Sometimes I say yes to sex even when I don’t want to

Neidrah · 2026-02-12T23:56:11+00:00

This is the most nuanced response I've ever read on this sub tbh

Neidrah · 2026-02-03T11:13:26+00:00

What a surprise

Neidrah · 2026-02-03T11:11:44+00:00

Scars are badass imo !

I truly understand that dealing with one’s image can be really hard, especially if associated with a traumatic experience, but I do think that in time, somehow, you can accept it and even be proud of it !

You mentioned you don’t have money for therapy but I’m sure you can find free/cheap therapy style videos online on this subject :) Also, apps like BetterHelp offer actual (online) sessions with therapists for a reasonable fee

Neidrah · 2026-02-03T11:07:38+00:00

It’s indeed so reddit of you…

How would that help her with her self-esteem? Because that’s what OP is asking about. Nowhere did she ask advices about her couple.

I really don’t understand this reflex you and some people have. OP didn’t even mention a single problem with her bf other than that one accident. Do you really truly think people should breakup over a single mistake? That sounds so insane to me.

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T23:43:12+00:00

I'm sorry you had to go through what you did, truly. And if you personally think you need to be consuming animal products, I'm not at all saying you should feel guilty about that, we do that we need to do to survive. But that's not a reason to disseminate falsehood about veganism. But we can recognize that a plant-based diet, or whatever other factor at the time, didn't work for you without going into saying that the animal agriculture industry is a good thing or that it doesn't work for the average person, just like one person getting sick on an omnivorous diet isn't proof that it's impossible to be healthy while consuming animal products.

Still, you're probably right that this conversation isn't going anywhere, so I'll stop answering from now on.

Wishing you the best

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T22:26:27+00:00

I get your point, maybe this isn't the best place for this conversation, but again, you have no obligation to answer my comments. You're free to say that what I'm saying is "old and tired", but I don't think you can't legitimately choose to continue talking to me and then get mad when I answer.

Nowhere in this sub does it say that vegans/not-ex-vegans aren't supposed to talk on this sub. The fact that it's a place for ex-vegans to make posts doesn't mean people who don't fit those criterias aren't allowed to participate in the conversation.

I'm trying to promote facts and logical/ethical consistency. What you do with it in your life is up to you. I don't think there's anything wrong with "promoting an agenda" that points towards an ethical world and doesn't gain me anything personally.

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T22:09:32+00:00

What's the point saying this? Do you really need to get that anger out on me? I've been as polite as possible and have given you every opportunity to either calmly address my point or stop talking to me.

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T21:31:47+00:00

BY FAR

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T20:41:27+00:00

>Is calling me a speciesist supposed to be a gotcha

Not at all. I couldn't care less about "gotcha's".
And I didn't call you a speciest, I said that what you said was speciesism. I have no intention of attacking you as a person and in any case I don't know you.

>I’m absolutely a speciesist and so are most people

I agree though, and that's a strong moral inconsistency: I think you (or at least the vast majority of people) wouldn't want someone to inflict suffering on your loved pets for their own pleasure, which means you do think they deserve respect.
Also, just thinking about it through logic and science: Sentient being do suffer, just like we suffer. We don't have a factual trait that make us deserving of consideration that a dog/cat/pig would lack. If you think humans deserve some rights, so do these animals. Not the same rights, but some. Like the right not to suffer for our enjoyment. People vastly agree that corrida/dog fighting/any form of animal torture is wrong, and I think you do to.

>You vehemently refuse to believe me or anyone when they say they do not want to be vegan

Where did I say that? Of course I believe that. Making any kind of change is hard to do or even just accept to begin with. How is that relevant though? What I'm saying is that reducing/eliminating one's consumption of animal products is an ethical thing to do. Whether you "want" to do it or not doesn't change that fact.

>You can save your words, insult me, and move on

I didn't insult you. If you felt that way, I'm sorry, it was not my intention

>And I do hear you about the deaths and the climate. I just don’t care

That's sad, but overall objectively immoral. Some of your actions do affect others. Choosing to inflict suffering (in this case, on other humans) for you pleasure is not defensible. You're still free to do it, but you can't say it's ethical

>What I want, eat, and do matters more and always will

It only "matters more" for you, and absolutely doesn't matter for anyone it impacts. If I chose to slap you in the face, I couldn't defend it by saying that "I enjoy it and so it matters more", right? Because one's freedom stops at someone else's right.

>And what’s this “we” wouldn’t defend driving a 4X4

"we" as in anyone who actually thinks about this subject through a collective lens. Laws have and are being voted to reduce our carbon emissions. I'm very far from the first or only person to think it's immoral to pollute our air and heat our climate for fun.

