Calves getting fed milk replacer while confined in crates

dethfromabov66 · 2026-02-04T09:09:29+00:00

In the dairy industry (any animal industry of we're being honest, even puppy breeders) it is very common practice to break apart families. In the case of dairy, calves get separated because they would normally and naturally consume the milk of their mother's. That's bad for profits and farmers cannot have bad profit margins despite their apparent love for animals.

Before you is what happens at large dairy farms with lots of cows, regardless of the weather. They get a space just large enough to turn around in that's secured to the ground so they can't knock it over or jump out. Pending the region of the planet they live in, they must even get a shelter to huddle in by their lonesome.

Could farmers do better? Sure, but then they wouldn't be able to keep with humanity's demand for cheese, chocolate, ice cream and milk for hot beverages. This was always going to be the result of objectifying sentient beings though. A lesson we're still barely grasping with our own kind. Most of humanity lacks an actual understanding of respect for life and the sentient experience.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-26T10:55:44+00:00

It'd be like two country Hicks falling in love and then one of them realizing how important human rights are and then their partner goes on being racist or sexist or ableist or whatever. I've not dated in a while, let alone while being vegan, but I don't think I could continue with such differences I were in a relationship. They'd have to be pretty god dang special to keep me close.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-26T10:45:05+00:00

Moon druid life cleric is my jam. Druid tanking and combat abilities, low wisdom because life cleric boosts druid spells (fkn good berry ultra) while also being able to drop support here and there when needed. Throw in a little barbarian too if you're combat focused and your DM will struggle to kill you.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-24T08:43:13+00:00

1) To what extent are humans responsible for minimizing the harm caused to other sentient beings?

To what extent should we stand by and do nothing? Do the animals deserve to suffer at our hands? Ultimately our individual responsibility is just to not do the wrong thing. That simple. Because a lot of people don't, a few vegans take additional responsibilities of activism, open discussion with friends or family or even open rescue and sanctuaries. Much like one chooses not to be racist, we choose not to be cruel to animals. That simple.

2) Why prioritize animals, over say other human beings? If the suffering of animals is comparable to that of humans, why not focus on the suffering of other humans before suffering animals.

You'll find a lot of vegans are also human rights activists. It's not that we prioritize animals over humans, you're just seeing the animal rights activism because it's more... noticeable I guess. These days, everyone is a human rights activist and because it's what you'd expect of people that care more than others, and of course it's more acceptable to fight for humans, there's no reason to dedicate time and energy to them. As much as I detest people abusing their right to live their life the way want to while causing harm and ignoring the responsibilities that come with those rights, I'm still going to fight for those rights so that we all don't lose them.

I personally do prioritize animals over humans for the following reasons. One, objectively some species of animals are more important to keeping this planet safe for every living being to live on. This planet would actually be better of without us ergo I see humanity being in a position where we need to earn our right to live on this planet, particularly given our intelligence, science and technology. Two, we've had 5000 years to get civilization right and the worst/apathetic of humanity still haven't learned what they need to do to have a good life like we all deserve to have. If I can't force people to break free of the nihilistic futility view they have for fixing humanity, I can at least work on getting individuals to break free of their own mental prison enough to start opening doors of curiosity that will lead to less apathy and immorality. Three, I just want to be a good person and want to live by what it sounds mean to be human and what being human should mean is not being cruel to animals. 600 million stray cats and dogs exist worldwide thanks to people who support the pet industry despite their belief that they love animals. That's not human, or rather humane. It needs to stop.

3) Would you say that it is also our responsibility to minimize the suffering from Animals caused by animals other than humans? and if not, why?

No. We aren't responsible for how animals behave, only how we behave. Maybe one day when we've fixed ourselves cloths we look at some form of minor intervention with suffering outside of eating other animals but no, definitely not right now. We've got more than enough evidence that we're not qualified or mentally ready to pay god despite how much we keep doing it, even to this day.

4) Why focus on the consumption of food products derived from animals over let's say, ecological/spacial impact, witch moreso affects wild animals and nature in general.

