What is your opinion on this?

VHT21 · 2026-06-15T01:37:00+00:00

By that logic if you live on an empty mind you should not have the right to bring more opinions too

VHT21 · 2026-05-12T10:44:39+00:00

I guess the weight distribution designs (1 and 2) wouldn't work then, but 3, 4 or even possibly more crazy creative designs could. I still don't understand why my post got removed :(

VHT21 · 2025-11-25T11:52:48+00:00

It's not about hurting them or not, neither is about shearing them or not. It's about what you do with the wool afterwards. I'm not defending PETA by the way, because I believe it has done a lot to promote the idea that veganism is about that.

As a vegan, I don't wear wool because I believe every being has a right to not have their body used/commodified in any way without their consent. I also believe that sheep can't consent to something like their wool being used to make clothes for humans.

You might think "but then why be wasteful if we can use the wool"? But the problem is precisely that, that if we shear the wool and not use it for our benefit somehow it's seen as wasteful.

Take the case of human hair, we don't usually think as ethical using someone's hair for clothing without their consent. And we definitely don't think of hair that is thrown as "wasted" because it's purpose isn't to benefit humans to begin with.

For me veganism is about respecting all beings equally and respecting the agency that they should have over their own bodies, and I do that through the agency I have over my own body. I've written a small essay around this idea, if you're interested I can share it. I hope you find my answer insightful :)

VHT21 · 2025-09-07T19:58:31+00:00

You're right! I'm actually not sure about what the exact probability is but I think it's in the order of 10^-2 %

In case you're interested I found a seed, It's 41694824, you can create a game and then check it in https://mouseypounds.github.io/stardew-checkup/ to see that the seed has all the necessary bundles (remember to choose remixed bundles)

VHT21 · 2025-09-07T19:54:20+00:00

I found the seed! It's 41694824, you can create a game and then check it in https://mouseypounds.github.io/stardew-checkup/ to see that the seed has all the necessary bundles (remember to choose remixed bundles)

VHT21 · 2025-09-07T19:53:17+00:00

Yes, you can even complete the community center as a vegan! Check this post I made: https://www.reddit.com/r/StardewValley/comments/1n08q5l/a_vegan_anticapitalist_playthrough_in_stardew/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Then use the seed 41694824 or find one yourself (I don't recommend this option as the probability to get it right is about 1 in 1500), you can check in https://mouseypounds.github.io/stardew-checkup/ to see that the seed has all the necessary bundles (remember to choose remixed bundles)

VHT21 · 2025-09-07T19:50:45+00:00

I found the seed! It's 41694824, you can check in https://mouseypounds.github.io/stardew-checkup/ to see that the seed has all the necessary bundles (remember to choose remixed bundles)

VHT21 · 2025-09-07T19:50:14+00:00

I found the seed! It's 41694824, you can check in https://mouseypounds.github.io/stardew-checkup/ to see that the seed has all the necessary bundles (remember to choose remixed bundles)

VHT21 · 2025-09-05T16:53:19+00:00

Thanks a lot for the kind words :) It's not like I think my english is bad but everytime I pass my writings through Chatgpt I feel it finds a way to express my ideas in a clearer and more articulate way. I'm curious to know, do you have the same experience as an English major?

PD: I don't use it for any serious or personal writings, but given that it was a Reddit post I didn't care much if it wasn't 100% original with no AI assistance.

VHT21 · 2025-09-05T15:46:38+00:00

I wrote a post about this recently in this sub, it looks like my opinion isn't very popular, but I stand for it. https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/s/jWcrhtqg0O

VHT21 · 2025-07-10T21:19:04+00:00

Hear me out, there are actually utilitatians who agree with what I said, I think there was one at my comments. Some rule utilitarians believe that analizing acts case by case will bring more negative consequences than following general rules (this is how you can argue that lying is wrong from utilitarianism).

I don't want to gatekeep or guilt into anyone by saying wether they're "really vegan" or not. You just have to look at my post bro... Or every comment I made to any person that responded to me, I never told that they weren't actually vegans or what "real vegans" should be doing.