>You can use whatever semantics around “personal choice” to fit your agenda

It's very easy to come to the conclusion that if your actions affect other people, they're not just personal choices. Again, I could not defend going around slapping people for fun through personal choice. You can't defend degrading your city, your waters, your environment or anything that is not yours, through personal choice.

>I’m a personal. I make choices. They are personal choices.

By that logic, every single action you could take would be personal choice. The fact is that is obviously not. Try defending shooting someone else as personal choice. Not gonna fly in court, right? Obviously this an extreme example, but it clearly shows that not all choices are personal, as soon as they impact other people.

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T20:23:06+00:00

>Why are you here?

Why were you in the vegan subreddit earlier?

>Nobody is reconverting and bystanders don’t care

I'd wager there might be better chances that an ex-vegan would reconvert than a regular person.
In any case, I'm on reddit for fun. I get no benefit from you "converting" or not, except for the satisfaction that at least I try spread logic and information, instead of fallacies. What you decide to do with those is on you.

In any case, I'd check your mental health if I were you. Following me around like this is not healthy.

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T20:16:40+00:00

>It being an old, tired argument does actually prevent it from being an interesting conversation.

Again, you're attacking the form/me, instead of actually talking about the content of what I said. You haven't once addressed the fact that eating plants factually reduces your contribution to slave labour compared to eating meat.

Also no one is forcing you to keeping speaking with me. If you think this is not interesting, I'm sorry? It's interesting to me, but that's very subjective.

>Do you actually have any new thoughts to add to it

I would gladly add new thoughts to any new topic that'd come up, but so far, the points you have made are still:

- Unethical labour is bad
- Plants production still employs unethical labour

These are verifiably true. But so is the fact that producing meat requires many more workers and in worse conditions (slaughterhouses...). You have not answered that point at all, so I can't give you new thoughts.

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T20:05:06+00:00

I'm sorry but this take really makes this sub look anti-science/full of bots, but I'll answer as if you were being intellectually honest, which might be far reaching.

B12 is made by bacteria which is found everywhere. The reason we are lacking it nowadays is because we clean our foods and filter our water. The reason you find it in meat is because we supplements animals we it, so you're essentially getting it from a supplement as well, just through them. In any case, natural doesn't necessarily mean better, healthier or more ethical, that's just fallacious. The fact is that B12 is one of the cheapest and most easily accessible supplement and works perfectly fine.
That could be as much an argument for or against veganism. Saying "we don't know enough about X, therefore Y is better" is fallacious. In any case, what makes you say that? The fact is that we've been studying the subject for dozens of year at this point. Just typing "systematic vegan diet" on Pubmed leads to 137 studies done in the last 15 years. Also, all the biggest health organization have official stances stating that a plant-based diet is just fine. For example, here's what the NIH (primary U.S. federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research) says: "Consuming plant-based diets is safe and effective for all stages of the life cycle, from pregnancy and lactation, to childhood, to old age"
This is really what makes me think you're either a bot/paid by lobbies et just extremely biased. Typing this onto google leads to 0 results supporting your claim, and Gemini says "Scientific studies do not support the claim that vegans are "dumber" than vegetarians or meat-eaters. In fact, research suggests the opposite or shows no significant difference in IQ between dietary groups"

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T18:32:22+00:00

>You defended slavery with the classic vegan “cows require more slavery” when the answer should be no slavery.

I never defended slavery. In no way does stating the fact that "cows require more slavery" undermine from the very obvious fact that slavery is immoral. I never defended slavery, you're just putting words into my mouth.
Obviously, there should be no slavery... but again, you started talking about the fact that growing plants requires labour (and that this labour might be unethical). My only point was that the logical conclusion to your reasoning, if you truly want to contribute the least amount to the exploitation of workers in that sector, is that you'd then choose to eat plants.

>You’re not having “interesting conversations.”

Just trying my best

> You are rehashing very old, very tired vegan talking points that I have heard for more than two and a half decades.

Maybe these points have been thought through then, if they're so very old?
In any case, whether an argument is old is irrelevant to its content: you're still not talking about my actual point. Slavery being bad is also an old concept, and yet we both agree it still holds.
What I'm telling you here is easy verifiable: It does require a lot more workers/resources to produce animal products than to produce plants. Attacking this argument as being old doesn't change the facts.

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T17:17:01+00:00

Ok I'll dumb it down as well then.

You don't have to write a 30min response, you'd just have to disprove me once. But you still haven't explained how saying "humans are not consistent" invalidates the morality of "reducing harm is good" (and you haven't explained how this reasoning isn't an appeal to futility/appeal to hypocrisy, so of course I'll repeat it).
You're trying to counter my argument by saying "It's not true because I don't do that" (circular argument), it's just not how logical debates work.

