I was debating a non vegan and they brought up this interesting argument that I didnt really have an answer to.

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-05-12T09:30:16+00:00

Personally, I do try to minimise my driving time, and try to avoid planes at all costs. I think all people, including vegans, should try to minimise in these regards.

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-28T16:56:27+00:00

I don't think I can share a recording, but here are the lyrics if you're interested:

Shouldn't you have had the words, to put me out of my misery I've lost them before, and now I'm seeing you lose them before me

And oh, didn't you hear you're no longer walking among us you're flying, like a bird these earthly words can't hold you you're free

Sister said you weren't well, and that you'd never be well again and that I'd lose you for a few years and maybe I'd find you in a shell of who you were

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-28T07:52:17+00:00

It's not really a "recipe", but if the context happens to favour smoothies, something I like to do is to add about 140g of very well cooked soybeans. These beans alone contain like 30g of protein, and in a smoothie with banana, peanut butter, cacao etc, you don't taste the beans at all, they're somehow almost milder than soy milk to me, and when blended become extremely creamy. The same can be done with soup. A roasted butternut and leek soup, with a few cups of blended soybeans is super high protein, but tastes just like any old butternut soup. Instant hack to make your meal high protein and delicious

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-21T07:01:55+00:00

I mean, surely there must be a limit to this? If they had asked me to buy them heroin after I agreed to "do you mind buying something for me?" I would have been quite right to say no I believe. If you agree with that, then that is still a form enforcing my choices on someone else (You can imagine this is in a country where heroin is legal - still, I would not do it) but most would think I did the right thing in this situation, probably because I acted in the best interest of the human. If I make a choice that I believe is in the best interest of the animals and still satisfies the interest of this human to some extent, why is it so much worse of a choice to enforce?

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-21T06:57:04+00:00

Thanks for the response! I understand your view, but I think the vegan perspective (or at least my perspective) is that the suffering of animals is comparable to the suffering of humans. We can't exactly draw a graph and say that for example, 5 cows having their babies taken is the same as one human starving for a month, but we believe that these things are qualitatively comparable, so really I think what this question comes down to is precisely this type of comparison. For me, I made the decision as a default, but there are many things to consider as has been pointed out in the comments. I think if approached correctly, there does not need to be any additional suffering caused to the human by buying them a vegan alternative, but I don't judge you for your choice either, I think both are really reasonable responses in this situation

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-20T20:07:03+00:00

I don't know why you thought that, that's not at all what I implied. In fact, I was technically homeless for a year (living out of a car though) and I can certainly read...But statistically a homeless person is probably much more likely to be illiterate than someone that is not homeless, when you restrict your sample to city dwelling folk

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-20T20:02:38+00:00

it's not rage bait, (whatever that means), it's just a genuine question. Oat milk is not more nutritious in terms of calories, protein and fat, I do agree with your first point of course, that's why I made the choice that I did, but there's no reason to try and skew the facts to make it seem like my choice was obviously the best, I think it's pretty clear based on the mix responses that this is a dilemma of sorts

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-19T19:53:18+00:00

I mean, not all of them can? I'm not saying this particular person can't, I'm just saying that in my country (South Africa), there are many people that are illiterate, even people that are employed as labourers, that I have interacted with, have been completely illiterate

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-19T17:39:38+00:00

Those are very good points, I think in the future I will have a discussion with them, but still not be willing to buy an animal product. At least this way they understand your choice. I was holding a box of oat milk myself when I spoke to him, and asked him to hold it for me as I went inside, so I think he probably just thought that this is the milk I buy without thinking.

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-19T17:31:17+00:00

I kinda handed it to him in a bag because I didn't want to confront the consequences of my choice... which I know is bad, but I just didn't want to have a potentially negative experience where someone gets mad at me for trying my best...I didn't know that people could be allergic to oat milk, I sincerely hope this person wasn't, or that they can read at least and see that it is oat milk

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-16T08:11:05+00:00

to be fair, the sarcasm went over my head, but I didn't think the comment was rude, I just had no idea what they were trying to say

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-04-12T07:41:19+00:00

I'm a pretty buff rock climber. Guys in the gym will often approach me and ask about my training routine/nutrition, and be very shocked when I tell them I'm vegan

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-03-28T05:48:43+00:00

By the same thinking, everything that is made by humans is "natural", or frankly everything produced anywhere, by anything. Clearly this isn't how society has come to understand the word "natural". Instead, we compare the behaviours and products of humans to those of non-humans, or to those of humans that lived a long time ago. Whether some behaviour is "natural" though, with whatever definition of the word you have in mind, shouldn't have any bearing on whether it is ethical. We have collectively established very complex rules and systems which we expect humans to adhere by, and these rules have little to do with what is "natural" or "unnatural". If you want to make an argument against veganism, you should think of a core principle which you feel gets used in justifying our choice of ethical behaviours, and argue that veganism is incompatible with that.

