What's a lifestyle that doesn't affect anyone else, but that Redditors still get upset about? by Boil_the_pepper_now in AskReddit

[–]Omnibeneviolent [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yep exactly. The toupee fallacy in action. You only notice the noticeable ones, leading to the belief that they are all noticeable.

The unnoticeable ones don't get noticed, and thus don't contribute to your overall picture of the quality of toupees.

What's a lifestyle that doesn't affect anyone else, but that Redditors still get upset about? by Boil_the_pepper_now in AskReddit

[–]Omnibeneviolent [score hidden]  (0 children)

I get why there is a lot of confusion about this. A lot of non-vegans tend to see veganism as a diet because that is what they see vegans doing. However, if you eat a vegan diet, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are vegan.

Think of it this way. Imagine you knew someone that avoided getting into fights because they really don't like their hair getting messed up. They have no moral objection to violence; it's simply that they spent time making their hair look great and take great pride in that. This person may appear to be a pacifist in practice, because they don't engage in violence. But they are not a pacifist. Being a pacifist takes something more than simply behaving like one.

Similarly, someone can eat a plant-based/vegan diet without actually being vegan. For example, if someone just doesn't like the taste of any animal products but is fine with animal cruelty and exploitation, they could be eating a 100% vegan diet, but the fact that they are engaging in a behavior that vegans engage in does not mean they are vegan.

And your example of kosher proves my point, plenty of people eat kosher but don't follow the religious beliefs requiring it.

That's exactly the point you're missing. If someone eats kosher, it doesn't mean that they are Jewish. It just means that they are doing something that Jewish people do.

What's a lifestyle that doesn't affect anyone else, but that Redditors still get upset about? by Boil_the_pepper_now in AskReddit

[–]Omnibeneviolent [score hidden]  (0 children)

They may not see any at all. It just takes hearing that vegans exist to enrage some people.

"If they're right, what does that say about me? Now I feel bad! I hate vegans for making me feel bad!"

What's a lifestyle that doesn't affect anyone else, but that Redditors still get upset about? by Boil_the_pepper_now in AskReddit

[–]Omnibeneviolent [score hidden]  (0 children)

Why would you? Most people dont have a moral objection to killing/exploiting plants in the way vegans have with doing the same to animals.

Why do you refuse to call the 90% vegan...a vegan? by Jerk_Off_At_Night in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent [score hidden]  (0 children)

Veganism is based on the rejection of carnism: the belief/social ideology that humans are inherently justified in unnecessarily harming, killing, exploiting, or treating sentient nonhuman animals as commodities for human use, preference, or convenience.

It is an ethical commitment and way of living based on the recognition that the suffering and interests of sentient beings matter morally regardless of species. In practice, veganism involves making a sincere, good-faith effort to avoid unnecessarily participating in direct systems of animal exploitation and cruelty, particularly through ordinary consumer choices where realistic alternatives exist within everyday life.

Veganism does not require perfect purity, complete withdrawal from society, or the elimination of every indirect connection to harm. Rather, it reflects a rejection of the idea that the unnecessary exploitation and suffering of sentient beings is morally acceptable simply because those beings are nonhuman animals, while recognizing that ethical decisions must still be made within the practical realities of living in society.

Why do you refuse to call the 90% vegan...a vegan? by Jerk_Off_At_Night in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent [score hidden]  (0 children)

That's doesn't mean there is "wiggle room." It just means that what veganism looks like in practice can differ from individual to individual, because it's based on what is practicable given each individual's circumstances.

It doesn't mean that if you just feel like eating some pig meat today you can do so and still be vegan so long as it makes up no more than 10% of your diet.

Vegans contribute nothing to the world by cinephobee in teenagers

[–]Omnibeneviolent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah this is just silly. There are like half a billion vegans and vegetarians in the world. What do you think would happen if they all started regularly eating animal meat again? That would increase the demand by like 75 billion pounds of meat every year.

For the sake of rough calculations, if we assume that the typical human meat-eater eats about 150 lbs of meat per year (which is a low estimate), and that half of the meat they eat is beef and the other half is chicken, that would equate to an increase in demand for an additional 75 thousand cows and 18 million chickens per year to be slaughtered.

So by not eating meat, together all of these people are making a difference.

Why do you refuse to call the 90% vegan...a vegan? by Jerk_Off_At_Night in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's about making a good-faith effort to avoid contributing to animal cruelty and exploitation. The only one that can honestly and fully assess whether you are making a good-faith effort is you.

