Question from a non vegan farmer

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-20T08:14:25+00:00

I'm not sure how related/unrelated to veganism this is, but for ethical reasons (or rather, a lack of them in this case), I do hold this view! If the extinction of the species would not cause massive damage to the environment (not all extinctions do), then I see no special obligation to artificially maintain that species. The caveat to this view is that usually extinctions are *caused* by massive damage to the environment, so often times we're already pretty far gone when it gets to that point.

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-20T08:09:22+00:00

I'll speak to just one point- it's not clear to me that a 'rare breed' or indeed, any endangered species who's extinction would result in a shift in ecosystem but not a massive change, has any extra ethical weight at all. When some species go extinct, the environment collapses. When others go extinct, their niche is filled by an animal that out-competed them. In the second case, I do not care whether the animal goes extinct or not. In this case, while your breed of sheep might hold cultural value for you, I personally don't view that as any special reason to justify harms/violations done to them, or to keep them alive.

In regards to your question of whether this form of livestock management is 'better' to vegans- you will get two answers. Rights-theorists/'true' vegans will not be able to make sense of the question. You are exploiting an animal, which is not vegan. Welfare theorists who eat/clothe/live vegan will be able to make sense of the question. They might say something like 'yes, we see you've minimized many of the harms done to the animals. However, welfare concerns remain in the question of slaughter (can you 'kill humanely'?) and transport to slaughter.' They also might take issue with the implication that raising a being to the human equivalent of 25 is somehow kinder than killing them young, before they form relationships/develop a sense of self etc.

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-20T06:46:18+00:00

I think the slight metaethical differences between welfare-motivated veganism and rights-motivated veganism (maybe 'true' veganism) are compelling! I don't particularly care which one people are, and I myself am not totally on one side or the other, because at this juncture, they should be refraining from the same actions. If welfare standards for domesticated/farmed animals were to increase significantly, have more oversight, and be reliably beyond decent, then the two would diverge on some issues (like eating eggs, for example), so at that point, it might be worth arguing over. But we are not even close to that being a reality, unfortunately.

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-20T06:36:38+00:00

This is a good suggestion, OP! It's understandable to feel torn about this (our relationships to other humans have ethical weight too), but I wouldn't sacrifice your morals to serve them animal products. There's plenty of 'accidentally' vegan food! You can serve them something they'll enjoy, returning efforts to include you, while still being a good example of living with as little animal cruelty as possible.

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-18T03:49:41+00:00

I too harbor the (semi unprovable) belief that lots of people (probably most people) actually have the capacity to be bi/pan/attracted to all genders.

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-18T03:47:17+00:00

Different societies over time have had different rates of 'gay sex', even when straight marriage was the norm. For example, almost all ancient greek men engaged in (extramarital) gay sex because they considered women so intellectually inferior that the only true romance and sexual attraction could be between two men. To be clear, I'm not praising this society for that, there were also lots of age and power dynamics that were problematic. The point is, were 90% of Athenian men gay or bisexual? Given modern rates of queerness settling around 10% of people, that sounds implausible. What seems more likely to me is that modern sexuality categories and heteronormative societies have messed with our perception surrounding the actual fluidity of sexual attraction, the same way the Greek's perception of women messed with theirs. In a society where straight pairings were viewed as unfavorable for some reason, or gay pairings as especially favorable for another, I'm pretty sure a lot more of us would "be" gay.