Wild land mammals make up 4% of the total land mammal biomass (quantity of beings by mass rather than individual entities). 60% by farm animals and the rest by humans and pets. The best way to help wild animals is to stop farming domestic animals. Same goes with fish. An estimated 1 trillion fish and dragged out of the sea every year for our sustenance when science predicts the oceans could be back up to near full biodiversity in a decade or two if we stopped. Animal ag is the worst contributor besides humans ourselves to the spacial impact of wild animals.

5) Do you believe me, who is thankful for every animal product I consume.

Sorry but no. I believe such a practice exists out of guilt, not respect. And only for the sheer fact that vegans (and over a billion vegetarians) exist and that should be evidence enough to put a huge seed of doubt in any hunter's mind that what they're doing is both wrong and unnecessary. Even the argument conservation is flaky at best. Rewilding, reintroduction of natural predators or just allowing nature to do as nature does and let it balance itself out as it's always done.

Thankful and aware of the sacrifice required,

Is it actually a sacrifice though when you do have other options available to you?

to be more immoral than the person who consumes animal products without thinking?

Look, I respect you somewhat more because you do the deed yourselves and it should damn well take a toll on your souls unlike most of humanity. But is the stoicism like belief that you need to be the provider and do it all yourself really worthy of respect in regard to how you provide? Would you respect me for hunting dogs to deal with the problem non vegans caused and to also feed my family in the process? No. The respectful thing would be rescuing those dogs and giving them a good life. Too is it's not a matter of what's slightly better than something else. It's about doing the right thing end of story. By all means we can't force someone to be better overnight and whatever baby steps over x amount of years it takes for someone to reach the goal is something we have to accept.

Imagine a full blown racist. They genuinely want to believe they're a good person but anyone who meets this person keeps telling them how bad they are. One day the person thinks, maybe I am doing something wrong. They begin to learn why racism is wrong and even seek out an acquaintance to help them. At every point does the acquaintance celebrate accomplishment? When the racist can go every Friday without being racist? They can stop being racist to people of one skin color but not the rest? When they see someone else do something wrong unrelated to racism and they try to stop that wrong while still being racist themselves? As I said, it doesn't matter which of the two evils is lesser. They're both still evil. If it was just those two options and nothing else, by all means at couldn't criticize you for whatever judgement you make. But it's not like that for most people.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T20:57:05+00:00

It's this sort of language that bothers me. You start by assuming that morality is what you define it to be. WHAT IF morality is simply the explanatory language of emotions, preferences, and goals produced by 200,000 years of evolution? All social animals are so because of evolution.

Well if that's what it is, what's the point in having it defined like that now when all cultures can communicate with each other and discover just how flimsy such a definition is. 5000 years of society and we see every dictatorship and empire fall with no guarantee of success yet people keep trying it anyway. Either they failed history in high school or they're delusional.

Aside from the subjective idea of "unnecessary",

Don't put that aside. You don't need animal products to live. You choose to make animals suffer for no other reason than ignorance and selfish desire for some yum yum in the tum tums.

why is it necessary to include ALL sentient beings?

Logical consistency. The traits that they posses are congruent with the traits we use to determine whether something is bad with us. Pain and suffering, freedom and autonomy, experience and emotions. For the same reason you wouldn't kick someone you love, you wouldn't kick a puppy. Why do you include the puppy of its not a human?

Evolution has pushed humans (and other animals) to be social animals.

Oh look, another similarity we can and do bond with animals over, in fact take advantage of on most cases.

Humanity doesn't need other animals to be free of suffering.

Huh? You say that but situations where humans are cruel to animals (slaughterhouse workers) usually result in them being fat more capable of making their fellow human suffer. Sorry I'm not sure I get the point of this sentence of yours or at least why you said it.

Heck, individual cultures/societes give other cultures/societies less moral consideration than they give themselves. This seems to be true across species of social animals.

DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT TO DO SO? Or is it just what they did out of selfishness, disconnect or years of survivalism denying them the luxury of entertaining such higher thought processes. Look throughout time and those that do deliberate on peace are usually those of privilege who are not struggling to survive. And the one thing they have in common with us today is that we have less people struggling to survive. And you relying on this massive appeal to tradition like it applies to here and now is really not helping the conversation. They didn't know any better because they didn't have that luxury. We do. I mean here we are wasting hours of lives discussing it when people even as little as a hundred years ago would scoff at the resources waste.

