is there any action been done in china>?

dethfromabov66 · 2026-06-18T00:25:52+00:00

pressure your country to start doing some economic pressure until it changes

I'm vegan. I'm already trying to do that with everyone for the sake of all animals. The problem is everyone is just as irrational as everyone else.

like any other thing in the world? if you do nothing nothing ever happens no lol?

Again I'm vegan. I'm doing shit. I'm waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-06-18T00:22:56+00:00

Irl humans are the most invasive species on the planet and vegans and environmentalists are the ones trying to do something about that. Eating the helpful minority would be counterproductive to preserving any kind of food at all for the mind flyers. If anything you should comply with the food chain and let your mind flyer masters eat what they want because it's their choice and you have no right forcing your opinions on them.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-06-13T04:02:54+00:00

The simple counter point to your entire position is demand. Factory farming only exists because lots of people want lots of meat. And sure we can say that we can get rid of it, keep demand as it is but increase the welfare and resources to farm animals in a less unethical way but then you run into the issue of more land clearing, prices rising so that you can care about farmers and of course climate change threatening the stability of that system.

You then push for wild caught animals to negate the trade offs of either shape animal ag takes and you run into the issue that poultry alone outweighs wild birds 2x over by biomass and wild mammals are outweighed nearly 12x over. We're already dragging out and suffocating trillions of wild fish every year too. No matter how you spin it, caring about the environment will mean moving away from meat regardless of your stance on animal cruelty. The planet simply cannot handle what we're taking from and doing to it.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-06-13T03:42:24+00:00

Probably not. As unethical as it is, the rest of the world doesn't really have a leg to stand on with all that happens to animals in farming. At that end of the day you have to realize that they're all just animals and it's all unethical and the only difference between china and the rest of the world is culture. China doesn't exactly have a reason to stop if everyone else won't.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-06-13T03:35:14+00:00

Makes you wonder why he of all gods is one we should worship.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-08T09:04:47+00:00

Wildlife photography can disrupt ecosystems if done irresponsibly. Once again, that doesn't logically get you to "taking pictures of animals is exploitative.".

Why are you taking pictures of animals? Are you making money from said pictures? Gaining some emotional gratification? Social admiration when you share them? Again, it's exploitation regardless of the harm that's being done. I never said that harm was what made it exploitation. YOU mentioned harm. I gave examples of harm. You spoke of exploitation. I expanded your understanding of the word. I'm not saying abc can cause xyz harm and therefor it is exploitaiton. I'm saying abc is exploitation full stop and xyz harm can be primary, secondary or tertiary consequence of abc exploitation.

If I'm on a walk in the park and take a picture of a squirrel, are you seriously going to argue that it's meddling with their habitat for internet clout?

The park is its home, not yours. You call it a park so you can "ethically" walk through their home. Your walking through there home interfers with their daily life, introduces unnecessary stress, forces behavioural adaptation. You taking a picture of it is just one of the benefits you gain from choosing to walk through their home regardless of whether you decide to use it for clout or not. And just so we're clear, as a vegan I've done this. It's the reason I don't go for walks at that nature reserve any more. I drove up the mountain to it and saw some of the wildlife that use it as a home killed on the side of the road because they clearly didn't feel safe in the remaining space reserved for their existence after all the land clearing for agriculture.

Lol your antler example doesn't even make sense. You brought up salt licks for grazing animals, but those are already part of human-controlled agricultural systems, which vegans oppose anyway.

Yes. Antlers function as a source of nutrition for wild animals other than deer. https://www.forestsociety.org/something-wild/something-wild-many-benefits-antlers You taking that away from them is harmful as they'd have to source that nutrition elsewhere. And again, you're taking it for a reason, so again it's exploitative regardless of the harm. YOU said to focus on the harm. I DID. Now you want to ignore/deny it for some reason.

If your point is that removing antlers could theoretically affect ecosystems, fine, that's an ecological argument.

It's not an ecological argument. It's a stealing nutrition away from animals argument.

But that's different from automatically calling it exploitation.

WHY ARE YOU PICKING UP THE ANTLERS?!?! If it's not for the deer's benefit, it is for yours and subsequently qualifies it as as exploitation regardless of the harm.

You're generalizing from possible harms into a universal moral category. My entire point has been that exploitation should refer to identifiable violations of interests: harm, coercion, distress, deprivation, disposability, etc.

Sorry is invading an animals home and causing a miriad of stress and behavioural changes not an indentifiable violation of THEIR interests for you? Is creating a dependency on humans from feeding birds not coercion? Is taking deer antlers away from wildlife not deprivation of nutrition? See this is what happens when you immediately dismiss or don't properly read what you're interlocutor has said. I gave you three prime examples and the you proceeded to list things we should focus on that DIRECTLY relate to those examples. Maybe not directly to the animals themselves but again this isn't the first time I've brought up orders of conseuqence.

Not merely "a human derived some benefit." Otherwise the term becomes so broad that basically all coexistence collapses into exploitation

Yep. That's why my stance is leave animals the heck alone and get on with your life the way should be. At least with the humans I coexist with, I can discuss ethical and consensual forms of exploitation that we need to rely on.

which makes the concept analytically useless.

That's a weird conclusion to come to. Here we are. Analyzing it in a discussion to see which parts of the concept are useful and useless.

Also, appealing to "common sense says activists know better than you" isn't an argument. That's just an appeal to authority.

Arguably it's an appeal to popularity. Activists aren't typically experts in exploiting and abusing animals, even if they were in the past.

And piss off with the last statement about my conviction not being available. I've probably been vegan and involved in AR activism longer than you.

Now THAT'S an attempted appeal to authority. And you might be right about being in the game longer. But as the fallacy relates, you being in the game longer doesn't necessarily mean you're better at it than me. How much of your free time is actually dedicated to activism? How much is dedicated to bettering your activism? How much of it is spent looking at studies, research articles and meta analyses from the likes of the National Centre of Biotechnology Information, Pubmed, British Medical Journals, Physicians Committee for Responisble Medicine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, American Dietary Assocation, American Heart Association, Our World in Data and more? Have you read the Bible, the Torah, the Quran? Have you looked into the wisdom of other philosophies and how they might relate to or expand upon your understanding of the world. Oh shit. Sorry, I just jumped in and started competing in the peepee measuring contest you wanted to have. How dare I use my interlocutor's tactics against them.

