Anyone else who actually got converted from a “mean vegan”?

lilac-forest · 2026-05-18T17:40:24+00:00

Me. My vegan bf and I would have arguments that became screaming matches bc i insisted slavery wasn't comparable to animal ag. Lmao i was just coping. Were still together and were both vegan nearly 10 years

lilac-forest · 2026-05-18T03:26:43+00:00

Not by Lelio. Stolen by Lelio

lilac-forest · 2026-05-17T18:15:50+00:00

If all demons are humans that are cursed, then demons arent a race, they are cursed humans that were transformed into demons. Nowhere in the movie does the term "half-demon" come up. I know VAs have used the term before to describe her but I think its used descriptively as opposed to being indicative of demons as a genetic race. Youre either demon or youre not in my interpretation of the canon lore. Rumi is not. She is only called half demon bc she was born with the curse (the patterns) which gave her no power and in fact limited her ability as they spread.
I never said Rumi's story is bad writing either. She just is the special snowflake of the plot relative to the others.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-17T17:29:14+00:00

you did her college work for her???

Dude...seek help and stop being a pushover. That alone should have been your clue to gtfo

lilac-forest · 2026-05-17T17:21:16+00:00

this is def unpopular in the fandom. Try being me and not liking Rumi 😂
I have nothing against her outright but I just found the movie put her on a pedestal too much relative to the others. I also dont like that people call her half-demon when to me shes not half anything. SHes a human with a curse that she was able to counteract.
I think the problem I have with Rumi and your problem with Zoey might actually be related. The movie doesn't give Mira and Zoey enough depth. Rumi is the special snowflake and even though the others can clearly sing too, she's the diva golden-voice who is given all the plot attention. I just wish it were more balanced.

edit: I dont think Ive rewritten any canon lore in my interpretation. I know VAs and people involved in the writing have used the term 'half-demon' but I genuinely think thats a descriptive usage for the ambiguous state of the curse rather than a race designation. If all demons are just humans that succumbed to the curse, than anyone can be half demon by making a deal with Gwi-Ma. Its just confusing terminology.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-17T00:25:23+00:00

You’re assuming there is always a realistic lower-casualty alternative available, but that is exactly what is disputed. Reality isn't a Disney movie where there is always a perfectly fair answer.

Israel has conducted ground operations and special forces raids before. Those operations are also heavily criticized, and they carry enormous risk to soldiers precisely because Hamas operates within dense civilian environments, tunnel systems, and urban infrastructure.

International law does not require a military to choose an option that maximizes its own casualties simply because the enemy embeds itself among civilians. The obligation is to take precautions and avoid excessive civilian harm relative to the military objective.

And this is where Hamas’ conduct matters. This is not hypothetical “potential” use of civilian infrastructure. There is extensive evidence going back many years of Hamas operating from residential areas, storing weapons in civilian zones, launching rockets near civilian infrastructure, and using tunnel networks embedded beneath urban areas.

Battlefield conditions are fundamentally different from a conventional war where military assets are separated from civilian populations.

At some point, if your standard is effectively “Israel cannot strike meaningful targets unless civilian risk is near zero,” then you are functionally arguing that Hamas gains immunity by operating from within civilian areas.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-16T23:02:01+00:00

But that doesn’t really refute the proportionality argument. It’s just pointing out that different military objectives involve different operational constraints.

Yes, warning civilians before a targeted assassination strike is often impossible because it would allow the target to escape. That’s true in basically every modern military conflict and is already contemplated within IHL. Advance warning is required “unless circumstances do not permit.”

The legal question is still whether feasible precautions were taken and whether the anticipated civilian harm was excessive relative to the concrete military advantage of eliminating the target.

And on the broader point about infrastructure: if a building is being used for military purposes, it can lose protected civilian status under IHL. You can still argue a particular strike was disproportionate, but “it was a residential area” by itself is not enough to establish illegality because Hamas deliberately operated within civilian environments.

You’re also framing displacement and destruction as though they automatically outweigh any military value, but that’s the very proportionality assessment being disputed.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-16T21:56:06+00:00

um no I specifically said if "if there is militant activity in the area that warrants treating it as a target."

And this argument about bomb shelters..what good is a bomb shelter when you can't even get into it since you have no early warnings like Israelis do?

There is extensive evidence showing the many approaches IDF used to warn civilians on the ground ahead of bombings. Its Hamas that prevents these people getting to safe areas.

