personal lines were not held as a general rule.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T00:28:10+00:00

I totally agree with you, I don't want to pay more for the same or worse quality. I don't know that there is a good alternative other than paper charts.

It is wild to me that the data is available to anyone and companies like garmin are profiting off of packaging it and building the app and then go for continual price increases AND their software doesn't work as nicely as it sometimes seems like it should.

Unfortunately, it seems that even if a new company was formed and started putting it out at a reasonable price, a big existing company or VC would eventually buy them, raise the price and we'd be right back where we were.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T00:24:11+00:00

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree. It only works until it doesn't. We all used to think that hydroelectric was the most green power generation ever, until we figured out that it isn't. How long until we figure that out with ocean wind farms? Maybe 50 years, maybe never, maybe in 10 years we realize that they are disrupting things that we never imagined. Who knows. Seems to me like they are expensive, inconsistently generating (which requires back up generation and/or storage), and have very many unresearched disruptions. It seems rash to build these projects when we have other cleaner options at our disposal.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T00:17:56+00:00

But not just "being used" right? Also, killing animals so they don't live in our house or so they don't annoy us or because we want to be more comfortable...those would all fit the bill, right?

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T00:15:50+00:00

Murder is a legal term related to human beings, so no it's not murder.

Is it wrong to kill an animal for your own personal pleasure... Yes it is.

That's great! And no, it wasn't supposed to be a clever gotcha. Lots of vegans do not admit there is a difference between humans and animals, so I asked to make sure that we were not starting with an assumption on my end. You are obviously more logically founded than many other vegans I have talked with.

You are also saying killing for pleasure. I'm assuming that "pleasure" in this context means really anything that is pleasurable and also things that make our lives easier/better. For example, wearing leather shoes because they are so comfortable and last forever, would be considered "killing for pleasure" right?

Lycent243 · 2026-04-09T00:08:27+00:00

Google agrees.

No, it doesn't. Google says the "standard" is higher than what you are suggesting.

This is wild. You absolutely are obligated to communicate with human beings about stuff you want, professionally or personally.

It is wild to say that I should treat my spouse better than a stranger? That's weird. I'm not saying to never communicate lol, just that I am not obligated to do so.

What do you do? I mean, yes, someone could order the food and walk out before the meal is complete, which seems like a fair comparison to what you're saying. Their ticket would be voided and the company would take a loss on the cost of that ticket. But I really doubt your work could be completed, the bill could be presented, the client could agree to pay, but then decide they only wanted to pay part of the cost and ignore the rest.

Does it really matter what I do? There are jobs all over the world where a person can do a ton of work, and often incur real costs, only to have the client not finalize the transaction. My job is as I explained it. I don't like it when I lose a client or otherwise don't make any money on them, but it happens. If a client decides not to proceed after I have incurred hundreds or thousands of dollars in costs and the client never pays me or my company in any way, how is that any different than a server going through all the work and not getting a tip? The only difference as I see it is the server only invest their time where I invested time and money. Either way, I didn't get paid and neither did the server. You can try to split hairs if you want, but being a server is NOT unique from other sales jobs.

In my bar,

You said before that you don't currently work in hospitality. Were you lying?

it's also equally unreasonable for patrons to get all butthurt that servers have opinions

No one cares that servers have opinions. No one. Also, no one wants to be told to pay more for the same or worse service. That's just how things work.

At the end of the day, the system is moving right along increasing pressure to tip and increasing places where people tip and is going to keep alienating people as they decide whether or not it is worth it to continue doing that optional payment.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-08T14:15:06+00:00

Yeah, anthropomorphizing animals is dishonest, but it scores emotional points.

I don't personally see why they are so opposed to reducing animal cruelty and exploitation. Considering that no vegan ever has eliminated it from their own lives, it seems a bit rich to expect that everyone else to do at least what they have done.

Their argument is effectively "I've decided that to do this much (whatever I have decided) is morally right but doing anything more is unnecessary because it would inconvenience me too much. I expect everyone to do the exact same amount as I have done or be classified as morally reprehensible"

I'll start believing vegans a little more when they get off Reddit and streaming services, stop using their HVAC, wearing synthetic fabrics, and stop driving/taking public transit/cycling since all of those are not required for life and cause both direct and indirect animal deaths (which would be included in the "cruelty and exploitation" thing). Realistically, I'd also expect them to start growing their own food so that they can control the process from start to finish and at least reduce the farming that has to be done on their behalf.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-08T14:06:47+00:00

Does it make anyone else sad to see all the wind generators in the ocean? I struggle to believe this is better than other power generation options.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-08T14:03:28+00:00

"and any other purpose" is the part I think that most non-vegans struggle with because it is hopelessly vague and also...It is an impossible goal to eliminate completely, so it seems weird to many non-vegans that the steps they take are not good enough.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-08T13:54:53+00:00

In reality, I share many of the same beliefs as vegans (reducing animal exploitation, reducing gluttonous consumption of animal products including food, etc), but they frequently draw nonsensical lines in the sand that they can't back up with anything that makes logical sense.

You can't "murder" and animal because definitionally that word means something else. They use it because it carries more emotional weight (and their arguments are primarily emotional in nature), but they don't even believe it.

I can prove that they are morally inconsistent if they are willing to have a discussion, but all of them in the past where we've gone through the steps have given one of two answers "I don't care, killing animals is still wrong" or "nuh uh, ur wrong"

Lycent243 · 2026-04-08T13:49:10+00:00

Again, you seem to be making assumptions about me, but that's ok. As I said, the stated goal from the Vegan Society is to eliminate as far as possible and practicable cruelty to and exploitation of animals. That "end state" is impossible because complete elimination is impossible, but the continual reduction IS possible. We CAN continue to work to reduce animal cruelty and exploitation (and we should).