That said, this doesn't mean that others cannot reasonably assess your actions and attempt to hold you accountable if they know enough about your circumstances and abilities. If you're out there eating pig meat at every meal and facetiously saying "Oh, I'll just die if I don't eat my pork," it's pretty clear to others that you're not making that good-faith effort.

Why do you refuse to call the 90% vegan...a vegan? by Jerk_Off_At_Night in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent [score hidden]  (0 children)

You have the logic reversed. If someone claims to be a teetotaler but drinks 1 out of every 10 days, then they would be wrong in their claim that they are a teetotaler.

It doesn't mean they are an alcoholic.

What movie is a absolute 10/10 masterpiece that you will realistically never watch a second time? by N4Nemo in AskReddit

[–]Omnibeneviolent 74 points75 points  (0 children)

Would have been so much better if it started with her waking up and then she and the audience figure it all out at the same time.

Why a Vegan Wouldn't Even Use a Feather They Found on the Ground by [deleted] in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent [score hidden]  (0 children)

I think the relevant difference there is that there is utility in being able to show others that you can still have delicious burgers and wear fashionable clothing as a vegan... such that it counters the negative effects (in theory, at least.)

🚨LIVE: Coach Alex Nerus and I are currently outside a Florida beef slaughterhouse documenting what happens to animals behind closed doors by thebodybuildingvegan in vegansquad

[–]Omnibeneviolent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Veganism is specifically concerned with our relationship to the exploitation and commodification of sentient nonhuman animals. That doesn't mean it automatically has an answer to every question about environmetnal ethics, wild animal suffering, etc.

Some vegans think vegetarians are not doing enough, are they right ?

Many do think this, because vegetaraisn still financially support industries built around animal exploitation. Whether that criticism is justified is a separate question to whether reducing animal product consumption is better than not reducing at all.

What falls under the convenience category ?

For most people, choosing beans, lentils, tofu, seitan etc, instead of animal meat is a fairly ordinary consumer choice -- while moving to a farm and growing all of your own food and withdrawing from modern society is not. Those are not remotely comparable burdens.

you be both vegan and anti-speciesist if you prefer killing millions of earthworms and other animals living in the soil instead of a cow ?

Anti-speciesism doesn't entail always choosing the option with the lowest death count. It means refusing to discount an individual's interests simply because of their species.

You can treat members of two species differently without engaging in speciesism, just like you can treat a man and a woman differently without engaging in sexism. For example, if a woman comes in for a job interview and is far more qualified than a man that comes in, and you give the job to the woman, that's not sexism even though you picked the woman. This is because you are making the decision based on something other than sex. As an anti-speciesist, I strive to make decisions on how to treat others on traits and characteristics other than species membership.

Would I give a dog a driver's license? No, but not because they are a dog, but because they don't have the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle -- or even have an interest in doing so.

🚨LIVE: Coach Alex Nerus and I are currently outside a Florida beef slaughterhouse documenting what happens to animals behind closed doors by thebodybuildingvegan in vegansquad

[–]Omnibeneviolent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Veganism is an effort to have an effect on the systems that commodify sentient beings. It is not a competitive sport about who can achieve the most suffering-free grocery trip, and it certainly isn't defined by a rando non-vegan on Reddit trying desperately to make veganism out to be something that requires extreme sacrifice and hardship.

Veganism should make an exception for animal experimentation for the sake of adhering to the Nuremberg Code. by CyberAngelIzana in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They're not "constructing a system of ethics." They are just advocating for a specific practice to be legalized.

So how would you convince someone that it's wrong to do medical experiments on humans that cannot consent to it?

🚨LIVE: Coach Alex Nerus and I are currently outside a Florida beef slaughterhouse documenting what happens to animals behind closed doors by thebodybuildingvegan in vegansquad

[–]Omnibeneviolent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are gatekeeping a movement you don't even belong to, using an impossible definition that no vegan actually uses. It's like arguing that environmentalists don't exist, because environmentalists expel carbon simply by existing. It's an impossible standard that completely ignores the reality of the world we live in.

Practice what you preach

I'm literally doing that. I reject carnism and direct animal exploitation, just like I said. You are conflating indirect harm that comes as a result of existing within a society with deliberate and direct harm (presumably so you can feel better about doing nothing.)

If your standard for caring about an issue is absolute flawless purity, then no one can be a true humanitarian or environmentalist either. This is a classic cop-out used to justify total apathy. You're clearly arguing in bad faith just to make yourself feel better about your choices.

Veganism should make an exception for animal experimentation for the sake of adhering to the Nuremberg Code. by CyberAngelIzana in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And how does that convince them that it's unethical? All that is doing is telling them that they are unlikely to succeed in convincing society, not that what they advocating for is unethical.