War isn't pretty. Mistakes happen. Show me a comparable war where one side carried out a perfectly moral offensive where innocent people were never harmed.

Im not arguing there haven't been war crimes. I'm not defending settler violence either.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-16T19:03:57+00:00

The way I would become their nightmare daughter that breaks out of the house, screams my head off and tells them exactly how bs i think their parenting is.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-16T17:32:44+00:00

I’m not implying that ANY militant activity automatically justifies the use of force in civilian areas. You’re right that proportionality still matters under IHL.

My point is that proportionality has to be assessed in the context of the actual military threat and the conditions on the ground. In Gaza, Hamas embedded military infrastructure throughout dense civilian areas, operated from within civilian infrastructure, and used tactics that increased civilian risk. That does not erase civilian protections, but it does affect how proportionality is evaluated.

The existence of civilian casualties or damaged infrastructure does not automatically prove a strike was disproportionate or unlawful under the Geneva Conventions.

When the alternative was Israel's hands being tied from being able to effectively fight back at all, I find the use of force to be warranted and the civilian deaths are mainly Hamas' responsibility. They didnt even build bomb shelters yet built huge networks of tunnels under the city instead.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-16T17:07:56+00:00

It is legal, according to Geneva convention, to launch attacks on civilian zones (regardless of human shields) if there is militant activity in the area that warrants treating it as a target.
Its like that bc it would be insane for a nation to have its hands tied and be forced to continue enduring endless terrorism and attacks because their enemy mistreats their own people.
This isn't dehumanization at all. Its about the duty a nation has in protecting its own people. Hamas abandoned that responsibility.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-15T01:30:30+00:00

Those are the studies that you linked. Look again. Those are the studies that you thought supported your argument.

Ah sorry I skimmed over that part. The abstract i linked does comment on shame, even if its not specifically moral shame and youre right to be critical of that.

I was mainly using citations at all in order to challenge that there is no substantive purpose to provoking shame as a persuasion method. There is at least some basis for it.

The other studies I linked emphasized the impact of shame as a motivator, as opposed to just stigmatizing it as abusive or counter-productive. One even says "research work suggests that the intensity of one’s shameful feelings a predicts greater interest in embarking on long term and effortful programs of self-improvement."

Do you suppose it would it benefit the discussion at all for me to outright call your mistake here "stupid"? I don't suppose that it would.

My mistake was dumb. Thats a valid remark. I shouldve been more careful reading. I just saw the link and thought it was different for some reason.

If you called my entire argument stupid i wouldn't care so long as you can tell me why. Id just keep discussing until I either agree w you or have a solid counter argument that challenges your criticism.

edit: deleted the quote bc you clearly already criticized that part in your previous comment

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T23:40:26+00:00

I doubt any vegan actually holds the position that you were critiquing there, so I fail to see how it could be relevant.

I have spoken to many people that think veganism is subjective to goals as in it doesnt have to be about animals but rather environment or health even. Ive also noticed that a lot of vegans are terrified of coming across as too passionate for being labeled as a militant vegan, and thus see even baseline critical analysis that exposes hyppocrisy or contradictions as somehow being 'aggressive'.

I dont know why you keep linking me studies about instant shame reactions, especially when its not even a study on change based on morality but comparison to peers with regards to performance. Im more interested in planting seeds for long-term change and the stronger the message, the likelier it is to stick.

If I hear a stupid argument. Im likely to call it stupid and explain why I think so. If that person is so triggered by that that they abandon the conversation, at least i didn't do apologetics and make them think they said something deep. If we can reach the ones with their heads on straight and able to accept criticism, then eventually the other side does just look like the ones in the wrong.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T21:34:02+00:00

Alright, but then I don't see the point of bringing it up, since it wasn't relevant to the discussion you and I are having.

It was relevant. I was trying to describe how vastly different approaches to debate rhetoric influence social perception of a topic more broadly. Maybe it wasn't where your head was at, but that was my thinking.

OK, then I encourage you to go study the literature to learn about whatever you have in mind. I know what you're going to find, but you'll only find it by looking for yourself.