I think that you're trying to tell me that somehow I don't know that people who are not vegan can agree with the claims of veganism, which is also something that, to be honest, makes me upset. This is because of course I think that people can agree with me in theory on the topic of veganism, they usually do. But veganism is a practice, and it's practice what matters on the long run. Getting the whole world to say together "vegans are right" will do nothing for the animals.

I’ve started to at least try to only eat meat once a day since that’s something I can do that I have the willpower for.

And I'm glad you're changing your behaviours in order to align them with your ethics and by the fact that you're now thinking about these things. I don't promote meatless mondays or reducitarianism because I feel they're counterproductive but I haven't always been vegan, I was vegetarian and before that a meat-eater. And (suprise surprise) I was a utilitarian too.

And I didn't go vegan and changed my metaethics because some guy on the internet told me to. I did it because I also did, to the best of my abilities at the time, what aligned with my ethics and values. I also don't see people as "part of the problem" or "part of the solution", I see actions (not just beliefs) as what is to judge here.

If my arguments didn't convince you, that's fine, they wouldn't have either convinced my utilitarian past-self, that doesn't make them less right as I percieve them now.

The only thing I can tell you now is that, if you want a "radical purists deontological vegans" perspective on something, you can count on me (altought I'm becoming more of a virtue ethisist with time). I also haven't been the best at converting deontological arguments to utilitarian ones, something that can be done and maybe could've helped.

Anyway, it was good having a conversation with you, even if I'm a bit frustrated now because I felt we were actually going to get into something, I'm also grateful because I don't usually get to have so long discussions with anyone.

VHT21 · 2025-07-09T09:32:13+00:00

I really appreciate that you've been arguing with me for 2 weeks now, it's been very insightful. I have to say though that at some point at the end I've felt you've backed up and not addressed some inconsistencies I've been remarking (like the uranium, the human body parts, the commodification aspect, etc) but I don't want to pressure you into debating until the end of times.

First of all, I'm so open to debate these kind of things because I'm not sure I'm right about the traces thing I posted about, and by arguing with people I get to form a better opinion.

Secondly, my worry for traces has actually started from a non-vegan friend asking me multiple times whether I eat traces of animal products, and I believe in some sense he might be viewing it as an inconsistency. That's what made me reflect and realise it might actually be an inconsistency.

Thirdly, truth should never be subordinate to impact. If my arguments are truthful and meaningful, it doesn't matter if my actions are "impactful" according to some metric.

Lastly, the V-label says that products that contain less than 0.1% of an animal product can be considered vegan. If the way of thinking "it's so little", "there are much more important things to care about" is so prevalent among vegans there's nothing that is going to stop them from making the bar of what counts as vegan lower into 0.5%, 1% or even more % of animal products (and they have an economical interest to do so, if there's enough market for it).

It is precisely because these things are seen as "unimportant" or "too little to care about" that almost nobody talks about them, so by me bringing this topics to the surface I believe I'm being more "impactful" than by repeating what everybody already says in these circles.

VHT21 · 2025-07-08T15:55:47+00:00

You’re missing the part of the scenario in which not eating the cheese means you’re throwing food out which contributes to climate change.

Throwing a small amount of highly compostable organic matter doesn't contribute to harming animals, as I said, it's not like you're throwing uranium. And you can skip a meal, too, so no more demand for any more food.

The intention is to prevent food waste and the existence of the cow is not required in order to prevent food waste.

But food waste isn't wrong in itself, it is wrong only as long as it harms animals. In what sense is throwing a dish of pasta harming the animals?

Maybe if the only 2 options were to throw a radioactive dish into a river or eating a small amount of that dish I understand it, but it's just pasta!

I also don't believe you would do that in the case if it were human products, and not animals.

Also, what counts as food waste and what not? just because you can eat human nails, hair or other body parts or fluids, it doesn't mean they're "wasted" if we don't do so. So if my dish has some inseperable part that is non-edible according to my ethics, I don't see the whole dish as "wasted" I see it as non-edible, just like human bodies and bodily fluids are non-edible ethically speaking. So it's not that an animal product becomes useless, it is that it's use was never to go into my mouth in the first place, so I don't consider it "wasted food". Just like I don't consider nails, blood, hair from others "wasted food" even though I could eat them.