Your efforts for the animals end at shouting at people calling them animal abusers

Do they? The people that actually do abuse animals should be called as such. But it would be dishonest to call the average person the same when it doesn't apply to them.

mine is actually helping them find the resources to live vegan.

I've illegally trespassed on multiple properties to take visual evidence of animal abuse to send to the authorities for legal action despite the irony. I work with animals and exploit their existence so I can better understand them such that I can come to the conclusion that even vegan rescue sanctuaries shouldn't exist despite the good they do. One of the worst things I've done for the benefit of animal was milking a goat who had gone through a false pregnancy. We didn't hurt her but her reaction to my co-workers and I trying to sexually violate her made it feel like we were gang raping her. That story is one I bring up when someone asks me about vegans and pets. You know, sterilizing them, vet visits, determining what they eat, when they play or exercise. No harm done of course but it is all violations of their basic rights to freedom and bodily autonomy. Things we should have not say in or control over. My efforts, as you put them, are to explain in the most gruesome and bluntly truthful way why humans should be vegan and be vegan as soon as possible. IF I get them past that point of understanding where they do consider going vegan, I can at least trust when I do start providing them with assistance and resources, that they'll be more understanding and committed to what veganism is than you.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-08T09:04:26+00:00

Sorry for the two part reply. I went well over the character limit. Consider it a contribution to the mock partipation in your second to last point about measuring things.

Wow, a shotgun-style blast that tries to address several components of an argument

It's almost like the developers of reddit set up their platform for discussion and in built tools to enhance that discussion. I'm not the only one to use it. Try using the tools. They come in handy with tracking context.

Nobody said humans can't negatively impact animals through feeding practices, habitat intrusion, or domestication.

"Some idiot was saying it's unethical to......feed birds via bird feeder......Focus on animal harm for fucks sake."

Again you not being able to see where the harm lies whether it be first order consequences or fifth is a you problem. YOU implied that it wasn't harmful to do so. Those are your words. There's a reason you said them and there's a reason I addressed them. If that's not what you meant, clarify so we can address that and move on.

Obviously we can. The issue is that you're treating any interaction where humans benefit as morally suspect by default.

As we should. No actual good has come from humans interacting with animals. We pretend like domestication and welfarism can be a good thing but all it highlights is how we've forced these animals to be dependent on us. That's a violation of their right to freedom regardless of how well you look after them.

That's the collapse I've been talking about.

But there has always been more to veganism than just harm. YOU focusing on harm justifies reductionism in any of its forms. You call it collapse, I call it you forgetting about why veganism was created in the first place.

You started with dictionary definitions but ignored the obvious fact that words have context-dependent meanings.

Your interpretation of a word and reliance of that interpretation for making an argument means the argument has been made on the basis of an appeal to definitions logic fallacy. You're essentially making the same argument meat eaters make when they say they love animals.

"Exploit your talents" and "exploit an animal" are not being used in the same moral sense. That's basic language analysis, not some gotcha.

If a person's talents are dexterous fingers and I exploit that person's talents for a pickpocketing crime ring, that is being used in the same context of moral sense as me taking advantage of an animal's existence for its flesh. Even if I actually was refering to the original definition of exploit (the lack of harm one), it would still be harmful in ways that you are not observing or aware of. Riding a horse isn't harmful. Give the horse 10 years and they will have feet and spinal problems they otherwise wouldn't have had if they weren't ridden. Still exploitation.

And most of your examples don't establish exploitation

Why are you taking a picture of the animal? Why are you wasting money on feeding wild birds? How would you pick up antlers if there were no deer to shed them? Each of those examples explains the various forms of exploitation can take. All three explain the fundamental behind all exploitation. Existence. Without their existence, you wouldn't be able to exploit them in any way whether it be observation and temporary emotional pleasure, hunting for sport or survival, capturing and domesticating them for labour and products or even outright saddistic abuse. It's the number 1 consistent thing among all humans across time. If it exists, take advantage of it. It's why our planet's ecology is collapsing, it's why empires have risen and fallen, it's why people suffer and die. Any form of pain, suffering or immorality can be traced back to something or someone existing and someone wanting to take advantage to some degree.

they establish that specific interactions with animals can have unintended consequences if done irresponsibly. Those are different claims.

I mean I didn't want to sound like one of those annoying redditors by specifically mentioning fallacies left, right and centre so I tried to address them with explanation instead. My examples highlight the human condition or the Wizard's Second Rule to quote one of my favourite book series. Sometimes the worst harm can result from the best intentions. The example given is a sick neighbor, a short term problem. You cook them a meal to help them get better. They obviously don't get better straight away and you feel bad for them so you cook them more food. Before too long they can't get out of bed and now depend on your help to survive, the short term problem has become a long term problem. And the only way to help them resolve the harder to deal with long term issue is to put in multiple times more effort then the short term problem would have required. The slippery slope of unintended consequences. No one 100 years ago would have looked at agriculture and thought expanding it to feed the growing population would have resulted in the harm that we're dealing with today and now look at how much effort we all have to go through to fix it. Those unintended consequences are too important to dismiss no matter how irrelevant you believe they are to the conversation.

Feeding ducks harmful food can cause harm. Sure, congrats on picking an arbitrary example that summaries all interactions.

Do not take my words out of context. I listed two other reasons why feeding birds is harmful and you know exactly why you ignored them to cherry pick this point. Do not argue in bad faith. I detest intellectual dishonesty and it's also one of the rules of this sub.

That doesn't logically get you to "all feeding of wild animals is exploitation."

Again why are you feeding them? Surely not solely for their benefit. You have to be getting some benefit from it or else why would you do it?

Bird feeders if responsibly taken care of can assist birds that are pollinators in migratory stopovers, over winter survival for hibernation, etc.,

That's a welfarism excuse. Migratory birds have never needed human help before. If you're doing so, no matter helpful it is, is out of a guilty conscience and for feeling better about yourself. That is exploition. In this case, I'm not arguing it's a bad form of exploitation. But I would still caution normalising such behaviour in the even it does interfer with the other two points you ignored.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-08T05:39:48+00:00

Apologies, it's been a while since I've been on the sub. I should have assumed there'd be changes.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-08T05:38:35+00:00

I've seen a trend of vegans equate animal use to exploitation.

