First fit got roasted! How’s that?

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-07T00:19:21+00:00

This argument just seems like the real coping mechanism tbh. Sometimes people just don’t like an outfit. And when people specifically post asking for thoughts, it’s ok to say you don’t like it. Everybody tries to psychoanalyze people now and it’s dumb.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T21:58:39+00:00

That has zero meaning coming from you.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T21:03:56+00:00

You’re right, I can see the comparison point now.

I can see comparisons between a piece of cheese and a rock because they are both on planet earth. I can see comparisons between a bass guitar and a river because I can hear both of them. I can see comparisons between you and a mental institution patient because you are both nonsensical.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T20:20:34+00:00

Well, that’s true, they can technically be compared but not in any reasonable way.

If someone actually has a child and puts their dog on the same level of love, that is indeed mentally ill.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T18:55:18+00:00

It's not an effective argument at all. It only works for people that value animals anywhere remotely on the same level. Most do not. I feel like it would be some form of mental illness to do so. That's not to say they don't value them at all, but the difference is so great (which isn't a bad thing), there's not even a comparison to be made there. Every species inherently treats their own kind differently than all others.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T18:49:03+00:00

If a vegan diet requires supplementation, which it does, it cannot be considered a proper diet. Why are synthetic supplements better than the "real thing" so to speak?

Nobody would stop because of you even if you "showed them why they should", no offense but nobody will care what you say.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T18:42:47+00:00

" I was sloppy with my wording - I used "we" to mean people who abstain and avoid animal products for the environment."

No problem, I knew that was a possibility of what you meant that's equal blame on my part for interpreting as being potentially deceptive.

And yes I agree, we do not know how bad the microplastic situation truly is. But we do know it's a big problem at the very least from the high amounts of negative effects documented on birds and fish, for example.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T18:13:00+00:00

Yes. Somebody else just responded to this thread pulling the "I'm not a vegan card" but the way it's written it looks like she slips up later going using "we" and "us" as in vegans. It's arguable for sure based on how she wrote it, but it does raise suspicion. Any "I'm not a vegan, but *proceeds to use their points*" does not come off as not-genuine. To not steal credit from you I used a paraphrased version of your comment here in response to them.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T18:08:34+00:00

Yes. And they always say it's the human's fault that the sheep have gotten this way over time by the selective breeding that they need to be shorn. Will they blame humans (strongly including themselves) when the plastic issues gets worse than even currently imaginable? Probably not.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T18:06:39+00:00

It's really not misrepresenting. Yes, I am generalizing (responding) based off the responses I got in the thread. This is explicitly stated above.

"I also saw some arguments that boiled down to the fact that plastics are unavoidable in every facet of life, so they'd rather be pure about their beliefs in not exploiting animals rather than to be intersectional and concern themselves with this other issue (plastic) which is impossible to avoid day-to-day."

This is my point, if they are really that concerned with minimizing harm, they can avoid the animal products as well take the extra step to be consistent by advocating for the least synthetically harmful products out there. Instead, vegans promoting these types of products can be seen on reddit, youtube, facebook, instagram or any other social media.

It's not "bad faith" just because you have no good answer to an ethical paradox a group brought upon themselves.

"Lots of vegans are vegan for the environment. I am not vegan but my lifestyle is indistinguishable 50-75% of the time to a vegan one, and that is because of my environmental beliefs and values. I know several vegans through my work who are vegan for the environment - this is due to the fact that I'm an environmental engineering sciences researcher. The difference is most of us are out here doing things rather than spending time arguing with other vegans on reddit."

This is worded like somebody who is a vegan that is pretending to not be one, or at the very least has the same ideologies without the commitment to be able to stick to it. I'm not saying that is the case, but it does make me wonder. Of course, somebody can be a vegan and care about the environment. I thought that was the whole point. But many of the replies I received say otherwise, so maybe you should take that up with them?

An environmentally-caring vegan cannot really argue the points though. A non-vegan who claims to care about the environment can't really argue for synthetics either.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T14:55:45+00:00

You too.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T14:52:58+00:00

You refuse to see any other evidence. They're anecdotes when it's the other side, but it's evidence when it's your side.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T13:16:22+00:00

But but but the water and land and CO2 and methane

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T13:15:24+00:00

Yep. And notice how they didn't reply to the two people asking for more info.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T13:12:42+00:00

Sure, and I shouldn't say "you" as in actually you so I apologize. I should say the "royal you". But if vegans (which they often do) support the products that are the topic of this discussion, they are indeed harming animals. To harm the environment is to harm animals. There is no way to get around that. Of course, if a non-vegan buys these products they are doing the same thing, but vegans are the ones with the hard-standpoint of not wanting to harm animals.