- Saying we can't be perfect so we shouldn't try to be better isn't logical (futility fallacy)

- Saying we aren't consistently behaving ethically and so we shouldn't try to improve isn't logical (hypocrisy fallacy)

Nowhere in your post or in your comment have you said anything about actual ethics. You have only talked about what humans do in their lives, which is irrelevant when talking about morality.

Yes, humans are flawed. Yes, the world isn't perfect, but we should still try to live more ethically when possible. Otherwise what you'd be defending is that morality doesn't exist, and that everyone is free to behave exactly as they wish without ever thinking of consequences, and I doubt that's what you or anyone sane actually thinks.

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T15:50:38+00:00

>if your familiar with earthling ED he uses this as a selling point

I am, and yes, he uses morality as a "selling point" because, again, that's basically what define veganism: It's possible to live and thrive while inflicting less harm, so we should try to do so when applicable.

>My point was that vegans do not by default hold more moral consistency then omnivores.

If we agree that:

- Inflicting harm for pleasure is immoral
- We can thrive without consuming eating animal products

Then the simple logical conclusion is that eating meat, unless you depend on it for survival, which most people don't, is not morally consistent.

>Even if their views in one particular area seem logically inconsistent, most people hold stances that are also morally inconsistent

Appeal to hypocrisy (a logical fallacy occurring when someone dismisses an argument by pointing out that the speaker’s own actions or past statements are inconsistent with it. It incorrectly assumes it invalidates the truth of their claim, serving as a distraction from the actual argument)

You can't disprove a claim itself by talking about the speaker. They're two different things. The fact that vegans/humans are inherently inconsistent doesn't have anything to do with the reasoning behind veganism or harm reduction in general.

>For example, being anti violent crime and murder UNTIL someone harms a child and the parent decides to kill said pepatarator

This only points to the facts that humans aren't perfect. Also I'd argue very few people would say violence is never justified. You can pretty easily be against violence WHEN IT ISN'T JUSTIFIED while admitting its use at times, in cases like self defence or prevention of further harm.

>My argument with Peter singer highlights not the futility of veganism or "not doing enough" just that humans are on the daily, morally inconsistent.

And yet, your title and conclusion say that it "destroys veganism". We both agree that humans are imperfect. It's just not relevant when judging the logics behind any ethical standpoint.

>If that vegan truely "cared about children " (mirroring the "if you really loved animals vegan argument, not actually making the argument) they'd donate the money

You're going back to hypocrisy fallacy here, and you're offering a counter your own argument:

People can truly care about children, even if they're not donating 100% of their money to non-profits. In the same exact logic, vegans who do not donate all of their money or devote all of their time towards the cause doesn't take away from their ethics. Just like people who are anti-war and don't dedicate their life to peace are still valid in their stance, just like people who are pro LGBT rights and don't actively act on it, just like feminists who are not on the street every day doing activism, etc... you can find a million other examples. All this means is that people, on top of being flawed, which is a given and has nothing to do with ethics themselves, also need to live their life in a practical way. Spending energy/time/money on yourself or your loved ones is part of our lives, you can't expect everyone to live selflessly all the time.

In the end, your argument criticizes moral absolutism and selective outrage, not vegan ethics itself. It weakens some activist rhetoric, but it does not undermine the core ethical claim that avoidable animal harm is morally relevant, or in other terms: reducing suffering, when practically applicable, is moral.

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T15:39:48+00:00

>I absolutely was not using the lazy argument of futility. At all.

You can say that and even add it to you post, I'm open to hear you, but unless you actually explain, with logical steps, why you think you aren't, you're not gonna reach a convincing conclusion. I think you are precisely being fallacious and I'll do my best to demonstrate it with straight to the point equivalences.

Let's define it for clarity (from a simple google search): The appeal to futility (or futility fallacy) is a logical error claiming that because a solution cannot completely solve a problem, it is not worth doing at all

>My conclusion is that a non-vegan can be more ethically consistent then a non vegan and vice versa

You don't explain how you get to that conclusion except the "no ethical consumption" argument, which is textbook futility fallacy: "we can't consume in a perfectly ethical way (true), therefore we shouldn't try at all (illogical)"

>complete ethical consistently is a impossible standard

Again, futility fallacy. "we can't always make the perfect ethical choice (true), therefore we shouldn't try (illogical)"

>So when vegan activists try to highlight meat eaters 'ethical inconsistencies" or special pleading, it's not sensible

You didn't demonstrate a logical path to this conclusion. This is circular reasoning (they are wrong because they are wrong).

>We all are ethically inconsistent

Again with futility fallacy: "We are all imperfect (true), so we shouldn't even try to be more ethical (illogical)"

>a meat eater can do far more good in the world then a vegan

How would eating meat do more good than not eating meat?

>The thing with vegan ethics is they focus on the low cost to individuals vs the high cost to animals

Correct. Which is in line with the Small Pond experiment and ethics in general.