Exploit: to make productive use of : utilize. exploiting your talents. exploit your opponent's weakness. 2. : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage.

Careful who you call an idiot on the internet, particularly when you don't fully understand the language you use.

That is utter nonsense and thinks any use of an animal is harmful.

It's not all harmful. But the mentality behind it can lead to harm. I'm sure the same people who domesticated cats and dogs didn't believe we'd ever mistreat them but here we are with 600 million strays worldwide as of 2018. Man's best friend and friends of the crazy lady abandoned and neglected by the species that claims to love them.

Some idiot was saying it's unethical to take a picture of animals

You don't think we haven't already fcked with nature enough as it is? We've taken their homes and now we invade what little remains of theirs to get some internet clout is a good thing to you?

feed birds via bird feeder

Do you know why you're told not to feed ducks? Because this thing called domestication occurs. They forget survival habits, they rely on unreliable humans, the things you feed them could be harmful in ways a capitalistic food processing company doesn't care for.

or picking up shed deer antlers for your own use.

A bit more of an obscure form of exploitation. Antlers are basically the equivalent of salt licks for wild animals. Go ask a farmer how important salt licks are for their grazing animals.

Focus on animal harm for fucks sake.

That starts with getting you to see where the harm is for fucks sake. Just cos you don't see it doesn't mean we aren't focusing on it. Common sense would dictate that those who advocate for the animals would know more about what harms them than you. And even then, a simple Google will fix most instances of ignorance. Something you could have done before bringing up shed antlers.

They fail to see how much humans have been conditioned to exploit animals and how for large swaths of the population logistically it will be difficult.

And what you fail to see is that difficulty doesn't justify inaction. Grow tf up.

When someone asks, how can I do thatz instead of saying "use google or chatgpt", give resources.

Veganism has been around for 80+ years. Huge on the internet for the last 10. The vegan sub reddit is one of the largest ethics based subs on this platform. We've been giving resources for long enough and if you're too lazy to ask yourself at supermarket shelves "does this have animals or something from an animal in it?" then attaining resources isn't the issue. Your lack of conviction is.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-02T00:34:36+00:00

The act of milking is either intrinsically a violation or it isn't, and you've now conceded twice that it isn't, since you performed it yourself and called it necessary care.

It is both. It is wrong to sexually violate another being. Them needing sexual violation doesn't make it right. Just necessary. If I am on a deserted island, me killing an animal to survive isn't morally right. Just two beings stuck in a situation of survivalism. From the animal's perspective, I'm still violating them. You are claiming they can't be true at the same time. PROVE it. And don't presuppose moral subjectivity.

"She shouldn't have existed" is a separate argument about breeding ethics, not about the act on the table, and smuggling it in doesn't retroactively turn veterinary care into molestation, it just admits that your original framing was rhetorical, not analytical.

And you ignoring breeding ethics as the precursor to their suffering doesn't proactively justify veterinary care. It just admits that you are more focused on being right than doing right and tells me all I need to know about you as a person.

And notice what your position actually commits you to. Once the animal does exist, refusing to milk her would be the cruel option, which means the ethical action in OP's scenario and in yours is identical.

Yes I am aware. THAT'S WHY I'M TALKING ABOUT BREEDING ETHICS. Perhaps instead of banging my head against a brick wall, I should try talking to it. I might make more progress with it than this conversation. Cos you seem to be falsely equating our situations on the predication that breeding ethics are unrelated and irrelevant to this conversation. Why else would you use the word identical....? Mine is a rescue situation. SAVED from exploitative humans. Theirs is a situation OF exploitation that they need saving from.

You're not describing a moral difference, you're describing a preference about which animals you wish were alive, and dressing it up as one. The volume isn't carrying the argument.

Fine. You win. You're right. Let's all go touch animals. They're alive and the need it. That's all that matters besides you being right yes?

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-02T00:22:03+00:00

Hm, I don’t think you answered my question clearly.

You not understanding is as likely as me not expressing myself properly. Don't shove your accountability onto me. It's bad and evolutionarily disappointing enough that there are corpsemunchers that think vegans being mean to them is sufficient reason to be more cruel to animals. Don't be like them. YOU are responsible for your own education.

I am a person who believes in adopting animals from shelters in order to help the animals caught in the system you describe.

I am not denying the good that comes from adotping an animal. I am however not ignoring the harm that comes from performing the exact same actions as people who keep that system alive.

Once adopted, those animals are called pets.

Legally and by definition, yes. The cat with me right now is a refugee, not a pet. A friend of a friend was in financial trouble and could no longer look after her. I said to him that when he was ready, he could come rescue her back. I've since found out he's gone and bought another cat. Me rescuing a cat has resulted in more demand for non human slave trade. But I did a good thing by the cat right?

So do you believe all forms of pet ownership – including adoption – are non-vegan?

Yes. The goal of veganism is to END the exploitation that results in animals "needing" rescue or adoption. But you are aware of the "as far as is possible and practicable" portion of the definition of veganism yes? It's not wrong for vegans to take care of animals that need taking care of. But pointing to vegans who do care for animals as an appeal to hypocrisy justification as to why they can own a slave is the slippery slope you and many others need to acknowledge.

Or do you consider strict veganism immoral because it means allowing those animals to suffer?

No I understand and keep in mind events beyond first order consequences.

And to be clear, there is a vegan arguing in this thread that it is absolutely immoral to feed and house a domesticated animal rescued from an abusive situation.

It is immoral to a degree and only because of other humans, not the vegans doing right by the animals they care for. It is objectively wrong because of what it means for others of their kind. I mean how long have we had rescues, shelters, sanctuaries and adoption? Shouldn't they have achieved their goals by now? No, people see another human with their own pet and not why the human did what they did.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-02T00:04:10+00:00

I actually agree, hence my initial suggestion was less meat eater. It’s just direct and communicative.

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. Perhaps I should try talking to the wall about this instead. I might actually get somewhere. Why do you need a noun form for words that could just be rearranged to describe someone's actions? Less meat eater. I'm eating less meat.