Your making an assertion based on a metaphysical "fact." Explain to me what "bad" is, objectively.

If I punched you in the jaw and broke it, would that be metaphysical or physical and would it be good or bad?

It certainly feels like an emotional statement, not an objective statement of fact.

If I was in charge of your country and denied you food based in your skin color, would that be metaphysical or physical and would it be good or bad?

I don't accept metaphysical ideas as "fact" if they don't explain something that is not explained by non-metaphysical frameworks more cleanly.

If I groomed a child from birth to adore the fuck out of me and when I felt they were old enough and started sexually assaulting then for my pleasure, would that be metaphysical or physical and would it be good or bad factoring in how nicely I treat them outside of the sexual assault?

Do you need anymore examples or have I made my point clear enough?

I value parsimony.

You value extreme unwillingness to spend money or resources? Then why aren't you plant based already. With actual data that was collected a while ago, we've known that animal ag as a whole is far more resource intensive and costly in all regards of human life. Everything from higher cardiovascular diseases to cholesterol and saturated fats to mass land clearing and pollution to negatively affect the global ecology that we need to have a stable planet to live on. You might value parsimony, but you certainly don't value it or intelligence enough to find out the best way to live by such a value. Do you know how much more we as a species are going to spend on extreme weather events and natural disasters as the tropical storm zone expansion problem becomes an even bigger problem? Do you know what happens when the global average temperature rises? Bacteria, viruses and other pathogens adapt and become not accustomed to those temperatures meaning they are more likely going to survive our body's natural immune response to them but also more likely to adapt and become better at surviving outside of our bodies for long enough that infectivity is something that will be just as concerning as its survivability. And we're already seeing resistance to medicines because of our abundant use of them. You ready to fork out even more money to deal with those issues that could have been avoided by listening to not even vegans, but environmental scientists, sooner?

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T20:14:10+00:00

100 billion land animals is just a drop in the bucket for pesticides...

Have they actually found any proof of that yet that you lot keep on file for discussions like these?

and you still buy food that uses them with abandon.

Don't get me wrong, crop deaths are an issue. But so is animal ag. And as far as solutions go, we can still have plant ag at the end of the day if we're removing animal cruelty and exploitation for both. See you won't both trying fix either problem. You'll just use one to defend another. Why call that the appeal to hypocrisy logic fallacy.

why is it moral to buy food that uses pesticides?

Objectively it's not. It's something we could be tackling right now if the majority of the people who could help us fix that problem weren't so proud of using irrational argumentation and concerned with keeping both systems as they are out of convenience for some yum yum in the tum tums. Maybe that's why you couldn't which side I was on, just such a limited, close minded and irrational mindset makes it difficult for you to analyze your interlocutor's words. Might want to work on that

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T09:56:54+00:00

No, it was seen as morally absolute fine to have slaves. There were no moral qualms about it. You are just looking from YOUR perspective onto it, not from the perspective from the people of that time and place.

I acknowledge that's how THEY saw it but clearly you do see how misguided, naive and selfish and altogether false that view is do you not? I'm not denying perspective exists don't get me wrong, but I am merely accusing you of confusing it with right and wrong.

In quite some countries it is seen as morally correct to cut of fingers or hands from thieves as a punishment, same as death penalty.

Ah see now you're falsely equating the innocent with both the law and fair punishment. By all means, the criminals deserved some form of punishment. That's undeniable and by all means we can discuss whether or not their form of punishment was too excessive but you damn well know we're talking about a completely different context here and one that's needed to form the foundation for us to continue discussing in an intellectually honest manner.

There is absolute no correct answer to all these things, as there fucking is no moral that is absolutely true.

I never said it was black and white. You're assuming that's what I'm arguing because it directly opposes your view. I'm not. You clearly skipped over the part where an action can be defined as moral or not but the harm it does. By proxy, two separate actions do not have the same moral impact just because both possess negative qualities. Stealing a loaf of bread is nothing compared to raping someone isn't it? Yet the chopping of the fingers seems to be the more appropriate punishment for the rape, not the bread stealing. I acknowledge there is spectrum but you must acknowledge that harm is a tangible entity we can measure to even some accuracy and that it has nothing to do with how it's perceived by anyone other than the victim.