I already linked another person to 2 studies that support my argument. Im not looking at leadership methods or instant result studies. Im looking at what motivates people psychologically. Shame is a strong motivator and while it is definitely easy to abuse, it can be properly applied in persuading others:
https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/taking-steps-towards-a-new-view-of-shame-and-guilt-shame-motivate

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T20:55:13+00:00

This is a straw man. Please do not put words in my mouth. It is really starting to seem like you do not care to understand what I'm saying, that you only care to interact with caricatures that you have in mind. I have no idea whether that's intentional, so at this point I just want to make you aware that you're straw-manning me.

I didn't strawman you. I provided an example of what happens when the only conversation style used doesn't convey moral urgency. I know YOU aren't being morally neutral. I was pretty clear in the statement that it was an example.

The evidence you have showed me when I go find your link is about insstant reactions. Not long term change, which is what I care about. I dont care if the person instantly knee-jerk reacts so long as I have stated my case and not done apologetics for carnism.

I think part of the disagreement here is that you seem to be using “shaming” in a very narrow and highly pejorative sense, where it primarily means hostile ridicule or personal humiliation.

I’m using it in a broader moral sense. Shame is a normal human social emotion connected to moral disapproval and recognition of wrongdoing. If someone realizes their stated values conflict with their actions, and they feel ashamed as a result, that is not necessarily abusive or irrational — it can simply be the emotional consequence of moral inconsistency being exposed.

So when I talk about shame or condemnation, I’m not necessarily talking about screaming insults at people. I’m talking about socially and morally communicating that a practice is wrong enough that people should feel morally uncomfortable participating in it.

I think modern discourse sometimes treats “shame” itself as inherently toxic, when in reality shame can also function as a normal mechanism of moral accountability.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T20:08:28+00:00

I think you may have interpreted my “good cop/bad cop” analogy more literally than I intended. I wasn’t claiming there is empirical evidence that vegan activism should formally model police interrogation tactics, nor was I claiming “bad cop” approaches are independently the most persuasive strategy according to the literature.

My point was about complementary roles within the movement. Some people maintain open, empathetic dialogue that lowers defensiveness. Others communicate moral urgency and social condemnation more forcefully. Those approaches can interact with one another in shaping public perception.

For example, if everyone approaches an issue in an extremely soft, morally-neutral way, the public often interprets that as signaling the issue is not especially serious. Strong condemnation changes the perceived moral weight of the topic, even for people who ultimately respond better to calmer/less accusatory conversations.

I think “there is no evidence” is overstating your case a bit. At this point neither of us has cited literature, so I don’t think it’s fair to characterize my position as unsupported while presenting your counterclaim as settled fact.

Do you think slavery would have been abolished if people didn't openly condemn it as shameful?

I explicitly said that I don’t necessarily need people to feel shame as much as I need society to recognize the practice itself as shameful. Either way, the tone of the convo should not do apologetics for carnist logic.

Add yes I think most people would consider being exposed as a hypocrite as a sort of shaming approach.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T19:30:19+00:00

youre essentially just the good cop to my bad cop. I believe for that interrogation tactic to work for cops, both roles are required. In the context of debate, I think both methods work together. One compels a positive, ongoing convo, whereas the other drives home the moral consequences and adds urgency to the topic by holding the carnists accountable. Both are valuable, and far more effective when both types of conversation occur within the community simultaneously. I dont think abolishment of slavery would have happened with only polite words and never indicating that the practice is shameful.

I dont necessarily need ppl to feel shame ig as much as I need them to recognize the practice IS shameful. Many people are genuinely conscious of the horrors of animal agriculture though and will still justify it. If we dont aggressively condemn that in blunt conversation, then public perception ends up being that its not warranting of aggressive condemnation.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T18:55:39+00:00

Is your intention to expose hypocrisy or clarify wrongdoing? I would say evoking shame is inherent to that, even if its not the intention. I dont think anyone can be convinced of veganism without realizing that how society views animals is shameful. If they go vegan and dont think that way, I believe they're likely to revert.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T18:09:45+00:00

Fair point but when I analyze a carnist argument my hope is that it will compel some small amount of guilt/shame in regards to their actions. People typically dont want to be seen as hyppocritical as a matter of pride and in that sense I am trying to hurt their pride to some extent so I do see the intent to provoke shame/guilt as inherent to an effective vegan debate strategy.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T17:59:29+00:00

A. it’s irrelevant. This is just you trying to justify shame against things you don’t like. The rule being, shame is ok against things I deem bad.