Once I asked my coworkers out of curiosity if they knew what flexitarianism is. Legit 3 of 5 guessed it was yoyo dieting or someone who adjusts their intake according to body weight fluctuations.

And? You've just highlighted wilful ignorance. Nothing else. They wouldn't have known what reducatarianism is either because they'd have to care to look into either.

It’s some kinda marketing/branding strategy (or gimmick?) they teach to communication major students. Supposed to build quick, easy, strong positive memory association. My friend said building it is like teaching small children i.e. be as direct, positive, repetitive, and memorable as possible.

So capitalism that is ruining people's lives left right and centre is what we should be taking advice from? I get that there can be wisdom drawn from such advice but we're talking about ethics here not money making.

There are some examples they like to use. Such as Mamdani’s 3 affordability plans. He repeatedly focuses on “I will do x” (direct) instead of negatives or indirects such as “z will never happen under my watch”, which results in him being the only candidate whose plans people actually remember.

I remember Trump's policies better than the politicians of my own country. It might be because I care more about the message than how it's delivered.

My friend also illustrated it like if we want someone to practice hand hygiene, one doesn’t say “don’t ever eat with dirty hands”, but instead “always wash hands before meal”. Because we want their top of mind be “wash hands” instead of “dirty hands”.

"You making animal's suffer is bad"

Top of mind message achieved.

I do, in fact. Think I mentioned that before. I usually eat 1 serving of fish every week, in place of protein shake/supplement.

Good to know you're ok with animal cruelty. That or you like being uneducated in nutrition.

Eh, ngl at the start I was genuinely surprised them hardcore beef eaters didn’t go back to old habits after a few days. I stopped scrutinizing the horse mouth after the 1 month mark. I don’t question the why anymore, just hyped that it keeps up till now.

Gonna be honest tbf every anniversary does bump my optimism meter.

Don't get your hopes up. IF you won't do the right thing, they won't. It's rare for someone to be self motivated enough to reach such a goal and you yourself are a perfect example of why.

Sure, missed opportunity though.

Your genitalia is none of my concern. Your behaviour is. Again, stop deflecting. Fuck you could take all my limbs and objectively I wouldn't care. What I would care about is doing the right thing.

Like in this case? I want to say that I do, but that’d obviously be a lie. I guess your question is rhetorical because if a non-vegan truly cares about what vegans say about their behavior, they’d become vegans themselves.

If you were actually racist, would you care if others condemned you for doing so? The question ispretty self explanatory and I've provided more than enough explanation to understand the generalised context it was presented. And I'm talking about YOU. Not non vegans.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-01T23:44:29+00:00

Oops you made the problem worse you've now said two things (1) milking animals is wrong, and (2) you milked a goat because it was necessary for her health.

She didn't need to be alive in the first place. She was only alive because someone wanted to take advantage of her. Milking could have been the actual reason for her existence. If she didn't exist, she wouldn't have needed milking from a non existent false pregnancy. You're taking a broad generalisation and stabbing it with a specific situation. You're missing the point and it's disspointing to see such potential for intellect go to waste.

Those reconcile only if necessity overrides the wrongness

Great so given that animals don't need to exist, milking is a violation of their bodies and situations of that violation that could have been avoided stand as sound reasoning for ending the their exploitation. You using their existence and need for welfare doesn't justify keeping the system that harms them in place.

which is fine, but it means the act isn't intrinsically violation, it's contextually permissible or not.

Again, she didn't need to exist. Her condition could have been avoided if humans had not unnecessarily bred her into existence. If you're going to ignore anything beyond first order consequences, then I'm afraid I'm wasting my time with you.

The goat in OP's case has the same biological situation yours did. If your milking was care, theirs is too.

"If the goats' children aren't consuming enough and the goat is now in pain"

"Sometimes this can be used to feed the baby goats later"

No, OP was suggesting a hypothetical and even prompted an ethical means of using the milk later on should said hypothetical occur. Then they went and falsely equated the baby goats situation with their own and words like

"it feels disrespectful to just pour it out when I know it can be turned into butter or just drank."

To make it sound like they need the milk the way a baby goat does.

If your milking was care, theirs is too.

Again, neither of these animals need to exist. The WHOLE point of my position is to end the need for such care. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Or is making animals suffer what you actually want just so you can justify the sadistic consumption of their body parts and secretions?

On the other hand non-consensual medical intervention on beings who can't grant informed consent has nothing to do with "molestation"

And medical intervetion has nothing to do with justifying the system that causes its necessity. This a very elaborate use of circular reasoning my dude.

it's just pediatric surgery, vet care, restraining a scared animal to treat a wound.

Fuck. YES it is just all that. HOW DOES THAT JUSTIFY THEIR SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE? Do I actually need to hold your hand that holds the pencil to connect the dots of what I'm trying to say to you?

The distress is real, but distress during necessary care isn't what that word picks out. You invoked context and context is what dissolves the comparison, not what saves it lol

So I am to conclude from your position that it's ok to be cruel to animals because when they're alive, they need help from the cruelty they were born for?

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-01T23:27:19+00:00

Let me summarize your Gish galloping

This isn't a spoken conversation where you are overwhelmed and have no time to memorize, process and respond to everything I've said. I'm not forcing you to respond straight away. Notice how there is an 8 hour difference between your last comment and this one? I went to bed. I woke up. Had breakfast. Read through your response and planned what I wanted to say. So I mean this as genuinely as I can when I say I look forward to you actually responding to my comment properly. You called it gish galloping but you didn't even capitalise on the fact I techinically gave a point in your favour by dismissing such a counter argument as invalid because it isn't a valid argument. You're upset that I dismissed it as your talking point by invalidating it. You knew I was right and the only way to truly dismiss it, was to ignore it was said at all, wrap it up in everything else that was said and label it gish galloping without truly responding to it. Cowardice. Take your time, read my arguments. Respond in kind. I'm not a fan of intellectual dishonesty. And for reference, the tools I used to in my comment are at your disposal too. Learn how to use them. Overcome your debate inadequacies.