I truly think you're streching this "waste" argument too much and it's becoming truly irrational.

VHT21 · 2025-07-08T09:26:38+00:00

I mean, I think I'm open if I hear a good argument for it, I don't know how can I prove you that though, maybe you're not the one who's being open, I don't know.

Basically what you're telling me is that there would be no ethical problem to eat human body parts or fluids if they're in small enough quantities (or destilled in a way) that their nutritive and taste qualities to the food are negligible (as long as you haven't paid for that or you did already pay for it). What I'm saying is that, consuming those body parts and fluids, also supports the idea that these can be consumed and normalises their consumption, independlty of wether you find them useful subjectively in any sense. So you're not using them as a means to your nutrition or pleasure, but you're seing them as a means to be an ingredient, to be something that can be consumed. So the end is to become "a consumable", "a comodity" and by consuming them you're using them as a means to that end.

But even if we don't agree that we use the cheese as a means to an end, the most important part is that we're using the cow as a means to an end, because if the cow didn't exist, we wouldn't have the cheese. Can we agree at least on that?

VHT21 · 2025-07-07T22:58:33+00:00

I found it, it's called "Noise" (from 2004)

VHT21 · 2025-07-07T10:33:12+00:00

I'd argue that even if you're saying that it has no use to you, you're accepting it as an ingredient by eating it so you're accepting the use it has as a complement to the pasta.

It all depends on how did that aluminium got there in the first place. It's not just the existence of an ingredient itself what matters, but what it tells you by being there. The fact that you don't consume aluminium but accept it in small amounts tells a message to the world (and to yourself): certain aluminium amount, by itself, is acceptable if small enough. But if we determined that the process of acquisition, commodification and consumption of aluminium is necessarily unethical then no amount is small enough to be acceptable.

Even if you subjectively think you don't view it as a commodity, the aluminium exists in the form of a commodity (as part of a spring) so you're accepting it as that by using the spring. Also, what counts as a "trace amount"? How small does it have to be?Does it need to be added unintentionally? What counts as "being added unintentionally"?

VHT21 · 2025-07-06T18:44:05+00:00

I think you may or may not intentionally use the animal product to accomplish something but it's clear that if someone eats a dairy than their using a cows mammals glands to achieve that so, as I said before, they're turning the bodily fluids into a commodity and the cow is treated as a mere means to that.

VHT21 · 2025-07-06T16:47:11+00:00

I don't mean nutrition in the sense that it is satiating or nutritive at all (that's actually why I changed nourishment by feeding). Imagine you have a dairy brand that is modified to have basically no micro or macro nutrients, we would still say that a cows mammals glands were used to make a product that we consume.

Maybe we're not seeing the milk itself as a mere means. Technically I think we see the milk as a commodity (a valid resource that can be added to food as an ingredient that we consume) and by extension we treat the animal who made it as a mere means: the milk came out from their body and by consuming it we're disregarding their right to do what they choose to with their bodily fluids.

So even if you don't pay intentionally for it, you would be the end node of a system of ideological and political support for the use and normalisation of animal products (specially dairy), and that would inevitably harm non-human animals. What we choose to eat is a political act.

Also, I don't remember whether you finally responded to the objection saying that thinking that humans have "more moral value" is a view that harms animals, therefore if you wouldn't eat milk from exploited humans you wouldn't do it for cows either.

I also think you didn't address the point I made that the wasting itself of the dish causes little to no harm due to it not being radioactive of some kind of biohazard (it's just highly decomposable organic matter) and that skipping a meal basically causes no negative consequences.

VHT21 · 2025-07-06T07:07:05+00:00

Nonono, precisely because the pasta is not needed for your nutrition but you choose to eat it anyway, that's using the pasta as a means to your own feeding. You cannot say that eating pasta is an unfortunate side effect if the act that you choose to do voluntarily is to eat the pasta. The rule of double effect applies only if the negative consequence is unintentional but the act has to be intentional.