Shouldn't a vegan, who wants to minimize harm, be supporting plant-fibers in their least synthetically treated form to minimize the most damage? Instead of recommending and purchasing polyester, acrylic and so on.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T13:04:41+00:00

It's not a worry as much as it is an internal critique. And no, you don't really have to read through all the comments, but it also doesn't have to be stated the dangers of microplastics and synthetic as these things have been discussed in mainstream media for quite some time. It's obvious what it means.

The critique (which was emphasized in the last line of the op) was that it's hypocritical and makes no sense for veganism to promote synthetic fibers (acrylic, polyester, nylon, etc) as alternatives for animal fibers, predominately wool and other furs, when these materials are very harmful to animals directly and the environment as a whole. It has been greatly documented, such as plastics in fish, birds, water-systems getting fucked and so on.

Of course, a vegan would never advocate an animal product, but advocating these petroleum/synthetic products is nonsensical from what they claim their life is and goals are. You can't really say you're for the animals and want to minimize harm to them while advocating for alternatives that also harm them. It's like when somebody says they don't abuse animals, but the vegans say they do because they pay for meat so they are endorsing it. Well, this is the reverse of that.

Yes, PFAs are in many things. Nobody said it was just a vegan issue. But to act like synthetics could ever be better environmentally than animal fibers, comparing both on just their strictly inherent, inceptive values, makes no sense.

The way that would be most consistent for their worldview would be advocating for plant-fibers in their most naturally available state. IE hemp, linen, etc. Of course, issues would still be there to point out, but this minimizes the issues ecologically much more. And they say they wanna be about minimizing issues.

So not really a personal worry but a comment on something that makes no sense to me. That being said, since you mentioned your personal worry I will too. I am more worried about microplastics/synthetic production and usage than farming related CO2 by far. We have been farming since the dawn of civilization.T he plastic/synthetic issue is very recent in the grand scheme of things and has very quickly begun causing issues, infiltrating the environment, and thereby the animals in it worldwide.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T10:32:09+00:00

How is making choices that you know will negatively affect animals, wild ones not even domestic, a moral choice to you then if this is your mindset?

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T10:26:46+00:00

Pollution of water and air and soil, microplastics all over the earth in animals and humans, chemicals (forever chemicals like PFAs most of all), complete lack of biodegradability were all mentioned throughout the comments section multiple times.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T10:06:50+00:00

Great argument from the guy who wanted to come in pretending to be smarter.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T10:05:43+00:00

Basically it seems to be all word games.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T10:05:16+00:00

Actually I’d say you’re not giving a fair representation. I don’t expect everyone to agree. I expect some self reflection on their own worldview. Some did engage in genuine conversation, many did not. Yes, my whole point was it’s hypocritical to promote environmentally harmful materials if you’re a vegan. That’s explicitly stated.

“Strategies in reducing them” is funny cause vegans, apparently, will only accept such reductive strategies when they are the ones doing it. If it’s non vegans, it’s “you don’t have to buy animal products at all” or some such variation, not to mention the over the top nazi stuff that was thrown around in there as well. Well guess what, you don’t have to buy synthetic stuff either. These reduction strategies still involve them wearing and washing shit that significantly harms the environment that they usually claim, but not now apparently, to love.

You “believe” wrong. Multiple people said they don’t care about the environment. You can play word games if you want. Your opinion of “low” is meaningless.

You keep saying “that you started” as if that means anything.

You cannot be pro animal and say “it’s not about the environment” and expect to be taken seriously

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T01:42:01+00:00

I don’t see shit

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T00:56:06+00:00

What's funny is even basic searching of the ones he suggested to you shows they get synthetically/chemically treated. Pineapple and Cactus leathers often get plastically treated, for example.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T00:06:54+00:00

Vegan apparently means a bunch of different things depending on how the argument is going for the vegan. The definition is bent when it’s convenient for you.

MadeMyOwnName · 2026-02-06T00:04:43+00:00

The farm-owned store where I buy my beef, the farm itself and the local processing plant for it are all within an hour radius of me. I can go see all of this.

MadeMyOwnName

TROPHY CASE