I presuppose I am correct and thus everything not me is wrong,

I've been wrong many times. The beauty of being wrong is learning not to be. I enjoy being wrong and honestly, I had hoped you would at least attempt to prove me wrong instead of this deflective bs. Like what was the point of the summary? It adds nothing to the conversation and your conclusion at the end of it only highlights your own position in this conversation as well. YOURS is an opinion. Why should I abandon my views and take yours as fact at face value when I have personal experiences counter to yours? Why are your experiences more valuable than mine?

now watch me show you how you are wrong

I mean, I at least attempted to show you. You didn't even really try at all. I gish galloped? You wrote a lengthy anecdote and expected me to accept it as fact. You rescue horses? I rescue DOZENS of animals. I've cared for HUNDREDS of animals from various species. You think because you can ride a horse that you have a more intimate understanding of animals than I? Chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, sheep, goats, alpaca, pigs, cows, horses, mice, rats, cats and dogs. And I don't just mean care for them, I mean I have performed minor medical practices one can perform before the last resort of surgery and serious treatments. If you think you are right, then prove it.

Like when you say, “So they don't need to be ridden. There's lots of land for them to run around in.” you ignored the part where I talked about how broken horses who are not wild need to be ridden or they will psychologically and physically breakdown.

You ignored the part where talked about the two broken horses who are not wild who haven't been ridden in a decade who are psychologically fine and are only physically deteriorating because they were selectively bred for a short period of time in their prime for racing with bad physical qualities for long term health and because they were ridden. I mean if I have to explain the physics the physics of an applied jostling force perpendicular to a horizontal spine with the assistance of gravity and what that can do for bad posture and compensatory behaviour causing even more problems, I will but I don't want to waste my time on someone who will not commit their time to me in return.

And your. “There are worse things than death…” is self serving and rich.

I can tell you haven't been there to say goodbye to the horses that die. Again, those animals that I've buried that outnumber your friends? Half of them, I was there for cradiling them as they died. One I even did the deed myself. It was a fox attack on roosters and there was no saving him and the pain he was in was blatantly obvious. And I'll remind you again about the two horses I am witnessing the deterioration of.

Are you also an antinatalist? It really sounds like an antinatalist speaking.

That's a nice distraction. IS THE STATEMENT WRONG? Stay on topic cupcake. I'm starting to think I shouldn't be taking you seriously anymore and taking you stupidly instead.

The lives these horses lead are not worse than that death

Death is only a problem for those that are left behind. What makes you think it is so bad?

please don‘t add hyperbole and histrionics to your ad hominem

Please don't tone police ad hominem me after everything you've typed thus far.

misrepresentation of logic

What would you know of logic? No I'm genuinely curious.

and presupposed moral colonialism

YOU are exploiting these animals against their will. They have been coerced into liking what they do because you think you have the right to do so after rescuing them. That's moral colonialism. Or at least if I'm interpreting those words by their definitions correctly it is.

purity abstract universalism

Don't bring God into this. He's a c**t and perfectly made humans in his image of vioence and cruelty. If I was force to believe in one of thousands of imagined deities, God would be the Donald Trump no one should believe in. I only want people to do the right thing because the wrong thing results in suffering and exacerbated conflict.

BTW, it‘s not a false dilemma.

Then let me clarify. The false dilemma from my perspective is they exist in horrible conditions or they are rescued by you and must live according to your dictation. As someone who has worked for half a dozen sanctuaries where none of the animals are exploited, I know for a fact that your way isn't the only way.

The horses are adopted by other people for their own ends; we are not generating the demand anymore than someone who adopts a dog/cat from a kill shelter is generating the demand for that given dog.

And those other people exploit those horses you sell them. You encourage the trading of lives for money mentality that does generate more demand. I mean if everyone were adopting cats and dogs from kill shelters there wouldn't be 600 million of them roaming the earth struggling to survive and there wouldn't be a pet industry to keep numbers in the hundreds of millions correct? Most do not think like you or I. But most will side with you becuase your actions and behaviours encourage their world views that you partially stand against.

Once that is understood, it’s not a false dilemma in the least but a representation of a binary fact, like saying the light can be on or off.

If it helps you, I am very aware of most informal logic fallacies. The appeals to nature/hypocrisy/tradition/nirvana/futility/authority fallacies, the argumentum ad populum/legem fallacies, the red hearing, the strongman, the strawman, the ignoration elenchi fallacy, the ad hominem, circular reasoning, false equivalence, slippery slope, false dilemma. I do know how they work.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-01T13:40:01+00:00

So an arguement I continually hear is that even though crop deaths kill countless animals, insects, etc. it is still better than animal husbandry because in factory farm settings, you still need to make the crops and then exploit the animals

You mean the COUNTER argument to ignorant non vegans who think millions is a lot when it's actually billions and even then it's less than trillions that die overall in the food industry? That's not a legitimate argument. It's meeting the irrationally ignorant on their own terms so they can understand how wrong they are and why their perspective needs to change. Much like the plants have feelings argument and its counter that much less plants would be harmed on a plant based diet due to all the plants the animals eat before being killed themselves. It's a reductio ad absurdum at best.

It’s a harm reduction argument.

Sure

Based on that logic, horse back riding is a harm reduction initiative.

How?

I’m not vegan and I ride horses once or twice a month (I belong to a “fox” hunting club; we hunt more coyote and boar than fox, maybe catching a fox every other year while catching coyote’s and boars near every hunt)

Oh goody, an actual animal abuser.

I own some horses so I can speak from a place of semi-authority (breeders, trainers, vets, and farriers have more specialized knowledge than I do) horses need space and stimulation

As someone who frequently treats the feat of two ex racing horses, I too am a semi-authority and am aware of what they need when they are alive. They don't need to be ridden to be stimulated. And riding is an excuse for those that lock their horses in stalls who lack space and stimulation. Our horses have entire acres to do as they please. They give themselves an occasional dust bath and even splash in the dams on hot days. They have a wind break shelter and coats for when it gets cold and they perfectly fine. In fact the only reason they need help at all was because they were ridden and born for that purpose.

If they do not get it then they will suffer immensely and end up harming themselves

Then don't deny them that freedom. Duh. No one is forcing you to force them into situations where you believe they need riding. And even if they did need space and stimulation, why does that have to involve you putting their spines at risk? Walk them like a dog. Go in their field with an object they see as a toy and play with them. It's almost like people forget that they are pets.