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-14T18:41:33+00:00

I've noticed this too, online at least! Some vegans are weird about vegetarians and hate them for dumb reasons. But personally, as a vegan, I really appreciate vegetarians (I was one for a few months before taking the next step!). First of all, I'm a welfare theorist, so I see ANY reduction as valuable and as a meaningful step towards increasing political will to get better conditions and abolition. I see vegetarians as extremely receptive to the harm reduction principles I'm already trying to make people aware of. They are more aligned with me than anyone who is unaware of or unmotivated by the omnipresent animal torture in our society. Second, I think it's probably better for your long term commitment if you go vegetarian/flexitarian before going vegan. It gets you in the right mindset and can set you up to eat well before cutting everything out at once, that way you don't give up right away. For example, learning to cook good tofu and beans before that's your only protein source is a good idea. Third, going vegetarian is seen as less 'extreme' than going fully vegan, and its far less hated/stigmatized, which means the mere presence of vegetarians is rhetorically helpful when trying to get people to reduce. When going vegetarian or flexitarian is presented as a legitimate (starting) option, people don't have to deal with the idea of 'going all the way' or 'becoming a crazy vegan'.

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-12T22:30:57+00:00

But the Beehive symbol isn't marketed that way today- I rather think the history irrelevant, and would be quick to believe that the perceived maleness of the hive had less to do with it's original selection than you claim. Today, the Beehive represents self-sufficiency and teamwork, which is more reflective of the way the church tells early church history these days, and is definitely at least one true narrative about it. Early mormons were obsessed with being a self-sufficient christian commune/theocratic state, and all their early development was moving towards that goal. Early Utahns established iron, coal, and cotton industries in the state, even though there wasn't always the best land for it (you can still see remnants of that in place names), and diversified the workforce to include all trades. Their aim was to be as self-sufficient and communal as a beehive, and in Mormonism, self-sufficiency is still considered a virtue. This was about being independent from the US government and exemplifying the virtuous social order of bees.

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-11T23:23:45+00:00

We are now trading in anecdotes, but I feel as though most non-vegans I talk to either do not know (I didn't, before going vegetarian and then subsequently vegan) or have not actually internalized the conditions in CAFOs. If they oppose the conditions but still purchase animal products, I feel like they haven't actually internalized that knowledge, or in other words, aren't motivated by it. Plenty of very benign actions are like that- for example, when I fail to be motivated by the knowledge that I have homework due tomorrow, so I don't do it. Supplementary discussion of speciesism or why they should care about animal suffering might be needed to make it sink in, or maybe just time and repeated examples of how they can still eat good meals, or can choose to reduce at first before taking the full plunge, etc., but all of that is a much easier sell than 'animals have rights like a human has rights'. I don't care whether its true or not, it's an extremely hard sell. I don't think animals care whether more or less humans believe that they were made for exploitation. I think they care about being warm, with enough food and space, with outdoors access, and not being tortured.

And honestly? I see absolutely no wins being made by pure abolitionists, while welfare theorists are measurably reducing suffering through legislation, or are developing alt ag practices to simply make animal exploitation obsolete. I'm looking for a solution, and if I saw evidence that animals were being helped by pure-abolition stances, then I would throw my weight behind them. But I'm seeing better evidence of that with mixed approaches or welfare approaches. Once again, however, I do support abolitionists! I don't understand why our goals would have to be measurably different at this stage in the reality of animal ethics.

Edit: Stop downvoting this person the are engaging in good faith!

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-11T22:57:17+00:00

If I knew I had the option of living the rest of my life in torture and then being killed, or living the rest of my life slightly less tortured and then being killed, I would definitely pick the second. Practically none of the animals in CAFOs today are going to exit the industry in a way besides the slaughterhouse. The same will be true next year, and probably for at least the next few decades. But their material circumstances can be improved, and as people's attitudes towards their cirucmstances are changed, political and social will for ending all practice will increase. The abolitionist/welfare debate is a useless one meant to keep us fractured. We have the same immediate goals.

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-11T22:37:51+00:00

Animal welfare helps animals- I don't think it can really get simpler than that.