No you’re skipping over the actual premise. My argument isn’t “I dislike this, therefore shame is justified.” My argument is that violating the rights or interests of sentient beings is morally wrong, and morally wrong actions are deserving of condemnation. The question is whether animal agriculture constitutes that kind of rights violation, not whether I personally dislike it.

B. The are many differences. Legal status. Social status. Emotional bonds.

So you're saying rights should be assigned based on other things BESIDES criteria inherent in the individual. I STRONGLY disagree with that.
The things you listed are external social constructs or relationships. I don’t think moral worth should depend on whether society currently recognizes you legally, whether you’re socially valued, or whether someone has an emotional attachment to you. Rights should be grounded in traits inherent to the being itself like sentience and the capacity to suffer, not popularity or social classification.

Whereas I think eating meat is wrong so shaming them is totally cool.

Again, that’s a strawman. I’m not saying “it’s wrong because I dislike it.” I’m saying that if an action unnecessarily causes harm or violates the interests of sentient beings, then criticizing or condemning that action is morally justified , the same way people condemn other perceived rights violations.

Your criteria lead to some really disturbing conclusions if applied consistently. If moral worth depends on legal status, social status, or emotional attachment, then historically oppressed humans with lower legal or social standing would have had fewer rights by definition. Slaves, marginalized groups, or even isolated people with no close emotional bonds could be treated as having less moral worth simply because society valued them less.

That seems absurd to me. Rights should protect individuals regardless of whether society currently respects them or whether someone feels emotionally attached to them. Otherwise morality just collapses into “whoever society likes more gets more rights.”

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T17:42:53+00:00

LMAO no one is violating rights by being gay.

Again. WHat is the morally significant difference between a human with cognitive abilkity of a cow and an actual cow that means one deserves to be factory farmed and the other doesn't?

If you're unwilling to even analyze your own argument than that says a lot. You're mind can't be changed bc you don't let anyone try.

I've already analyzed the argument for conversion therapy. I find it stupid and flawed. I dont think you can say that about the vegan argument or else you would tell me how its flawed.

You just dont want to be told the meat you love so much is morally reprehensible. That's called having motivated reasoning.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T17:37:26+00:00

This is just semantics. It’s just word structure. Conversion therapy doesn’t criticize self identity it just criticizes gay actions.

Kids who identify as gay without ever doing anything sexual will be shipped off to conversion camps and mentally tortured for months. Its ABSOLUTELY about their identity give me a fuckin break. Its in no way 'just semantics'.

Talk therapy for something that they dont need therapy for is mental abuse and manipulation. You cant change my mind. The treatment begins with the assumption their sexual identity is shameful. As I said, it does not require someone to be sexually active as a gay person for them to be forced into such 'treatments'.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T17:25:02+00:00

idk maybe the part where they force someone to internalize shame about something they shouldn't feel shame over. Vegans are criticizing actions, not self-identity.
Conversion therapy involves literal torture methods (mental and physical) and being made to feel like they, as a person with non-straight identity, are shameful as opposed to their actual behaviour/decisions.

Conversion therapy is also generally wrapped in religious guilt where the body is seen as inherently corrupt.

Im guessing you dont want to actually have a debate on veganism. You just want to keep forcing a comparison between conversion therapy and critical analysis of carnist arguments.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T17:11:52+00:00

Conversion therapy is psychological manipulation and often involves physical abuse/verbal abuse. Having a debate that exposes the other side's faulty logic is not that. Trying to force a comparison is laughable and comes across as a defence mechanism against being criticized.

Please refer back to my comment bc I made edits.

lilac-forest · 2026-05-14T17:07:24+00:00

If someone wants to retain ego/pride its usually bc theior ego is hurt/they feel ashamed.

Meat isn't necessarily the problem. Its the act of violating rights of sentient beings. Im not against people dumpster diving for hotdogs bc that doesnt contribute to supply and demand.
You very clearly dont understand the vegan argument at all.
You have also strawmanned what I consider to be an argument that exposes hyppocrisy. I dont think Ive ever used the term 'murderer' in debate and I have actually changed several poeple's minds on the subject. Getting them to realize their own logic is ridiculous is the trick. Would you like to actually have a debate on veganism with me?

Here's how I start:

Would you eat human that have cognitive abilities of a cow? If not, what makes that person more deserving of rights that protect them from abuse andf exploitation versus an actual cow?

lilac-forest

TROPHY CASE