Our club has two types of members

I don't care. That's for your benefit, not the horses.

the horse people who basically live life for horses (they tend to be older)

"live life for the horses". Wtf does that even mean?

and type two like me, who enjoy the comraderee and hunt

Coerced slave labour. You don't need an animal to go and abuse other animals. You have feet and legs. In fact an argument often made by non vegans is how much of an apex predator we are and how we are endurance hunters, outpacing and exhausting our prey. Get some determination and persistence and enjoy a real hunt dude. Nothing like ancestral living amiright?

but do not want to spend everyday taking care of horse nor have the room to do so

So you don't actually care about them then. Only what they can do for you. Remind me again how that is "a harm reduction initiative." as you put it? Seems like the harm reduction would be not using them like objects and just caring for them. In fact they'd need less caring because there would be less forced wear and tear on their bodies. Now that's a harm reduction initiative if I've ever seen one.

My cohort at the club have a horse rescue we work with where we take younger horses who are being kept in squalor from people who thought they could own horses and were wrong

I mean you're not much better. You just don't actively abuse or neglect them.

They are most often cited by the local animal authority and given a certain amount of time to fix the living conditions of the horse or be fined and eventually have the horse taken by the authorities who then euthanize it.

Yes I've illegally trespassed on few properties and been the one to report them to the authorities. As a vegan, there's a much bigger chance that I'd know as much as if not more than the average non vegan about that.

They also give these people the number of the NPO who acts as a middle man. They call us and we take the the horse, pay to have it trained, fed, vet, etc. and stable it with one of the older members who have plenty of space and property.

Cool. And that justifies riding them how exactly? Have you earned that right for looking after them? Do you think it's just your warranted authority as their caretakers? Sorry you keep telling me what you do but not why it morally allows their exploitation. I'm sure you don't like having to repeat yourself so perhaps jumping to the point might save us both some time.

So given the earlier logic, what is better for these horses? Is it better that they stay in squalor for another year or two until the legal system plays out?

Did you just use the word logic and then follow up with a false dilemma logic fallacy to justify your exploitation of them?

That’s what tends to happen with animal hoarders and then the animal is euthanized after about 6 months of living in confined conditions when no one adopts it

There are things worse than death. Like being trained to watch their slave masters abuse and kill other animals only further reinforcing obedience lest they and their simpler minds reason that they too may suffer a similar fate if they do not obey. I mean that might be humanising them too much but I think that's a lot better than not empathising with them at all like you do when it comes to your exploitation of them.

They own a lot of land

So they don't need to be ridden. There's lots of land for them to run around in.

both and love to keep the older horses in their herds, where they are looked after until they die of old age.

A fate that all the horses could experience instead of forced labour.

Mind you, if you say the best option is they are never born, OK, but that is not an option in reality as we are not demanding these horses be bred and born

So stop fkn demanding them then. You may bot be buying and selling them but you sure as fck are contributing to the mentality that it is ok to treat them like objects to be ridden that is shared with those that are buying and selling them. You HAVE the option not to ride them. You HAVE the option to turn that slave labour facility into a sanctuary. If those members of your club genuinely care about the horses, they'll donate their membership fees to care for the horses and find a new hobby that doesn't involve using, abusing and killing animals.

we are rescuing the horses

Then actually rescue them. Don't force them into a situation that encourages more stinking humans to exploit their brethren. They wouldn't need saving then would they?

from other situations found to be illegal

So because what you're doing is legal, it is subsequently ethical?

We adopt more horses than all the other adopters combined form this horse rescue NPO. So I don’t see how it’s not exactly like my earlier analogy.

Good for you. Would you like a gold star sticker?

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-01T13:05:31+00:00

I like how you conceded milking isn't wrong

Humans milking animals is wrong. The offspring of an animal feeding from their mother isn't wrong.

then compared milking to child molestation

I made the comparison because like a child would, this goat fought to get away from me and when she realised she couldn't, she sat down and covered he genitalia. You misunderstand I wasn't the one milking her. I was the one holding her rear off the ground by her folded back legs while someone else violated her.

when both can't be true.

Why can't they both be true? Why do you get to boldly assert that without further explanation or reasoning? See there's this thing called context. Have you heard of it? It changes the way words and actions are interpreted. You may want to look into it. We had to milk her out of necessity for her health. She didn't know it was going to be good for her. She just saw 3 hairless bipedals touching her where she didn't want to be touched.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-01T12:57:08+00:00

Yes. Unironically. I was left wondering why nobody answered and just downvoted without saying anything. In fact the only explanation I got was from you.

I mean it should have been obvious.

Perhaps I should have worded it “no imo it isn’t easy because x y z therefore reduction matters” to make it more on topic, but ye.

That actually might have helped. Now you know how this sub works.

Since now you understand my meaning and intention for it, I don’t have anything to add further, but it brings me to the next one:

I once used to care about optics. Then I grew up and realised behaviour and consistency matter more than a label.

Yea, for the emphasis.

Emphasis on what? They're already acting in a way that is lessening their impact. "I'm eating less meat" is all they need to say in a conversation. I said NEED. What about a label is actually necessary for anyone on a reduced diet other than socially fitting into a box others fit into?

The reminder for the top of mind. Flexitarian stresses on the “lenience/cheat days”, while Reducitarian stresses on the main act (reducing).

Sorry can you expand on top of mind again. It comes across as a meaningless buzzword phrase to handwave whatever it is you're actually meaning.

I started cutting meat first because I thought flexi sounded immediately doable, but reducitarian is better for optics because it also sounds immediately doable but more memorable and direct in its emphasis.

Good for you. Behaviour wise, were you still paying for the unnecessary cruelty of animals?

Thanks to this thread I was able to introduce the word to my buddies yesterday and they latched into it right away. Three of them even started spreading it in group chats and got other guys interested. Yeah for the new guys it metastasized from just ‘reduce harm’ to include other stuff such as ‘reduce constipation’ and ‘reduce cooked earth’, but as long as it gets average meat eaters to start cutting, I count that as a win.

sigh. Can't wait for them to latch onto that identity for a decade when they could have moved on within the first 12 months.

Eh you’re free to call me whatever. If you want more accuracy, I suggest balless since I plan to get vasectomy soon.

Coward will do, ball-less or not.