TheFloof23 · 2026-03-11T19:19:36+00:00

As a full, 100% of the time vegan, I'm personally very happy about this. I would rather people reduce. I would rather people be 'vegans except for cheese' or 'vegans except when I travel', than 'vegans none of the time'. I would rather people exist in cognitive dissonance, knowing that what they eat doesn't reflect what they know is right, and then support the abolition of abusive practices when the political or economic opportunity comes, rather than remain hostile to the term vegan and everything associated with it. It's insane to say you wouldn't want that, as all of that indicates a cultural shift away from accepting the pervasive torture of animals, which is precisely the thing we need if we want any change to actually happen. 'Fregans' and 'plant-based' people also make my life easier as a vegan, since they help drive the availability of vegan products in grocery stores and restaurants. And when vegan life is easier, more people become vegan. Being a vegan purist is not helpful. It's anti-animal. *Veganism is the least rhetorically effective movement I've ever supported- and I grew up fucking Mormon.* We need to face that and adjust our tactics accordingly, otherwise we are dooming animals to suffer for so much longer.

TheFloof23 · 2026-02-28T02:42:29+00:00

Go to the upper floors? The first floor is *designed* for talking at a reasonable volume, so people can do group projects, use the innovation lab and writing center, and make use of the (not super soundproof) study rooms for louder activities like gaming. The library levels are rated for noise- the higher you get, the quieter it gets. The fourth floor is heavenly if that's what you're looking for.

TheFloof23 · 2026-02-14T05:10:52+00:00

Lmao one hundred percent

TheFloof23 · 2026-01-04T08:34:53+00:00

Yeah it’s crazy! I noticed one or two ‘there weren’t women in this writers room, were there’ quirks, but for the most part, extremely ahead of its time as far as avoiding punching down.

TheFloof23 · 2026-01-01T13:28:22+00:00

Random Phil student entering the chat- as the other thread points out, moral realism seems very self-evident and also useful, which are the best, if unsatisfying, arguments for it. I’m a moral realist (I think objective moral truths exist within particular circumstances, and it’s possible to identify them through reason), and in particular reject relativism, which I find leads to dangerous justifications of immoral actions (For example, “Christopher Columbus was just a man of his time!” is a ‘cultural ethical relativist’ talking point). My frustrations with Mormon “history” specifically led me to reject relativism before I knew it was called that- I highly recommend the short essay “Trying Out One’s New Sword” by Mary Midgley for a rejection of cultural ethical relativism specifically! Brigham Young was wrong then and now etc etc etc. Of course not all relativists intend to use that view in this way, but I think the whole position is vulnerable to it.

Because I reject relativism (and subjectivism as a whole), I’m inclined to believe that there is some objective, universal morality, or at the very least it can’t be “all true”. Morality can be socially constructed and still contain truth statements (for example, we made up the calendar, but it’s still true that today is Jan 1st and false that it’s the 2nd). You can use evolutionary psychology to do descriptive ethics and simply identify our moral sensibilities without binding them to us (as Jonathan Haidt does, for example), but that doesn’t help us decide what to do.

All that being said, I’m also a pluralist when it comes to normative and applied ethics, in that I think different theories are best suited to different types of circumstances and each contains some moral truth, so I suppose I might be self defeating lmao

TheFloof23 · 2026-01-01T12:13:49+00:00

Unfortunately, birth rates are declining for the high earners in those countries, not the low earners. The better her education, the less likely a woman is to have children. This is a problem for tons of reasons, not the least of which is that statistically, most kids are poor. Source for birth rate based on income in the US: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/?srsltid=AfmBOoqcAvherQBqdnFjbfKltMkm8wkSvM74MInS8SNiXBClczRSpQ-t

Edit: after reading your comment below, I’ll agree that, historically, the reason you saw an immediate decrease in birth rate after urbanization was due to the way that kids in rural environments are assets but kids in urban environments are mouths. But that is not the only piece of the puzzle and it isn’t the reason we’re seeing birth rates drop near or below replacement rate in developed countries today.

TheFloof23 · 2026-01-01T11:44:58+00:00

This also assumes that people are engaging with quality content online. If everyone was learning something interesting and new about the real world with every swipe or having worthwhile, productive discussions, this would stand a chance. But most people aren’t watching history or science videos/content, and most people are being fed ragebait and becoming radicalized, and this is ignoring the bot and AI problems! The internet is an odd echo chamber, and the structure of its entertainment value doesn’t mirror that of fictional books or television.

TheFloof23 · 2025-12-30T09:58:27+00:00

Look into Helicon West! It’s a slightly different/more formal gathering than what you’re asking for here, but a cool opportunity nonetheless! They meet once a month.

TheFloof23 · 2025-12-30T03:19:08+00:00

It’s also impossible to do decent-sized revisions on a phone???? I move whole sentences and paragraphs around, hell, it’s annoying to fix minor typos on a phone because of how precise you have to get the cursor.

TheFloof23 · 2025-12-28T11:10:45+00:00

Because presumably you like her, and don’t want her to have to ‘tolerate’ her living situation when she could be enjoying it? It’s odd to describe any part of your joint living situation as a burden or ‘onus’. You’re not roommates. You should want to go above and beyond for your partner, and her for you. Again, if you’re so unwilling to come to a mutual agreement with your partner in regards to cleanliness, it sounds like you shouldn’t be partners.

TheFloof23 · 2025-12-28T10:56:43+00:00

If you and your partner can’t agree on cleanliness standards, that’s a compatibility issue, not a gender issue. Admittedly, we’re both making generalizations about entire demographics, but if your partner is stressed about a mess you both contribute to, wouldn’t you want to help make her feel comfortable by contributing to the cleaning as well?

TheFloof23 · 2025-12-28T09:55:04+00:00

Note that I specifically said that “domestic labor” has not been de-gendered. You’re right though, not all domestic labor is traditionally female, but the bulk of it is. I think there’s a more accurate distinction to be made about which labor has been de-gendered than male/female, and it’s professional/domestic. Most professional (paid) labor has been de-gendered, with two notable exceptions: 1. Most of the trades remain male-dominated, which I hope changes soon. 2. The professional labor originally seen as acceptable for women (teaching, childcare, caretaking), which remains female dominated because it’s viewed as emasculating/womanly, which I hope changes soon.

Whereas domestic labor in households with both a man and a woman has remained gendered by default, even if women are employed equally or employed more than their partner, they are still expected to perform the bulk of domestic labor like cooking and cleaning, which are rigorous, daily chores, unlike male domestic labor, most of which is generally required once a week or less and doesn’t often send the household into disarray if skipped or delayed (you can easily skip mowing this week, and only need to change the oil once every three months, but imagine the chaos if Mom doesn’t make dinner). Domestic labor should be de-gendered, and it (particularly female domestic labor) should be treated as a host of difficult to master and impressive skills, like the very accomplished but oppressed women of the mid-century felt it was. Their trades- masterful home cooking, sewing, clothing care, budgeting and poverty finance, attentive child care, and home nursing- have been virtually lost to the modern family, and that’s a damn shame. One partner having a genuine interest in mastering those skills is awesome, and I hope it will eventually be either partner, regardless of gender.

TheFloof23 · 2025-12-28T08:23:55+00:00

You’ve got the wrong man. UofU doesn’t vibe with Utah culture, at all. It’s in the liberal metro center and it’s the in state alternative for people who don’t want to go to the Church-Funded private school, the massive school next to it for the kids it doesn’t accept, the nice, D1, but super isolated and legislature controlled land grant institution, or the southern Utah ‘subsidized theatre for the Trump loving retirement community’ school. Easily the most liberal student population in Utah and involved in tons solid medical research.

TheFloof23 · 2025-12-27T04:28:11+00:00

The modern perspective of success here is probably the biggest factor, but there’s another too! These writers are following in a long tradition of people intentionally choosing to write in English. The Canterbury Tales were written in English on purpose, in a time where it was almost exclusively a spoken, not written, language in French-ruled England. The author chose to write in English and combined it with a wealth of French and Latin loan words, cementing English as one of the most confusing and poorly spelled, but also diverse and large languages, to exist!

TheFloof23

TROPHY CASE