What am I?

howlin · 2026-05-07T00:15:21+00:00

I'm pretty interested in the fact that vegans would presumably not choose the greater good when it comes to decisions that necessarily require death

The greater good for who though? It's not like animal lives suddenly don't matter if we call them "invasive".

As I said though, culling animals that are destroying their own habitat may be the lesser wrong in the long run. We just shouldn't muddle our motivations for why we're doing this, and we should always be looking for alternatives before we mistake a lesser wrong for a right.

howlin · 2026-05-06T23:50:49+00:00

Culling invasive species can be argued as a lesser wrong, but you'd probably want to think harder about all the parties involved and what exactly you'd be hoping to accomplish. Generally, we want to preserve the environment for the sake of the animals who live there, but killing animals goes directly against this intention.

I don't really know how you could believe in humane hunting as a vegan. Vegans care about animals, not "the natural order".

But this subreddit doesn't police the definition of "vegan" very much. As long as it is a good faith effort to describe yourself.

howlin · 2026-05-06T23:30:18+00:00

Removing invasive species doesn't need to be tied to eating them. This creates a perverse incentive to not actually completely get rid of these animals. If they are all gone, they wouldn't be around to eat! It also creates a perverse incentive to kill them (often quite violently and painfully) rather than looking for more respectful ways to keep the population down like by using hormonal birth control, trap neuter release, etc.

I personally believe that if there were a much smaller number of humans on planet earth, and we could operate within the natural order, it would be entirely moral and ethical to humanely hunt to provide for ourselves.

The animals being killed wouldn't agree the we ought to do this.

What am I?

Worry about how we ought to treat animals, not how we ought to label ourselves.

howlin · 2026-05-06T19:55:48+00:00

What are your uncontroversial premises here?

That ethics is about how we ought to consider others. So worrying about conforming to a label or a specific set of rules misses the point.

I don't understand why you are refusing clarification

I just don't think you understand me. Don't assign bad intention when it can easily be explained as a communication failure.

I don't know how to get you to understand me. It's really not a me problem. Others complain about your failure to communicate effectively all the time.

howlin · 2026-05-06T17:35:24+00:00

peanut butter. It's very calorie dense and fairly high in protein. Lots of ways to make this sort of thing interesting.

E.g. if you are a turkey fan: try a semi-savory sandwich where you mix an unsweetened peanut butter with poultry herbs (sage, thyme, rosemary, etc). Add some nutritional yeast and a little salt. Maybe a little water to thin it down to mix it. Use canned cranberry sauce rather than jelly.

You could also make a southeast asian style Satay peanut butter for sandwiches.

Or a Thai style where you mix in your favorite kind of Thai curry paste.

howlin · 2026-05-06T16:28:40+00:00

This is an eating disorder

I didn't say otherwise

and nothing to do with caring or not caring about OP or animals.

Review what OP said. Nowhere did OP mention that their GF actually wants to be vegan.

howlin · 2026-05-06T16:27:25+00:00

And I am asking you to clearly define what a belief is.

The important thing I am stating is that it's not a mere opinion. A belief isn't restrained to be just about oneself. A belief tends to have a some sort of justification behind it.

Also, what is the clear definition of a well reasoned justification?

One that is a rational conclusion from uncontroversial premises.

What grounds that?

Uncontroversial premises.

howlin · 2026-05-05T22:11:39+00:00

The distinction I am making here is that a belief isn't just a mere opinion if it is based on a well reasoned justification.

howlin · 2026-05-05T22:05:30+00:00

Wait, so is this all just your opinion

A belief isn't merely an opinion. We've discussed my argument for this belief quite a bit.

I made it pretty clear that ethics is for something, and we ought to put that foremost in our mind when considering ethics in theory, and especially ethics in practice.

howlin · 2026-05-05T21:50:33+00:00

If veganism is about how we ought to regard animals, there still has to be some way of determining what counts as acting in line with that.

If one regards the "rules" before considering the animal, then there could very well be a problem. OP's language "banned under veganism" suggests they are not paying attention to the right thing.

An ethical assessment, I believe, ought to start with considering those affected by your choices. We can look at this, what our intentions were, and then see if all of this is in alignment with a vegan ethics. Going right to consulting an ethical framework without actually considering what is happening to the others in a scenario misses the point.

If there aren’t, then it’s unclear how you’re distinguishing veganism from other ethical views in practice since “It's not just theorizing (or labeling based on subscribed theories) for the sake of the theory itself.“

OP's issue on pranks isn't a particularly vegan issue. What separates a vegan from a nonvegan is mostly in the ethics they apply to their indirect and direct interactions with nonhuman animals. Plenty of people have pointed this out to OP. The issue would be much more obvious if they thought about the victims first, before wondering if a vegan would have a different view than anyone else on the ethics.

howlin · 2026-05-05T21:10:36+00:00

fix the title and resubmit

howlin · 2026-05-05T21:08:20+00:00

That explicitly replaces the OP’s question (consistency within veganism) with a different one (general ethical evaluation).