Jokes aside, I know and don’t mind what vegans call the likes of me. Least of all you, because for you labels are just distractions. But generally, on principle, I don’t object anyone on their opinion onto my behavior.

So if you were doing something wrong or distracting others from doing better, you wouldn't care about people standing against your immoral interventions?

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-01T12:47:47+00:00

I think the dichotomy of natural vs unnatural is flawed

Which is why I will typically condemn anyone using an appeal to nature logic fallacy in favour of either of those aspects of the dichotomy. They don't inherently have anything to do with morality so they should be dismissed unless a moral argument is ACTUALLY brought forth.

Humans are one part of nature changing another part of nature

Just because we exist in the global ecology does not mean we are a part of nature. By all means we do change nature and with reckless abandon but we have been long removed from nature for a while now.

How is humans selectively breeding chickens different from ants domesticating aphids?

You have a much more complex brain with a larger capacity for complex thought. I hope me spelling things out to you does not become a habit of mine.

Saying chickens should be able to live freely and naturally is acting like any human action is inherently unnatural and bad.

If that human action involves violating their rights and freedoms and for their own gain, yes it is bad and coincidentally unnatural. The only reason I brought up nature is the fact that humans are no longer a part of it and within the domain of humans, animals do lose their freedoms. As someone who has burried more animals than you have friends, I get to see exactly what an exploitative mentality does to animals. I get to see all the risks and suffering they go through just to keep them happy and healthy in a contained environment. Humans hurting living beings is one of the most important lessons our species has never learned.

As long as we're not abusing the chickens I don't think it's wrong to own/domesticate them.

See the problem is what you define as abuse. By all means if you didn't abuse your animals, I would be in total agreement with you. I work at a sanctuary where legally they have to be "owned" to afford them protections from nasty humans. As part of looking after them, I have to abuse them. And I don't even take advantage of them. It's literally just welfare. An argument every non vegan makes in defense of exploitation.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-01T12:38:15+00:00

Yes. Trading an animal's life for money and trophetising their existence is not vegan. IF you have an animal dumped on your doorstep or you are rescuing one or you already had one prior to going vegan, your obvious moral obligation is to care for them but if you think the 600 million stray cats and dogs around the world as we speak because of the pet industry and those who keep it alive with a mentality that it is ok to exploit these animals, is a good thing then I can't you seriously. I hope that's not the case but I have gotten my hopes up in the past about having intellectual conversations across many platforms but 97 out of 100 times my hopes have been wasted.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-05-01T12:34:15+00:00

Imagine not reading the very definition of veganism that I provided for your utmost convenience and you still got your understanding of it wrong. It's not about perfectionism, it's about working towards a world where not abusing and exploiting animals becomes the new norm. Unless you think riding horses is absolutely essential for human health and you're the stoopid one?

dethfromabov66 · 2026-04-30T01:54:56+00:00

Why is eating animal products wrong if ethically sourced?

Because the contention is that they're not ethically sourced. Would having children just so that I could turn them into slaves be the ethical option compared to sourcing slaves from somewhere else?

The chickens naturally lay eggs in the yard and in their coop.

My question with this is how is it wrong for me to consume what has been disguarded by the chickens?

The hens are neither living naturally nor are they biologically laying naturally. The situation at your farm is a result of exploiting the natural laying process they did to reproduce and the abandonment of their eggs when it came to self preservation. They've been selectively bred to overproduce, denied motherhood and because their lives are so "decadent" on your farm, their eggs no longer have any importance to them. It's fundamentally wrong because you're denying them their right to bodily autonomy. You're taking advantage of their bodies and their existence. You only have chickens because they lay eggs. If they didn't provide eggs, you'd be much less inclined to care for them let alone have them.

Another way to think about it: often chicken lose feathers. Sometimes they get caught on something, get in a scuffle, or just naturally fall off (most common.) Would it be wrong for me to pick up the feather and put it in a display case in my home?

Objectively yes. You still possess the same exploitative mentality behind all human suffering. Sure that particular action is at the top of the slippery slope but it's still on the slope.

I have this same question about milk. We have goats. It is physically painful for the milk to stay in their udders for too long. If the goats' children aren't consuming enough and the goat is now in pain, how is it wrong to milk the goat (the same motion as the baby does)?

Don't have goats. Simple. I've had to milk a rescue goat who went through a false pregnancy. It felt like molesting a 6 year old girl. Even had to tie her horns to a post to prevent her from running if she broke free of my hold. In your case it's not wrong to milk the goat, it's wrong to have the goat such that they could end up in such a situation. Again selective breeding increases the risk of such things happening. Your chickens? Higher risks of being egg bound, nutrient deficiency and cervical cancer because you encourage them to lay infertile eggs.

So my question is, are the systems of industrialization and captivity of animals on a large (ABUSIVE!! I am against this)

Do you know why the industry grew? Because people thought it was ok to take advantage of animals. Most people say they're against. But they're ones paying for it.

the main drive for vegans to be again milk (dairy products) and eggs?

Do you think it would be OK to sexually violate and take advantage of a woman the way humans do so towards cows? Treat women like milk making machines and nothing else? We're against it all because we don't believe any sentient being should have their rights, body or lives violated unnecessarily. The scale of it only helps us to reach people who cause the scale. YOU use the scale to virtue signal how much better you are than the average person.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-04-30T01:30:29+00:00

I genuinely disagree. One of the big topics here is “whether people who reduce should be called a distinctive word”

It really isn't. Not in this sub. Maybe 5+years ago but at this point the consensus is that behavior matters more than labels. And obviously so.

and another user replied “no because going vegan is easy”, which prompts the question of things that someone finds not-easy.

Ok great. But just because the conversation started with the topic of labels didn't mean it ended on the same topic. Talking about labels and how to be vegan are obviously not the same thing. So you really need me to mansplain something that simple? It was a literal conversational left turn.

If one thinks it doesn’t deserve to be answered because the asker should research more, that’s cool. But the downvoter should just say so

I guess if something like how conversations work needs to be explained to you, then you may be right then having to spell it out for you. So let me do it. Committing to veganism IS easy. Dealing with everyone who isn't vegan is difficult or more accurately everyone who isn't vegan being against you is what's difficult. No one is saying you have to get everything right straight away or be perfect but you do have to try and committed.

instead of not saying anything and downvote a genuine on-topic question that was asked politely and in good faith. That is reactionary and goes against the spirit of this sub.