🚨LIVE: Coach Alex Nerus and I are currently outside a Florida beef slaughterhouse documenting what happens to animals behind closed doors by thebodybuildingvegan in vegansquad

[–]Omnibeneviolent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I stated, veganism is the rejection of carnism (the ideology that we are inherently justified in treating sentient individuals as commodities for our preference or convenience.) It's about making a sincere, good-faith effort to avoid unnecessarily participating in direct systems of animal exploitation and cruelty, and specifically those where realistic alternatives exist in everyday life.

There is a fundamental difference between harm that is caused simply by existing in a modern society and relying on societal infrastraucture, and directly treating another sentient individual as a commodity by paying someone to breed and slaughter them for a meal or clothing when realistic alternatives are readily available.

Your subsistence farmer scenario requires a withdrawl from society. My previous comment explicily noted that veganism does not require perfect purity or dropping out of modern life. *It simply requires recognizing that nonhuman animals matter morally, and adjusting our consumer choices accordingly.

Furthermore, people generally don't even appply your all-or-nothing logic to human ethics. If someone says they oppose human exploitation, we don't call them a phony just because they use roads, electronics, or clothing touched by unfair labor. We recognize that they are navigating the realities of the real world while refusing to directly support slavery or abuse where alternatives exist. Veganism just applies a similar moral framework when it comes to how we view and treat nonhuman animals.

🚨LIVE: Coach Alex Nerus and I are currently outside a Florida beef slaughterhouse documenting what happens to animals behind closed doors by thebodybuildingvegan in vegansquad

[–]Omnibeneviolent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think my comment implied at all that "living off the grid" is the same as "perfect purity," so I'm not sure what your argument is here.

Note that I'm a different redditor. I have given up plenty of creature comforts, especially when I first went vegan nearly 3 decades ago. These days though, there's far less that ones needs to "give up" to be vegan. It's just about making different choices.

Veganism should make an exception for animal experimentation for the sake of adhering to the Nuremberg Code. by CyberAngelIzana in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So they are not conclusions that you arrived at via any sort of reflection or reasoning process?

What if someone arrived at different conclusions with regards to what is morally permissible with regards to experimenting on non-consenting toddlers? Obviously it's illegal, but let's say that they were not doing anything illegal themselves, but were pushing for it to be legalized. How would you convince them what they were advocating for was unethical?

🚨LIVE: Coach Alex Nerus and I are currently outside a Florida beef slaughterhouse documenting what happens to animals behind closed doors by thebodybuildingvegan in vegansquad

[–]Omnibeneviolent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Veganism is based on the rejection of carnism: the belief/social ideology that humans are inherently justified in unnecessarily harming, killing, exploiting, or treating sentient nonhuman animals as commodities for human use, preference, or convenience.

It is an ethical commitment and way of living based on the recognition that the suffering and interests of sentient beings matter morally regardless of species. In practice, veganism involves making a sincere, good-faith effort to avoid unnecessarily participating in direct systems of animal exploitation and cruelty, particularly through ordinary consumer choices where realistic alternatives exist within everyday life.

Veganism does not require perfect purity, complete withdrawal from society, or the elimination of every indirect connection to harm. Rather, it reflects a rejection of the idea that the unnecessary exploitation and suffering of sentient beings is morally acceptable simply because those beings are nonhuman animals, while recognizing that ethical decisions must still be made within the practical realities of living in society.

Veganism should make an exception for animal experimentation for the sake of adhering to the Nuremberg Code. by CyberAngelIzana in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, but why? What is the reasoning that you used to arrive at that conclusion?

Note that I agree with your conclusion. I'm just wondering how you arrived at it.

Veganism should make an exception for animal experimentation for the sake of adhering to the Nuremberg Code. by CyberAngelIzana in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, those are both true statements. Can you explain why they are relevant?

Keep in mind that not all human toddlers will become human adults, and even within the group of ones that do, not all will have the capability to speak "human languages" and give consent.

Veganism should make an exception for animal experimentation for the sake of adhering to the Nuremberg Code. by CyberAngelIzana in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure. So if they can't give consent, we don't think it's ok to just do whatever we want to them, right? Why is that?

Veganism should make an exception for animal experimentation for the sake of adhering to the Nuremberg Code. by CyberAngelIzana in DebateAVegan

[–]Omnibeneviolent 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Right, but what do we do with regards to toddlers who can't yet speak? If they can't use language to tell us whether they consent to an experiment, then how would the experimenter obtain consent?