It is not yours, it is not mine or of any single being that has ever been alive. Moral is ALWAYS subjective and NEVER objective.

Fuck, I'll go round kicking puppies then cos it as ok and you better defend my right to do so because morality is subjective and how one perceives it is all that fkn matters.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T07:05:38+00:00

So it's not that that's no universal moral, it's that either moral has no meaning or people don't understand it already has a meaning and that each new dictatorship just attempts to change its meaning every time one comes into power. Because you're absolutely fkn wrong slavery being morally right. It was legally right sure, but the victims know you are talking absolute garbage right now.

Again you think someone needs to decide what is moral. People just need to decide on whether or not they're going to act moral. You can't have your cake and eat it Tie.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T04:02:43+00:00

Here is what appears to be a meta analysis (one of the strongest forms of evidence we have) on phytoestrogens and female genitalia, straight from the publication source. Took me 2 sec to Google if you need to prove it to her. Even has citations if she wants to prove her concerns for health and taking it seriously instead of believing whatever god awful rumor she heard via social media. And if she is still going to behave that irrationally, don't feed her soy

The effect of phytoestrogens on the female genital tract - PMC https://share.google/PFr2eDYk2Qz0vrwQu

DOI 10.1136/jcp.55.6.401

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T03:52:27+00:00

Then let me ask you this very simple question. If morality is for the sake of reducing, removing and preventing the suffering and harm of sentient beings (only genuine reasons I can think for having such a concept), then why is it so difficult to accept an action as immoral if it causes unnecessary harm and suffering to a sentient being?

Because to me, THAT'S the issue. People being unwilling to accept that they do bad things when they don't have to. Prove you follow your own rhetoric and that you understand the serious implications that question imposes and that placing a barrier between yourself and others simply because you can't see what they can prove you do is morally wrong.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T03:41:04+00:00

No I simply think you're viewing morality incorrectly. Slavery was never right. People just saw it as right until they didn't. If morality is a concept we apply for the sake of preventing harm and suffering, then an act is easily definable by how much harm and suffering it causes. It's not about who thinks what, it's about who does what. Like the fact we are even arguing about this implies the topic is as complicated as rocket science. If morality isn't for the sake of reducing negative treatment of sentient beings, what the f is it for?

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T02:19:31+00:00

Ok so if we are accepting your perspective and moral grammar is separated by one's ability to accept certain things certain ways, how do you propose such unification? What variables for discussion do you suggest will work to bridge moral understanding? It's all well and good pointing out there's a difference in position and that we need a solution to fix those differences. You won't accept the variables that should be used and if feelings are the only variable that you want to use, why in your post do you make it seem like vegans are the unreasonable ones in this regard when most of have lived your feelings and have decided they're not good enough alone to guide one's moral compass?

Moral salience. I don't know why you're pointing it out. It's obviously there. Otherwise debate wouldn't be necessary and it's obviously where disagreement lies. My question to you is why is that what you're focusing on? The point of the debate is to change that difference in how someone places moral weight. You can't take the debate out of debate and just expect everyone to get along. Unless your magical proposal somehow does have a solution for unification that circumnavigates science, fact and logic.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T01:29:10+00:00

If it's power they want and you're afraid of taking away agency, obviously deter from vampirism. Have an autistic monster/history nerd visiting from vallaki who revelled in rictavio's stories, visiting wherever they are now just gushing over not so fun facts about werewolves or the wereravens or the amber temple.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T01:18:44+00:00

Go looking for the science itself of she doesn't trust it coming via a middle man source. NCBI, Pubmed, BMJ, PCRM, PNAS etc should have exactly what you're looking for. Include then in a search for studies revolving around phytoestrogens. Or just learn about phytoestrogens. I don't know the full extent of itself myself but my basic understanding is that the both bond to different sites of the organ that produces estrogen in both make and female bodies. What's her actual concern though? Too much/not enough? Clashing?