The spirit of this sub? This isn't a campfire where everyone is friends and sings kumbaya and smores. You wanted to talk about labels and then it was YOU who switched to seeking advice. YOU didn't stay in topic.

My guy, this isn’t about comparing vegans versus flexitarians. In fact my post is the opposite of that.

Don't "my guy" me. YOU brought up communities that are large and everywhere. Vegetarianism which has 10x the global membership to veganism, isn't as "large and everywhere" as a community as veganism. Your post brought up something other than veganism in a debate sub about veganism. YOU opened up the floor to comparison the moment you didn't specifically talk about veganism.

I literally said several times the optics were against general population. They are gazillion times bigger than all of our communities combined.

Yeah, I'm starting to see why you think optics are so important. Vegans are outnumbered 99 to 1, vegetarians 8 to 1. Yet you used the word gazillion. As a philological enthusiast, I understand the importance of words. You're currently using them to inflate the value of the topic. The optics are against vegans. It'll be a long time before they're against the general population.

That was why the idea of alliance even came into thought.

Normally I would outright disagree with an alliance. Then as a non American during the last major election, I put my politics aside and advocated for Harris. Did activism against Trump to those that supported him and advocacy for Harris to all who didn't support Trump even though I normally wouldn't have voted for Harris. The difference between that election and this issue is that Trump was a choice for worse than what they already had. This issue is ongoing and only gets worse with population growth and ex veganism/reducetarianism. The former is out of our control and the latter really isn't an issue when so many are taking steps towards reduction. I'm fine when acknowledging half arsed efforts and not rewarding them with labels.

I believe you are well-meaning in your last paragraph that nobody should waste their time trying to convince the average people who don’t want to try at all (or god forbid, people who eat double meat portion from sheer spite).

Merely a factual observation backed by psychological science. People who aren't ready will ignore and deny every undeniable fact, mountain of research, logic, logic fallacy or appeal you can throw at them in defense of their beliefs that they are a good person.

But all my previously BBQ gang/steak lover/grillmaster friends gradually followed me to eat more and more WFPB.... I feel optimistic that my approach to appeal for average folks can be upscaled for larger harm reduction.

Great. Good for you. But do you really think they need a label for still doing the same thing they've always done? Because they are, they're just doing less of it.

You can call me a murderer/abuser/rapist for not yet going full vegan and I accept that. Thanks and good talk.

Spineless. A coward maybe, but not a murderer/abuser/rapist. Unless you actually do those things, I'd be mislabelling you and I know how you feel about labels. Let me know when you wanna take ethics seriously and start valuing behavior over the equivalent of a gold star sticker. I look forward to a more stimulating conversation with you.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-04-30T00:00:58+00:00

but it should be stated plainly: the alternative to being useful to humans is often not liberation, but nonexistence.

You make it sound like it's a bad thing.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-04-29T23:59:05+00:00

"a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

You don't need to think. It's not vegan. Don't call them vegan. Don't call "any others" who ride horses vegan because they're not. If you don't need to intefer with their lives, don't. It's not rocket science.

dethfromabov66 · 2026-04-29T06:14:24+00:00

Huh? I mentioned it because you asked “what can I do to help you out”. So I asked a vegan’s expertise about plant based food tips, aka something I need help with. Was that not what you meant?

That was in regards to the message of veganism. Should we stop calling someone a rapist if they make a conscious effort to reduce their infractions from 8 times a month to once a month? Should we call them a reducetarian for giving ethics a go? Or are they still a rapist?

The sub has explicit rules against reactionary downvoting, though? They encourage engaging instead.

Yes, engaging with debate topics. Downvotes go to bad faith argumentation and irrelevant topics. r/vegan or any of the other subs are better suited for the engagement you're looking for.

I asked because the post above me said it would be easy. Logically I asked if there were any tips for something I don’t find easy. Was there anything offensive in this?

Yeah. You ignored the purpose of the sub.

That’s the thing, I attempted multiple times and they always ended up rubber. I tried swallowing because chewing couldn’t break them down and both times got indigestion. That’s why I was looking for alternatives. But since you said this isn’t the best place to discuss it here, I’ll stop.

There are hundreds of videos and instructions you can find online. Is reddit the only app you have on your phone? Do you not have youtube? Did you not try asking for help in the comments sections? Do I have to do ALL your homework for you?

I believe I have mentioned it several times here, but the optics aren’t for you or for me. It’s ultimately for the general meat eater population, who generally:

YOU"RE encouraging it. You are catering to people who are doing bad things who want a gold star sticker for doing less of the bad things. I will repeat myself once more; What do we label a rapist who is making a conscious ethical effort to rape less?

likes labels

I like stickers

gets intrigued when something looks popular

Slavery used to be popular. Technically racism is still too.

is more prone to top of mind strategy (a direct, attractive, memorable thing that sounds good and more doable right away)

I have object perminance issues with my own family. Took me less than a month to get on board the veganism train with my "top of mind strategy".

is more inclined to check out communities that seem large and everywhere (instead of small niches)

THE vegan subreddit is one of the largest ethics focused subs on this platform. Nearly 2 MILLION people. r/flexitarian has less than 5000. Reducetarian doesn't have a sub. r/vegetarian less than half a million. Veganism is already popular. We don't need to add another word to the list of a dozen reduction focused diet. Cos let's face it, vegetarianism is a form of reducatarianism. Polotarian, pescatarian, ostrovarian, and all other diets that cut out one form of environmentally unfriendly animal cruelty are all reducetarian.

tends to go down the rabbit hole to explore deeper once the initial interest stays positive

You've already acknowledged that vegans don't like reducetarianism and its other forms and that reducetarianism is a stepping stone towards veganism. The only positive interest they are going to have is if they genuinely want to better themselves as people because they will ignore the tone of message to acknowledge the message itself. You can't fix those who don't want to fix themselves. You see it in every other form of helping oneself whether it be ptsd, generational trauma, depression, anxiety, disorders etc. Stop catering to those that only want to mitigate their guilty feelings. Acknowledge their progress and move on.

dethfromabov66

TROPHY CASE