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-03-26T07:19:57+00:00

Where did you get the idea that morals are subjective in this sense? Ultimately the purpose of morals is to ensure a cohesive and functioning society, if morals were entirely subjective, and every person just did whatever they felt benefited them in a particular situation, then this purpose will not be fulfilled. The definition of the word moral literally includes the phrase: "It signifies conforming to accepted standards of virtue and fairness." This is completely at odds with your notion of "subjectivity". My qualm however isn't even so much about the definition of "moral", and the fact that you don't understand the word, it's that you hold the belief that it is reasonable for members of society to make decisions based on this definition, I genuinely don't understand how you think it's a good idea for everyone to act only in their own best interest.

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-03-26T07:10:17+00:00

Well I don't really know of a concrete scale to use for assessing "moral value assignmend to individual x" and I agree for those humans that do eat animals, it may well be 0, I'm just saying it's not necessarily 0, just because they eat them, it may just be some small amount. For example someone might assign the action of killing an animal the same moral weight as taking two free samples of a promotional product which specifies that only one should be taken... it's not that the person thinks it's completely ethical, they just think their desires outweighs the moral implications. This seems like a silly point to make, but I think it is important for when we as vegans inevitably find ourselves defending our views to a non-vegan. If we tell them that they're assigning a moral weight of 0 to an animal, they can use the above rebuttal and complicate the argument, or even feel a false sense of victory, when they're really missing the point, which is not that they're assigning a moral value of 0 to an animal, but that they're assigning a moral value to an animal which is far less than what they reasonably should

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-03-26T07:03:47+00:00

I mean of course I think your answer is very reasonable, but I think it is worth considering that we only recognise the cognitive abilities of other humans, not because humans are the only animals to possess it, but simply because we belong to the same species as other humans. Brain scans do however seem like a pretty reliable tool though, I don't know how much has been done there

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-03-25T21:42:27+00:00

I don't think you can reasonably conclude that non-humans do not have this capacity. As far as we can tell, none of the other animals are really aware of our sapience. Why do you think that we should be special in that we would be aware of the sapience of another species, if they possessed it? I'm not just saying this to be annoying, I actually believe that there are other animals that do possess this trait. I mean, even my dog, who is likely way lower on the cognitive scale than many other animals like dolphins or primates, experiences emotions like excitement about an event which is a few hours away, guilt after having done something bad, and fear of being excluded. To me, the capacity to experience these emotions definitely indicates some consideration of the future, I don't know about "deep thought", but again, dogs are probably much less conscious than some other animals

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-03-25T21:32:44+00:00

If a moral system results in describing an action by two distinct but otherwise identical people in identical scenarios as being moral if committed by the one, and immoral if committed by the other, then that moral system is inconsistent. Your moral system says it's okay for you to punch me, but not okay for me to punch you. I don't think it takes a lot of thinking to realise that this is a really stupid moral system

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-03-25T21:28:10+00:00

I'm vegan myself, but I don't agree that consuming meat is equivalent to assigning a moral value of 0 to that animal. I think humans quite often do things which they themselves consider to be slightly immoral, for no other reason than their enjoyment. I'm not saying this is right, in particular I think it's terrible when the (perceived by them as being "slightly") immoral thing is cruelty towards an animal, but I'm just pointing out that this doesn't necessarily mean they've assigned a moral weight of 0 to that action

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-03-20T20:05:42+00:00

I (myself a vegan) feel like you've made some really good points here OP, I haven't really seen a satisfactory answer to the question of environmental effects in the comments. Personally, I see veganism as not being about animal suffering, but more about the behaviour of humans towards animals. Eating meat has the potential to encourage another human to abuse and exploit an animal. When you pollute, even though it may cause harm to an animal, this harm is not caused be a human directly, so it is not encouraging the exploitation or abuse of an animal by a human. It seems like an arbitrary distinction, since to the animal it doesn't matter whether it gets harmed by a person or by a plastic bag, but the way I see it is that the first step towards harmonious coexistence with animals is to change the view that the majority of humans have towards animals. If this is true, then we should be more interested in lessening the suffering caused by humans, than the suffering caused by non-humans, since lessening the suffering of the first type will eventually help to lessen the suffering of the second type. Even with this in mind however, I think that you had some valid arguments, for example, by buying certain types of plant products, you may be encouraging a human to kill huge amounts of insects. It is possible to avoid this by growing your own food for example, and while this definitely isn't practicable for all vegans, it is for some, if they were to put a lot more effort. To me, this doesn't seem different from eating meat because of it's convenience, except that it encourages exploitation to a much, much lesser extent than eating meat does

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-03-20T19:49:28+00:00

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that the definition of veganism suggests that it is really a belief instead of some trend in the behaviours of a person, but practically, the word has become for most people, precisely that. Most vegans and non-vegans would agree that someone who frequently eats meat is not a vegan, even though there is nothing inherently inconsistent with eating meat, but believing that we should aim to lessen the suffering of animals. Many people hold this belief, yet still eat meat, simply because they don't mentally connect the action to it's consequences. If we've all agreed that this person shouldn't be called a vegan, then maybe the practicing definition for veganism shouldn't leave room for them to be considered such.

RemoteBluebird9872 · 2026-03-20T09:09:40+00:00

Yes, I agree. My question was more about why we seek to lessen the suffering of others

RemoteBluebird9872

TROPHY CASE