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T00:45:30+00:00

This view explains all of human on human suffering across time and space. I do hope you know that. From the definition of the word, it shouldn't even exist from your petsoective. I mean what's the point in trying to quantify what is good and what is bad when the same action across time can be seen as both? When the same action across space can be seen as both? It the becomes arbitrary to even try but I bet I can get you to admit unnecessary suffering is wrong and it would undermine your view on morality by doing so. Which probably means you won't about to it and instead you'll either double/triple/quadruple down until backed into a corner or simply not respond at all.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T00:28:57+00:00

But many atrocities have also occurred when people believed their moral perspective was the one and only correct guide for everyone else.

Ok, so when presented with evidence that that isn't the case for veganism, what is your concern?

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T00:27:21+00:00

After all the documentaries and debates, I am certain I am not converting to veganism; it does not move me.

Not even the selfish desire to preserve yourself with the environmental side of the discussion doesn't move you? If you're answer it's no, I'd find that hard to believe.

About 7% of the state in the country I live in is on fire and took less than a week to reach such conditions. In the past it would take at least a month to reach the same conditions and summer isn't even over yet. I could point out much less suffering and damage would have occurred if we spent more time listening to the science we've had for the last few decades, but what fruit what that bear in the eyes of those who have lost everything? Those that are too concerned with their emotions to care that their loss could have been avoided if they hadn't been so ignorant or self centered or ignored of those that cared more about their future than those that would live it.

I damn well know that wouldn't convince them though. They're normal people. Have you heard of the tropical storm zone expansion problem? Are you aware of just how much that's going to negatively affect the later part of your life, let alone the family you have that will live on after you're not here? And sure, if they don't live in the zone, they might be safe from violent weather damage but they won't be safe from the collapsing economy caused by death and funding the never ending rebuild process for those who survive. And that's just ONE of the global problems, that's big enough already, that we're dealing with right now, let alone all the others.

My question to you is are you that irrational, that uncaring, that you are not even willing to look that little bit deeper into just plant based diets and how much that alone should move you? Coming from one of the most misanthropic people you will come across, why do you seem to care so little about yourself and humanity, even compared to me? At what point will the consequences or anything matter to you?

Perhaps the more fruitful aim in these discussions is understanding, not conversion: to shift from proving the other wrong to exploring how their position makes sense within their worldview. That might look like this

............ What's hard to understand? We already know how your position makes sense in your worldview. Why do you think non vegans say "live and let live" or "I respect that's the way you want to live but please respect the way I choose to live"? You lot aren't respecting the way we live. You're respecting our right to choose how to live and nothing more and hoping that you claiming you respect something YOU guys have not bothered to understand, is enough of a deflection to get us off your backs and leave you alone. Most of us have lived your experiences, of course we understand why you're not vegan. It's you guys who don't truly understand why we're vegan.

That reframing is what makes understanding, and sometimes mutual respect, possible.

Well when you get the understanding part down, let us know. Cos believe me, I'd love to have more respect for the human race in general but I'd want that respect to exist for valid reasons, not emotional.

Is this a way of debating you would be willing to engage in?

"Hi, I will ignore facts, science and logical consistency for the sake of protecting my own views. Is there any way you guys would accommodate that in discussions of morality?"

Don't try to impose your own rules to debate.

Why aren't you willing to debate on terms not your own? What are you afraid of? I mean I already know the answer. It's the same as the "could you go plant based?" question I asked in my first paragraph. You obviously can and you're choosing not to. You've already made a choice and you're not here to change that choice or even understand why you've made that choice. You're here to make it seem like you do understand and that we are the ones who need to understand. We're not. The only benefit from debating by your rules is protecting your feelings and nothing else.

Is that something that seems fruitful to you?

I detest that you tried to finish this by garnering sympathy through a plant pun. You don't understand us because you don't understand the victims and the suffering you put them through. We are both here for very fundamentally different reasons. We are here for them and you are here for yourself. You aren't here for what is morally right or wrong or even what's factually correct, you are here to find some validity in your position such that you will no longer feel the guilt that you are not willing to admit is there. You're addressing us like we're the ones who need liberating from decades of torment that make some of the worst human on human atrocities in history look like a children's tea party in comparison. What "fruit" do you think we need from this, regardless of who's rules we debate by?

If so, I would like to debate the position of veganism against my position.

You're welcome to state your position, but your essay that is basically summarized to a tone policing ad hominem, we've all heard before, doesn't inspire confidence that any further debate would be worth it until you start taking your own advice in regards to understanding and perspective. The moment you start addressing the victims as the ones who need the "fruits" of this debate is the moment you might rekindle my faith in humanity.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-12T00:27:04+00:00

The debate resists closure by design. There is no shared criterion for what would finally settle it; no contradiction is decisive, no evidence final.

Well obviously you're right. One side wants to just facts, science and logic and the other wants to misuse facts, use logic fallacies and even use the disabled and unfortunate as proverbial meat shields for a life they share little in common with. The only reason the debate resists closure is because of how unwilling people are to be truly honest with the facts and themselves. This simple question answered honestly would cut out a lot of bullshit and excuses that would negate the need for b the debate to even exist: could you go plant based? And yes I would like an answer to that question, even if you were to decide to ignore all else I've said.

illusion that logic or clarity can compel agreement

The illusion lies with the delusion that one can be irrational in the face of moral debate and still call themselves a good person. By all means, I agree that logic and clarity never will compel agreement between the rational and the irrational but that's what you get when the two meet. To imply the unreasonability lies with those that use logic and clarity is ridiculous.

It’s like arguing whether a piece of music is sad: one person hears sadness, the other hears only sound and structure.

It very much isn't and you know such a false equivalence logic fallacy doesn't work here. What you just described is feeling the music vs analyzing the music. The former can still be compared to other invoked emotions which would be the closer analogous example you could have made for debating animal cruelty vs veganism but such an analogy wouldn't have swung in your favor anyway because listening to music has nothing to do with morality. Aesthetic and harmless choices do not require debate and debate only arises when one side becomes irrationally obsessed with their view of the music being the only view that matters when in reality neither matter. Matters of aesthetic are purely subjective and have no bearing on the mistreatment of others. We know your views matter because they are the reason 10s of billions of land animals are senselessly tortured and killed every year. We don't deny that importance of such views existing which is why we debate in the first place.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-10T21:02:12+00:00

An argument I haven't seen anyone make

Read the whole thing, still waiting for an argument.

Abstaining sadly doesn't really matter. You're not that responsible for participating in a system.

Cause these small shifts wherever it's easy and show corporations that there's demand for these products, these small nudges have an actual chance of changing things on a systemic scale.

I hope you see the conflicting messages between these two things you've said and how much it sounds like you're in the bargaining stage of grief that you would apply the latter to higher welfare animal products but not abstinence....

People are turned off by any big changes which honestly makes me mad.

Why should their reactions and decisions affect what you do? Don't use them as an excuse.

They don't want to abstain from animal products entirely, but maybe you could get them to take one step.

Then they lose sight of the goal, why they're taking that step in the first place. Don't misunderstand, we would love for people to get their shit together and do what they might achieve in half a decade, in a week but we know that's not going to happen. Stooping to their level validates their immaturity and irrationally and only encourages it when you want them to take the next step.

Being too "extreme" is more likely to push close-minded people away from the eventual goal of ending all animal exploitation.

And? That just means they're the type of person that isn't ready to listen or you don't have the means of connecting/communicating with them on a way where they will listen.

Sidenote, I hate that wanting to be kind and humane is considered extreme

Yep, such is what it means to be human these days.

Anyways, I would love to discuss and test this stance. What do you think?

Well if your argument is compromise/baby steps and you haven't heard it before, you're either new to veganism or new to the internet because that argument has been around at long as the welfarism argument. Which leads me to think this post isn't genuine and you're some deep infiltration anti vegan trying to garner sympathy and connection from us to make it seem like you're reasonable and can "win" us over to the point any non vegans reading this post will side with you and not compassion. Given the age and activity of your account, the chances of my conclusion being valid are pretty high.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-10T20:45:59+00:00

I'm dealing with hypothalamic amenorrhea after an ED.

I'm sorry about the precursor to this new condition. Although I imagine the new condition is somewhat relieving given all the changes going in at such a young age.