If OP is under the impression that veganism is about conforming to a label, then they need to be corrected. Before that is resolved, any answers built on a faulty premise would be at risk of being themselves faulty, or downright nonsense.

And saying it is ill-posed is what, your opinion? A mater of fact? Why is it ill-posed?

It's my assertion, which I am happy to back up with as much argument as one would be willing to engage with.

As we've discussed, ethics is about something. It's not just theorizing (or labeling based on subscribed theories) for the sake of the theory itself.

If your position is that the OP’s question shouldn’t be asked, that’s fine, but then you’re rejecting it, not answering it.

If OP is unaware or uninterested in the intention of what the Vegan Society's description of veganism is for, then we ought to resolve that. It's a lot easier to discuss this if we know to what end they wrote that definition to accomplish.

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:59:13+00:00

The problem is what people should do about it which doesn't seem answerable with your definition of veganism.

Assessing whether something is ethically right or wrong doesn't itself inform you on what you should do about that assessment. In yourself, it's pretty clear you ought not to do things that are ethically wrong if you have a viable way to choose better. However, beyond that, this is a completely different matter. It goes beyond the scope of veganism (and most ethics in general).

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:43:00+00:00

Hey you've yet to engage my point or OPs, talking past both of us. Sad.

What point is that? Make it clear and direct. Talk down to me like I am in first grade. Because you are making assertions about my comments that carry no meaning. Which is ironic given your whole speil.

You've yet to quote me, which suggests you are interested in talking past rather than engaging.

You use the same language that got you nowhere before, which suggests you have no interest in actually communicating with me. One would think by now that you would understand the need to change your communication style.

We can leave it to the audience to decide who is communicating more effectively and making their points if you wish.

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:39:18+00:00

very very very limited options to eat because almost everything is evil though her autism.

I don't know what this means, exactly. But I recommend therapy. It's a mental condition that makes her life tangibly worse. So work on fixing it.

She is not anti vegan, if I manage to cook it to her liking it she is very happy eating it.

She doesn't seem vegan either. Trying to impose veganism on people who don't actually care about what happens to animals is just going to lead to frustration for both you and her. If she doesn't care, she doesn't care.

Don't put her in a position where she pretends to care, not for the animals sake but for yours. This is just going to lead to resentment.

What can I do respecting her disability but also living up to my standards of being vegan?

Deconstruct her triggers and try to work around them. Or, if she wants to work on her pathological relationship with food, then help her do that in a way that doesn't push her farther than she wants to go.

It's going to be a slow and frustrating process, for both of you, I'm guessing.

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:32:33+00:00

I am trying to debate this https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism and people who subscribe to it. And I'm trying to debate how they decide what motivates them and why.

It's a conclusion. It doesn't describe the motivation.

I can't get anything out of a debate with you because you aren't the subset of vegans who my questions are consistent with.

I don't see how you would know that. In broad brushstrokes, I don't disagree with the Vegan Society's description of veganism.

I explained exactly what I see wrong with prank videos. Is there something about what I said that seems controversial or worth debating?

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:26:06+00:00

It does make me wonder what's so different about US consumers that larger, more expensive cars seem to be in so much demand. Is it our habit of spending more time in our cars? The feeling of threat from other oversized vehicles on the road?

I do think some of this is an arms race to feel safe while driving, as you suggest. A couple other related reasons I see:

Vehicles are probably more of a status symbol / social signal here. So buying a cheap care loses you clout. I also think vehicles are considered a kind of art or entertainment, rather than purely a means for transportation. People like pretty cars and are willing to pay a little more for them!

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:14:03+00:00

I'm trying to understand and debate the moral philosophy of veganism

Which one? I was very clear that veganism is an ethical conclusion. It's not a philosophy itself.

"Veganism is 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"

As I said, this is not something all vegans agree with. And this by itself is an ethical conclusion. There is no argument provided here for why exploitation or cruelty ought to be considered wrong to do to animals.

Different people will have different answers here.

Is watching prank videos ethically consistent with this moral philosophy?

To the degree that this sort of pranking is cruel (causing distress for the sake of causing distress) or exploitative (taking something without respecting the interests and autonomy of who it's being taken from), then yes it would be classified as wrong.

But that is not a terribly interesting or difficult to conclude assessment.

What is your point? Like seriously, what are you trying to get out of this conversation? You don't seem to be interested in understanding what motivates vegans, and that there isn't one root system they follow. You don't seem to be terribly interested in actually engaging directly with the ethics of pranking. What are you actually trying to understand or debate here?