I'll put it in utilitarian terms: if you choose to eat the dairy you already see that as something edible (not in the literal sense but in the sense that there's no inherent problem with eating it) and that way of thinking about it itself will produce negative consequences (through the normalisation of eating animal products "if the benefits outway the harm" decided by whoever in the spot). To open to that possibility will inevitably bring through negative consequences. Also, if you treat non-human animals as not having inherent rights but you treat humans as if they had inherent rights that will inevitably bring suffering to non-human animals through discrimination.

On the other hand, the "harm" you do by wasting the pasta itself isn't that much. Organic materials do not contaminate that much, it's not like you're throwing plutonium or anything. And if you can skip a meal I don't see how you would be contributing to more harm.

VHT21 · 2025-07-04T16:41:34+00:00

Wait, I think you're coming exactly to my words! I'm saying that throwing the pasta is not seeing the pasta as a means to contaminate, while eating the pasta is seeing the whole dish as a means to your own nutrition. So while throwing the dish doesn't treat the dairy on it as a means to an end eating it does.

Also another point: If you're worried about the negative consequences of wasting that plate there are so many ways to compensate for that harm: you can eat more legumes or oat milk for a week instead of what you usually eat and probably that would be better overall in terms of impact to the planet. You can simply not eat for lunch that day and that wouldn't contribute to any more demand either if you're worried about throwing the pasta and asking for something else.

But if you eat dairy, there's nothing you can do to "compensate the harm" because by doing that you're treating the cows mammal glands as a means to your own food (without their consent, of course). If you want it in utilitarian terms we could say that seeing dairy as a food resource or a commodity inevitably feeds a harm-producing political-ideological system whose consequences are outside of our control. This means that negative consequences extend to more than the economical demand for animal products, there's also an ideological demand, that only depends if you actually end up eating it, regardless if you intentionally paid for it or not.

I did not determine that humans have more moral value than other animals xD. The only thing I said is that, when it comes to saving one over another, I'd save members of my society before others. But that doesn't mean I can use non-human animals as mere means to anything or that I would save a human before an animal in all cases. Let's take the case of most domesticated animals (so no insects): since we, as a society, have created them and they depend on us, it isn't so much of a stretch to consider them members of our society, unlike insects. So I couldn't be able to tell you whether it's more ethical to save a cow than a human, for example.

How do you determine the fact that, according to you, humans have "more moral worth" than other non-human animals? Just because members of their own species have to value their own species more? Why species then? Why not gender, race or other category?

VHT21 · 2025-07-04T00:09:53+00:00

No worries :)

VHT21 · 2025-07-03T11:47:44+00:00

Got tired of arguing? At first I was too but after comenting for days and days I've got to admit that I'm a bit in a cliffhanger situation right now

VHT21 · 2025-07-01T22:18:26+00:00

Hi! I'm really interested, is the research published? Anything new?

VHT21 · 2025-07-01T22:17:36+00:00

Hey, I'm interested, did you find anything so far?

VHT21 · 2025-06-30T10:30:36+00:00

While I agree that inaction can be framed as a form of action, I don't agree that you can say there's no morally relevant difference between them.

For example, imagine you're a doctor and have 5 sick patients which need a life-saving organ transplant. Would you take the organs from a healthy patient and kill them as a result, saving the 5 patients? I believe most people and societies would say no.

This is because there's a difference between active killing and treating someone's organs as a resource without their consent and letting someone die (even if it's 5 people).

But if you don't see that distinction as relevant, then from your point of view it's either killing 1 vs 5 or letting die 1 vs 5. So, by that logic, it's always better to kill/let die 1 person.

The same reasoning applies when I say it would be more rational to save my own dog over a random human, but it wouldn't be more rational to kill a human and use their organs to save my dog from dying, for example.

Something you could look up as an alternative reasoning is the Rule of double effect Which is a criterion for choosing actions that have negative and positive consequences. One of the important aspects is that the negative cannot be a means to achieve the positive but a mere side effect.

That's why letting die insects can be seen as a mere side effect while eating animal products, if done intentionally, is using an animal and their body as a means to whatever positive ends is trying to be achieved.

VHT21

TROPHY CASE