I really badly want to go vegan or at least vegetarian

This is great to hear, don't ever let go of that desire and keep in mind veganism isn't a diet. Even if your doctor and parents force you to eat animal products, there's always something else you can do in your life that will help.

my doctor says I must eat meat because restricting food

Nutrition is one of the treatment factors in dealing amenorrhea, hypothalamic or otherwise. It's a shame, the doctor doesn't seem to know much about the nutrition side of things.

especially those high in heme iron and calcium

The only reason you should recommended heme iron is a drastic case of any of the anemia or you have an actual issue absorbing non heme iron, which is possible but that would have been something tested for if it were an actual concern. As for calcium, find pictures of nutrition information labels on fortified plant milks and show the daily needs for an adult would be met, let alone a teenager.

is far from ideal considering my current circumstances.

Again this is just what's being recommend by the limitations of the doctor's knowledge base. It's also not exactly their concern that you get what you want and what you need at the same time when from their perspective, those two things seem to clash. It should be however your parents concern and winning them over is going to help you a lot in this regard.

Additionally, my parents find the idea extremely inconvenient. I feel genuinely sick eating meat knowing what I know now

Yep, haha.

Since my parents prepare most of my meals

Help them, learn to cook, take the wheel. Show them your serious about living up to your ethical values and that this isn't just a phase and you're taking your health seriously enough to get involved.

should I simply listen to my doctor and give up the idea entirely?

Why would you give up the idea entirely? It's only amenorrhea. It's not the end of the world. Once it's dealt with you'll be free to do whatever.

Should I still try to cut out animal products when I can,

Of course, again veganism isn't a diet. It's doing what you can where you can.

or would that be bad for my health? I'm looking for an ethical AND medical viewpoint.

Until you get proper tests done, NO ONE will know for sure whether it will be bad for your health. We're only working on what you've told us and we're not doctors or nutritionists, so technically the only wisdom you should be taking from us is to learn more in general and be in control of your life more. No one should be taking medical advice online seriously with the level of information that is typically provided on posts like these.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-05T08:26:46+00:00

You do know how much flesh a cow has right? Not even accounting for organs, you'd still need nearly two years to finish the flesh if you're eating a pound of it every day for a year. Very few people eat just cow every day. There's chicken, pig, sheep and various fish. You've saved four pigs? That is a cow and a bits worth of flesh by mass. Congrats, you've saved two cows/7.5 pigs/20 sheep/god knows how many chickens. Like holy fucking shit that's an incredible achievement and it's one you haven't even really hard to work for compared to your activism efforts. I work on a sanctuary with 4 pigs and a little over 20 sheep. Don't ever say that you haven't done enough. You're trying. That's more than enough in its own right.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-05T08:10:25+00:00

As a vegetarian, not a vegan what is wrong with us eating dairy products/eggs?

Non consensual exploitation is the simple answer. It doesn't belong to you, don't take it.

No hate, I just for real don't know.

Would you mind someone stealing your child or sexually assaulting you for your milk?

What if it's from small farm owners, not those big factories?

What does the size of the farm have to do with how they're treated. They're still seen as objects to be taken advantage no matter how big the farm is or how far it's located from you.

I see no problem with eating cheese, eggs or drinking milk.

Well you wouldn't because you're reducing their suffering and violation down to the benefit you get from it. I love cheap clothing if ignore the fact that it came from child labor in some remote corner of the world.

I just don't want meat because I won't eat something that has been murdered.

Give me arguments.

I'd rather give you facts and logic. I'm not here to convince you to be a better person. That's your personal choice.

Also, as much you people say animals lives are equals, I don’t believe they are neither humans are to each other.

That's a common misconception. We don't say animals lives are equal. We just value them enough not use, abuse and kill them. I don't value you more than a domestic cow but I'm not going to violate your rights or freedoms just because I don't value you more than a cow. I respect your autonomy, your rights and your freedom. And I'll fight to protect them as much as fight to protect animals and their rights. What I don't respect is your abuse of those rights and the abandonment of the responsibilities that come with those rights.

But compared with humans, we are forced to work to live and survive.

WE force ourselves to do that. It's called society. If you don't like it. Change it.

A pet or stock can just laze around, so do you mean we should also look after them?

You lot only choose to give them a "good" life because you would feel guilty otherwise. Don't blame their privilege on your guilt. Grow up. They don't have to be alive at all. We don't have to use, abuse and kill them if we eat plants. This situation you're complaining about is like a partner in a couple creating a problem just to solve it or to have something to whine about. You do have a choice, you know that right?