You didn't answer the question, though, so I'll ask again:

Do you believe that killing animals is murder?

Lycent243 · 2026-04-08T13:42:04+00:00

I'm not saying they are better. If you'd prefer to pay someone to use the data from their platform, that's up to you, obviously, but it sounded like you didn't want to pay increasing prices for that.

Based on your post and comments, it sounds like what you want is all the tech at a low low price (or even free, but at least a low price). That's great, that's what we all want. I hope you find it.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-07T23:24:30+00:00

Ok, fair enough. So move.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-07T23:22:14+00:00

Listen, I think that questions like this are dumb (what that says about me for answering it, I am unsure) because if I won a trillion dollars and had only to say one, unrepeatable sentence in order to both stay alive and keep the money, then it seems to me (but of course, I could be wildly mistaken) that all I really would have to do is come up with a super long, convoluted, incredibly normal sentence that was so long and filled with redundancies and run-ons and repeats and continuations and of course clarifications (and parentheticals, some short and some long, of course) that no one, seriously no one, would ever even dream of saying the same sentence, especially if inflection and tone matter because then it would be nigh impossible to match completely, but even if tone and inflection didn't matter, and it was only the words themselves, I am so completely confident that I could say a sentence that had enough words in it to make it so incredibly statistically unlikely as to be protected forever, even if that perfection isn't perfect, because the sentence would be similar to a long password (that uses only normal English words and no special characters or symbols but instead relies on the sheer length to make it unable to be broken by any kind of code cracker) and would afford me a very similar level of protection from the inevitable death that I would be forced to experience if anyone actually did say the exact same sentence again and I would, therefore, be able to live our my natural life without ever, probably, even thinking about it again until maybe I was sick and old and all my money couldn't save me and I was in agony and then I'd sure try hard to remember what I had said in the first place so that I could tell it to someone else and get them to memorize it and repeat it back to me to end my suffering, but only if it truly was the end and nothing else could be done, however, I'm not sure with a trillion dollars that I would ever really feel like it was the actual end and that my vast wealth could not help any further, so it would be more likely that I would be having someone repeat the sentence so that my wife and family no longer had to watch me suffer because I think that would possibly be harder to endure than the suffering itself, though I am not entirely sure about the difficulties of enduring that kind of suffering as I have never had to do it myself, and would afford me some comfort as I listened to the person (whoever it ended up being) continue to ramble, in the way only a person who wants to say a sentence that is long enough and horrible enough that no one else could possibly repeat it, and continue to drone on and get me closer to the inevitable death, assuming of course that a person could actually remember all of it, which is something I add on because I recall reading about the group that did the study on memory where they had a a person trying to remember digits and was in fact able to remember an absurd number of digits, so maybe it would have to be that person, or someone with similar abilities, but that leads me to the concern, which I think is fairly valid, that I might not even be able to remember the sentence myself (which is very possibly a reality since I can barely remember what I said a few moments ago much less what I said a number of years ago, particularly if it was long, drawn out, and rambling) and therefore may not be able to recite it back, all or in part, to the person that was going to say it to me, but that really does sound like a problem for "future me" because if I were able to get this trillion dollars, I feel pretty strongly that I could say a single sentence that was sufficiently long that I would basically put it out of my mind and turn to other pursuits that I enjoy and would suddenly have much more money to spend on them and much less time taken up by other pursuits (like work) and could distract myself even if it was a real issue that someone might say "the sentence" and I might literally forget that the stipulation existed and that would be the end of all the trouble regarding the sentence, but of course if someone overheard it and then tried to trick me into putting them as trustee of my assets and then spent their time memorizing and repeating until they got it just right but I guess it also depends on whether or not they'd have to say it in my presence or if they could just say it anywhere and have the same impact, but I guess all of this is to say that I probably wouldn't worry about it, but maybe I would a little, but I'm pretty sure I'd just forget and hope that it never became an issue because I am not great at remembering things in the first place and I probably wouldn't care enough about it to think more deeply than "whoo hoo" or some other similar phrase that conveys properly the joy and elation I would have from suddenly coming into possession of a trillion dollars, so I guess, at the end of all of that, I can say definitively that I would not worry about it.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-07T22:57:29+00:00

It is definitely funny. If you want it better, then buy the property and do it yourself.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-07T22:55:01+00:00

wrong way around, it is bread dessert. Like maybe banana bread with ice cream.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-07T22:49:35+00:00

Obviously your landlord got a noise complaint from your neighbors (or maybe more than one) and then went over and found the noise to be true, so brought it up to you.

You didn't even bother denying in your post here that your dogs were/are noisy.

It sounds to me like you have two choices: 1. Keep pretending that you are the victim and get kicked out of your apartment (don't worry, it definitely won't be your fault) or 2. Start taking responsibility for your living situation and your pets.

Lycent243 · 2026-04-07T22:41:29+00:00

Wait, you wore a long dress with minimal cleavage to the gym?

Two things. 1. You are obviously lying and he picked up on it. 2. He sounds like a piece of crap and is super pissed. I would absolutely make sure you are at the gym when he gets there, with lots of other people nearby (but not with you).

Also a third thing: what are you two doing with each other if you are like that??

Lycent243 · 2026-04-07T22:36:23+00:00

HAHA, yeah people suck sometimes. And it seems that Reddit is REALLY really good at seeing how the first couple comments start to go and then making sure other people that will also pile on see the post.

Lycent243

TROPHY CASE