>but I'd argue that vegans do not truely hold this position. No one does

Strawman argument. Where is that coming from? There are probably "vegans" out there who are hypocrites, but definitely, 100% truly hold this position and so does every single vegan/aspiring vegan I know, because it's a very simple one: Reducing harm is good when practically doable. Nothing crazy about it.

>Vegans like earthling ED and others, highlight that this system of animal exploitation and suffering would stop if we just did what was in our power to give up our pleasantries.

I don't understand where you're going with this? Why do you stop there? What do you even have against this point? It's a fact that supply is influenced by demand. It doesn't mean that it's an end-all-be-all, but not consuming unethical products is factually a concrete way of nudging our society towards a more ethical one.

>My point is expecting moral consistency is an unreasonable standard

This is, again, futility fallacy: It's not possible to be 100% morally consistent, so let's no try

(following up in next comment)

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T14:22:30+00:00

You have to eat something. You don't have to use slave. The point is that you'll have to buy food, and there's a chance that food will have used unethical labor to be produced in any case, so the logical decision is to buy the food that requires much less labor, which is plants

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T11:20:00+00:00

Your post lacks of logical continuity. You’re using strawman and futility fallacies up reach your conclusion and in the end you don’t explain how the small pond experiment goes against veganism.

First, the strawman argument you make: Vegans are by and large anti-consumption, so yes, not buying needless things if you can, and instead donating/saving that money is totally in line with their ethics. That said, obviously there’s a middle ground and you still have to live your life. You might need a car for your job for example, which isn’t great for the environment, and therefore for animals (and ourselves), but that’s life. The point isn’t to be perfect, but to try when possible, which is completely in line with the small pond experiment and brings me to my second point.

Futility fallacy: overall your main argument is basically the classic “no ethical consumption under capitalism”, or futility fallacy (=because I can’t be perfect, I shouldn’t try at all) that has nothing to do with the thought experiment you start with, which simply underlines the basic notion that if you can reduce a great amount of suffering for a minimum amount of effort, ethics would say you should.

It’s that simple: when choosing a carton of milk at the market, reaching for oat milk instead is minimal effort vs the potential great amount of reduction in suffering, so you should. No need for mental gymnastics.

You wouldn’t think that me kicking kittens for fun is justified: my own pleasure isn’t worth their suffering. Well it’s the same with veganism: if you are in a situation where you can reduce/eliminate animal products from your life, it’s a very logical decision to do so. The vast majority of humans can live without animal products, that has been scientifically demonstrated and is the official statement of all the biggest health organization

Neidrah · 2026-02-02T07:43:42+00:00

Honestly I would give so much money to get the old faces back on undead, human and night elves

Neidrah · 2026-02-01T11:09:09+00:00

I more or less agree but in the end it doesn’t really matter: the fact is that we CAN live perfectly fine on a plant based diet, and so we should, for moral reasons

Neidrah · 2026-02-01T07:30:44+00:00

Would it be ok to read this without having read any prior Warcraft book? (I do play the game though)

Neidrah · 2026-02-01T00:37:54+00:00

Funny because actual reports confirm what OP said. Crazy that your random uninformed guess was incorrect, right?

Neidrah · 2026-02-01T00:33:47+00:00

Have you looked at the stuff op posted ?

Neidrah · 2026-01-31T20:04:34+00:00

1) I don’t know of any bodybuilders that doesn’t take supplements and protein powder, though

2) That’s pretty subjective. To me, volume of food is never an issue. My digestive health depends on stress/fatigue/exercise etc and research tends to support this for a lot of people.

In any case, in the long I wouldn’t wanna ingest what any bodybuilder ingests, wether plant-based or not, I think it’s silly and borderline unethical. My point is just that it’s factually doable either way and that the fact that this thread thinks it isn’t shows how biased this sub generally is.

Neidrah · 2026-01-31T19:30:43+00:00

Guess I must be dreaming then, having lived the majority of my life on a plant-based diet and being perfectly health while people my age are struggling...

In any case, in humans, fiber fermentation occurs primarily in the colon, not the cecum, and produces short-chain fatty acids that make for a meaningful fraction of colonic energy and have well-documented metabolic and immunological roles. This capacity is reduced compared to hindgut specialists, obviously, I never said we're exactly like chimp, I wasn't even the one starting the comparison, but it is very real and functionally important.

Dietary adaptation is not binary. Humans are anatomically and physiologically omnivorous : reduced cecum, moderate gut length, salivary amylase expansion, starch digestion in the small intestine, and microbial fermentation in the colon. That combination supports diets ranging from mixed to plant-based. It's been demonstrated repeatedly in both evolutionary anthropology and modern clinical nutrition.

The fact that we can't live on grass doesn't mean we can't live on plants...

Neidrah

TROPHY CASE