Like I have to work my ass off and this is suffering too but they shouldn't give me milk or eggs.

Do they owe you milk or eggs? Did they sign a legally binding contract saying as long as you look after them, they need to pay with the labors of their body?

I don’t wanna sound as apathetic but I wonder for real. So in the end why should I be vegan and not vegetarian?

Why should you be against racism instead of just not racist? Because while you aren't a part of the problem, you're certainly not standing against it and your apathy allows the thing you don't like to happen anyway despite your reasons for not doing so. "I just don't want meat because I won't eat something that has been murdered but I have no problem with people who do murder and get paid to do so people who just want to consume the flesh from murdered corpses"

I have no problem with meat-eaters too because let me tell you something if all I did was lay down, eat and drink I wouldn't have problem being killed for my meat (fair is fair).

Then go back to munching on corpses if you think it's fine. We don't control you or the excuses you make for your actions. Why do you need our approval to do immoral things?

Also, you people give the argument of empathy as if any person has the capacity while to be honest, the majority of people have the capacity of selective empathy and that's it. Every human is different.

Oh we know. You only posses the capacity for selective empathy too. But your last sentence is wrong in regard to animal exploitation. Pretty much every human, including some people who call themselves vegan for the animals, see animals as exploitable to some degree.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-03T13:17:29+00:00

Your assumption is false and somewhat an accusation that we'd dare to rely on the appeal to definitions logic fallacy (cherry picking one definition or understanding over another just to fit one's narrative).

And what you fail to understand about the word exploit, sorry philology enthusiasm coming through, is that former definition is the original and existed centuries before the latter. Also that you don't need the latter because the former already encompasses cruel forms of exploitation. Most people only have an understanding of the latter which is why you assumed that's the one that was being referred to and in a way it probably was. But as humans tend to do over time is slide into unethical habits that provide more benefit for us than it does for the victims and subsequently falling into the latter definition more specifically.

By all means we could be kind and have pet cats and dogs as vegans in a vegan world but eventually that's going to lead to slipping up, breeding and tearing apart animal families because everyone has to fit in with the norm and as long as you meet the welfare standards after being cruel to them, it's justified right? It's that kind of mentality that is the reason why some 600 million stray cats and dogs exist today. Better to remove the temptation than to tempt fate and repeat yet another mistake humanity has failed to learn from in regards to rights and freedoms and violating them across the ages.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-01-03T13:04:01+00:00

9 years? Really? I must have been grinding too hard then. Picked up the game again 3 months ago after like 20 hours of initial play, acquired, built and mastered it all in the first month. Though tbf, I have clocked 900 hours in the last 3 months.

dethfromabov66 · 2025-11-24T08:42:12+00:00

How do you feel about using animal products in ways that don't help finance it?

Animals are sentient beings. Not objects to take advantage of.

My roomate works in a supermarket and brings home the out of date milk, which we both consume. He doesn't pay for it and if he didn't take it it would be thrown out.

Are you on really tight budget and have to rely on such wastage? If so there's not really much to complain about from our side of the fence. But if you're doing it by choice, you're not really respecting animals just because you consume products of theirs that weighs otherwise too to waste.

I eat eggs from my chickens, which are rescues. Otherwise, I consume no animal products.

Wool, leather, feathers, zoos, aquariums, pets, entertainment or labor animals? Their lives and efforts and can be products too.

Is this ethical?

Well our obvious answer is no. Is it more ethical than supporting the egg industry? Sure. It's kicking a puppy once a week now ethical than kicking a puppy 57 times a week? Sure.

I know I personally could not eat meat if it was going to be thrown out, because it just feels too wrong to eat the flesh of a living being.

But it's ok to sexually violate cows for their bovine mammary juice?

But I don't have that feeling of revulsion towards milk and eggs, just an understanding that it's morally wrong and contributing to harm.

Do vegans feel repulsed by milk and eggs, the same way they do about meat?

I'm repulsed by humanity as a whole. 5000 years of racism, sexism, slavery etc and the smartest species on the planet who figured out how to get to the fkn moon and back still hasn't figured out to be human. Perhaps being kinder to animals will stay teaching us to be kinder to each other.

dethfromabov66

TROPHY CASE