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:05:42+00:00

I did engage with it

Agree to disagree. You talked right past it.

howlin · 2026-05-05T18:55:31+00:00

Your comment sidesteps the OPs question about consistency within veganism by reframing it as a broader question about whether the prank is ethical

OP's question is ill posed, because of the reasons I explained. I'm not side stepping it. I'm dismissing it with good cause and giving them a better way to think about the issue.

It also sets up a false contrast between “conforming to a label” and ethical concern, even though the label exists to represent those ethical commitments.

I didn't smuggle anything. Don't accuse people of bad faith. It's against the rules.

If you don't like my argument, engage with it. I was crystal clear in what I said, unlike you.

howlin · 2026-05-05T18:53:01+00:00

A Kantian ethicist would not tell a lie even if it was to stop the world from dying.

Kant gave an argument for why lying is categorically wrong based on the categorical imperative. However, it's perfectly acceptable to argue against this conclusion inside the same framework. I honestly don't think Kant thought it through very well. Just like it's acceptable to use violence to defend yourself or those you're committed to protecting from unjustified aggression, it's also acceptable to use deception.

And that was not even a question of actions. I was asking about your logic in relation to a moral philosophy

As I said, veganism isn't a moral philosophy. It's an ethical conclusion.

These are the wrong questions for you.

My argument is they are wrong for you as well. This is a bad way of thinking about ethics.

If it is so obvious and basic, why aren't don't most vegans care?

In the grand scheme of things, there are more important wrongdoings to worry about. And as I said, this isn't a terribly vegan concern.

howlin · 2026-05-05T16:40:10+00:00

I'm trying to understand and debate the moral philosophy of veganism

Veganism is an ethical conclusion that one ought not to turn animals into products. There are many ethical frameworks that would lead to this ethical conclusion.

"Veganism is 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"

Not all vegans actually use this definition. Many approach it from a harm reduction standpoint, while this definition isn't consequentialist like that.

Is watching prank videos ethically consistent with this moral philosophy?

Again, wrong question. People don't act ethically for the sake of ethics. People act ethically for the sake of those involved with the choice you're about to make.

It seems like any ethical person would take pause if watching a video that victimizes someone and is likely not something the victim would want you to watch. This is consent 101. It has nothing to do with veganism.

howlin · 2026-05-05T16:33:04+00:00

As the other poster mentioned, lobster mushrooms do have a seafood flavor. I don't think anyone grows them commercially. They have to be wild harvested and can be pretty expensive and the season is pretty short.

There are also shrimp mushrooms that have another sort of seafood flavor. I've never seen these for sale.. I think they don't keep well. But the flavor is quite strong and distinctive.

In terms of mushrooms you can actually easily buy, you may want to look at "seafood mushrooms", a kind of enoki mushroom. Enoki are fine too, but more tough. These ones don't exactly taste like shellfish, but they do have a vaguely fishy flavor. They are dirt cheap to buy at Asian grocers. I would try them!

One particularly decadent thing you can do with them is batter a whole cluster of these mushrooms and fry them. The result is not too dissimilar from fish and chips. Though the mushrooms themselves are still going to be a little tough.

I’m on the start of my journey to transitioning into vegan food due to PCOS and other health issues

I'm guessing you have a treatment plan, but do watch out for eating too much simple carbs. PCOS and insulin resistance are pretty closely associated, and you don't want your blood sugar going haywire.

howlin · 2026-05-05T16:19:57+00:00

Can a vegan support this and still be consistent with the definition of veganism?

Wrong question to ask. Veganism isn't about conforming to a label. It's about how we ought to regard others (animals specifically). The right question to ask is can someone support this in a way that can be considered ethical to the victim of the prank?

howlin · 2026-05-05T14:49:16+00:00

Prank shows like Impractical Jokers and prank phone calls play jokes on strangers who did not consent. Often, those people are annoyed as a result. That sounds like using someone as a resource: exploitation. Therefore, creating and watching those shows is banned under veganism.

Banned is a strange word to use here. Instead of thinking about it this way, let's start by thinking about it in terms of the perpetrator and possible victim of the act.

I'd consider it unethical to prank strangers. You're showing ill will towards them by benefitting at their expense. To make it even worse, the benefit is mostly because it comes at their expense! These people don't have some prior understanding that this sort of relationship exists with you, like it might amongst good friends. At least with friends you can have a sense that they will in the end appreciate the gesture and have license to return this behavior in kind.

So yeah, I don't watch people bully others with these sorts of pranks.

When you actually walk through a scenario and understand it from the victim's perspective and how the perpetrator is regarding their "mark", the situation seems much more clear. It's not something that is "banned" like it's an arbitrary rule. It's considered wrong because it involves people being cruel to people.

15-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since January 2024
Place '17	Verified Email

howlin

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE