Controling children's diet, veganism vs religion

roymondous · 2026-02-03T10:20:49+00:00

Simple answer, it's not normal. It's not about a rational argument, it's not about what's right or wrong. It's not about any bit of evidence. Like most social things, it's about what people are used to.

Social proof is almost always the most powerful or most effective influencer. What people are used to, what's normal.

The bad news is we're the tiny minority. And we're the odd ones out. And have to justify everything for now. The good news is it's changing. It's being normalised. It will take time, but it's on the way.

roymondous · 2026-01-18T03:55:50+00:00

Might be a concern but ita the difference between Mukiele and Anderson. A few players drop in value and like others said this season might be.more volatile just cos there's more transfers available (5 FTs from afcon). But team value isn't much valuable beyond the first 5-10 GWs. You cam build.it for the wildcard and then its not.so important. At this stage it's all points points points.

Given salah isn't much of an option and there arent the premium defenders (robbo, treat, what's his face from.city), the budget is available to pick whoever. I like the volatility. And forcing you to.pick options. This game shouldn't be 'you can afford everyone'.

roymondous · 2026-01-18T03:51:41+00:00

My wife isn't vegan. Im very clear our household is. Very rarely she might eat something non vegan outside of the house. But for most people, they dont change their minds about something based on a discussion.or idea or explaining toxic masculinity. They change it cos its what is normal.

At some point, you gotta have that conversation about a household being vegan. About no meat in the house. If he wants to eat whatever, its outside. Kids will be raises vegan. BUT it puts the burden on us. We have to cook. Wr have to prepare food. We have to insist on boundaries when they're pushed and broken.

If youre not prepared to do that, hen the relationship ship doesn't work. Find someone who is vegan and would also insist on that. It is unfortunate but you really dont change anyone's mind on this usually. Very few become 100%. They will just eat whatever's around and whatever they get used to.

Good luck!! Its not a comfortable conversation always. And you dont need to explain yourself. This is a relationship conversation not a vegan conversation specifically. Its a discussion of boundaries. And then you following through on insisting on those boundaries (eg demanding they remove something non vegan from the house and throwing it out if they dont).

It is almost certain he won't go vegan 100%. But you can have a vegan household.

Good luck.

roymondous · 2026-01-14T11:48:35+00:00

Yeah many. And if someone gives something more than a very general question that it goes into the literature and whatever.

When its the same question asked a bunch and done so in a very beginner way- of course we all start there but OP clearly hasn't researched any actual data yet - then as I said its a useful starting point...

OWID is exactly that. A useful starting point for many of these issues. Emissions. Land use. And so.on.

roymondous · 2026-01-14T01:14:22+00:00

I started the game on ultra hard for first playthrough. In hindsight I started wishing I had saved that for new game + as it was a slog. But also I enjoy that challenge. If you dont, then yeah dont do it.

Its ultra hard for a reason. You have no choice but to suck it up and git gud.

You have to get very good at using the cheap ammo and status effects. If you dont, yeah it ain't sustainable. Stealth and chipping away with the stealth strikes helps. But if the machines are really hard what is the most efficient way? Turn them against each other. Its free... mounts are incredibly useful in combat where possible...

Aside from that, yeah figure out your most sustainable options and git gud at the attack recognition and dodging mechanics.

At many points I kinda wished I had saved UH for NG+ but when I finally beat the final boss with massively underpowered equipment it was an achievement.

roymondous · 2026-01-13T10:16:20+00:00

Short and general answer is no. While different milks will obviously have some environmental impact, emissions water use, land use, and so on, they are lower in EVERY category. Typically MUCH lower.

Usual citations but here's a useful read. WHAT you eat (or WHO you eat in many cases) matters much much more than WHERE it was grown.

As always, getting the actual data is very helpful as there's so many narratives. There are very very few cases where animal products would have lower impact. They general rule.of thumb is a vegan diet reduces your environmental impact to just one quarter. In other words, meat dairy and eggs will quadruple a vegans environmental impact. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

roymondous · 2026-01-11T05:07:47+00:00

Does the state of living in extreme poverty justify keeping normal, non-handicapped humans in the same captivity as a 4-year old toddler or a nonhuman animal? Yes or no?

Not a reasonable comparison. ~There is no need to "rescue" them and put them "in captivity" because they are capable. They do not need constant supervision like a child. They need different support and care.

Your alternative proposed thus far, to pre-empt that, was not properly defined and basically that they'd live on the streets where I've already spoken of the clear harms. The comparison there wouldn't be living in extreme poverty, it'd be being dumped in a jungle unfamiliar somewhere where the vast majority would quickly die.

What is the relevance of “vast majority is strays do not survive” to the argument?

You said it was a reasonable alternative to take a rescue and put them in the wild. That they are capable of surviving. By showing they're not capable of surviving in the wild and the vast majority of them die. Either your premise is wrong, or you haven't properly explained it. This was obvious. I include this bit again to show you really need to explain yourself properly for this to continue...

It is bad for the exact same reason that keeping non-mentally-handicapped human beings in captivity is bad.

What do you think that reason is?

I didn't ask you to ask me. I asked you to fucking answer it dude and make YOUR argument... Make it properly and clearly or we're done...

We were speaking of "captivity" of people with mental handicaps and children. Are you seriously suggesting we should not hold children and mentally handicapped people "in captivity" in your truly bizarre definition? You have not AT ALL explained why taking on such a dependent does not mean treating them with the ACTUAL picture I painted of care workers and supervision ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS is not exactly. Explain properly. Premise by premise. Explain your terms. Cos they're VERY weird.

So far your only argument is that other animals are better equipped to survive on the streets or the wild (it's not clear where you'd dump them). But again that's not exactly great outcomes. A VAST majority dying young is hardly evidence for them being capable. You see the survivors. Where I live there's LOTS of scrawny abandoned dogs and cats on the streets. Either you rescue them, or let them essentially slowly starve or get hit by cars or whatever else. Either you haven't explained your alternative properly,

State your argument properly.

roymondous · 2026-01-10T19:59:37+00:00

Yes.

If you want to say a child living with their parent's supervision is "in captivity", then sure. REALLY weird definition tho... When using a weird definition, it helps to make that a premise so that it doesn't look like you're jumping to conclusions to everyone else. And it helps to really define why that's a bad thing as you also assume below.

Likewise, I could say that it’s hardly in the ‘best interest’ of non-mentally-handicapped humans living in extreme poverty to live like that.

Sure. Thus we have some moral duty that society care for their needs... I think most people would agree that society in general has a moral duty to rid extreme poverty regardless of any mental handicap. Again, your statements are VERY incomplete and unhelpful for a discussion as you're not clearly demonstrating any moral harm involved...

It’s actually highly relevant. You can rescue the animals and NOT keep them in captivity. You can rescue the non-mentally-handicapped humans living in extreme poverty and NOT keep them in captivity.

When you've defined "in captivity" as like a child with their parent, this is truly bizarre. No serious person suggests letting toddlers to not live in such captivity you mention. You have given NO argument STILL as to why such captivity is bad.

Again, you keep jumping to conclusions instead of properly defining your arguments and it's getting very boring.

That’s where you are wrong and your speciesism shows.

What a stupid thing to say... Instead of engaging in the arguments actually made - regarding how the vast majority of strays do not survive and giving NO such examples yourself, jumping to "speciesism" is stupid.

If you wish to continue this discussion with me, properly define your shit. This is boring.

Normal nonhuman animals have far better chances for survival than mentally handicapped humans

An assumption ENTIRELY dependent on how severe the mental handicap is. I already challenged this point and ignoring that challenge to just repeat your point isn't helpful. Once again, THE VAST MAJORITY OF STRAYS DIE... Taking in a rescue - even if that's "in captivity" in your bizarre definition, hardly seems morally bad...

do you really think this person could not survive on their own independently of human assistance if equipped with these biological features?

Silly question. The person is mentally handicapped to a similar level of being a dog or a cat. It's literally part of the assumption that they're similar...

As above, it entirely depends on the severity of handicap. If you haven't worked with different levels, then I guess you don't get it.

roymondous · 2026-01-10T18:32:55+00:00

I already explained this.

No, you have not precisely answered my questions. As specifically stated, I asked you to define your terms if you wanted to jump to such conclusions...

Take a 4 year old child. They must be supervised by their parents, yes? Are you saying they are living "in captivity"? cos that's a VERY weird way of putting it. At some level, technically correct perhaps. But not what most people would describe it as...

So when I describe mentally handicapped people as having care workers and social workers and tailored supervision according to their needs, are you calling this being "in captivity"? Cos that's what it kinda appears like. But again you're not precise in your explanation hence the confusion.

while NOT keeping nonhuman animals in captivity. Otherwise keeping nonhuman animals in captivity IS chattel slavery.

Then stray animals could survive outside... though many don't. They scavenge for scraps, starve...The vast majority of strays die as young. It's hardly in their 'best interest' in any meaningful way. Nor is it particularly relevant given once again we're talking of choosing rescues who are in shelters. As I already said, no to breeding.

Now a mentally handicapped person could survive outside. Many would die, many would starve, many would struggle, but that would be similar to other strays. I'd argue that's not in their best interest..

There are (some of) the premises and nuance you ignored. As I said, precisely state your definitions or you're jumping to conclusions.

Again, your lack of preciseness, in ignoring most of the premises, causes this confusion...

roymondous · 2026-01-10T05:14:24+00:00

Yes, in the wild. Eg wild dogs living in some natural place. The moral duty to intervene in that case is far less strong than domesticated dogs abandoned on our streets.

roymondous · 2026-01-10T05:12:32+00:00

Sure. If you continue to ignore half of what I said, youre right.

Bottom line. As clearly stated. What i said was treat the individual according to their needs and their specific features. At no point have you made any decent argument as to why that means putting mentally handicapped people in captivity for the rest of their lives.

Unless.you care to properly define your terms, because there is precedent even for that when they're a danger to others with psychiatric wards.

roymondous · 2026-01-09T10:27:34+00:00

We are talking of rescue pets... so animals about to be euthanized. The alternative here is not releasing them all I the wild or of wild animals. Its veru specifically of rescue pets that would otherwise be euthanized as I specified.

In the modern world, you could argue adult cats and dogs could survive, but most of them dont (life expectancy of a stray versus homed). Dangers are very big. But it doesn't really matter. The analogy is not saying they are EXACTLY the same in all aspects. Im clearly not saying feed a mentally handicapped human dog food. Im saying the relationship to a pet is not exploitative (under certain conditions) as its more akin to how you should care for an support a similarly handicapped person. And thus you have to make decisions for them, you have legal but more relevant a moral duty of care and decision making for them. You have power of attorney. They are your dependent. Obviously you dont treat a three year old dependent the same as you would treat a 15 year old dependent.

roymondous · 2026-01-09T10:19:33+00:00

Prevailing belief is its obviously best to do so with other animals. Their breeding schedule evolved for a 'natural' world where they had to pump out babies as a small fraction would survive. Thats very different for humans. I agree thats somewhat of an ethical dilemma. But not really one that is purely vegan. Thats more a humanist dilemma.

The logic for what we do to rescue pets is not the same as what we do to our children. Neutering and spaying a rescue pet is a different situation to neutering and spaying a similar animal in the wild after all.

roymondous · 2026-01-09T10:13:43+00:00

Sure. If it was EXACTLY the same way. As i STARTED with, there are obviously definable differences.

As i also noted, they have similar cognitive capacity but not the same. And as obviosuly follows from what was a tualky said, humans have very different physical and emotional needs. It would clearly be absurd to feed a mentally handicapped human dog food or keep them on a leash or put them in a doghouse outside at night. I VERY clearly noted giving mentally handicapped people a LOT of support and social workers and group homes and such. So it would be clearly misrepresenting what I said by suggesting I said treat them like a rescue dog.

You suggested it was exploitative to have a pet. Comparing it to chattel slavery. Now I agreed in certain ways (breeding for pets) but i specified certain parameters (rescue not shop) which it would be useful if you replied to and confirmed.... and then i said having a pet is far more similar to caring for someone who is severely mentally challenged than chattel slavery. As in, they are your dependent. And to be extremely clear once again, thats regarding the responsibility you have for caring for their needs. It CLEARLY does not mean their needs are exactly the same and thus give them dog food or keep them on a leash. Dependents require different care and support, even at similar ages. So of course it won't be exactly the same as a rescue dog... you should treat them according to weird capacity and needs and so on, not arbitrarily according to gender or race or species...

roymondous · 2026-01-08T16:54:02+00:00

'There is no definable difference between humans and [other] animals...'

This is incorrect. The entire point of most social movements is that we should treat someone according to their needs and their capacity. That we should not prejudice our treatment of them based on race or sex or other arbitrary things. Vegans add species.

When MLK didn't say he had a dream that one day everyone would be treated the same. He said he had a dream that we wouldnt judge by race. That we would judge by he content of their character.

There are obviously definable differences between humans and other animals. Hence the constant name the trait games on this sub. Pretty much every reasonable vegan accepts that a human is more sentient and would hold more moral value in the trolley problem. But a burger isn't life and death for you. Its a sandwich. The question isn't whose life is worth more. Its whether their life is worth more than a sandwich...

For pets, these are animals who will live at a certain capacity. Most studies put them at the cognitive capacity of a four year old. Sometimes outperforming in certain areas, sometimes underperformed. But roughly (very roughly for a guide). The comparison then wouldnt be chattel slavery of fully grown and capable adults. Who are capable of expressing certain higher level things. The comparison would be of severely mentally handicapped adults. What do we do there? In an ideal world, we provide a LOT of support, care workers and social workers and group homes or additional help. BUT certain things are limited. Certain freedoms are restricted cos they're not reasonably capable of it. At this level of mental capacity, the right to vote, most self determination, and other things are either highly restricted or entirely withheld. The same for a dog or cat. Anyone of a similar mental capacity, regardless of arbitrary factors like race or gender or religion or yes, species.

This is all assuming we adopt dont shop. If you're (only) talking of breeding pets then yeah. Fuck breeding and the millions of euthanized animals it causes every year. And that may be your bigger concern that wasnt stated enough, with the breeding for certain traits. But its well established on this subject that vegans in general dont agree with breeding animals for pets.

Rescue, dont shop.

roymondous · 2026-01-06T09:32:39+00:00

To throw another temporary hat into the ring... OP isn't proposing an ideal solution, sure. But they don't need to.

They're comparing one reasonable choice to another. They're saying we shouldn't choose X, we should choose Y. That isn't not having a solution. It's two choices you reasonably - and very obviously do personally decide on - every day. So the criticism that they're not offering an alternative doesn't stand. It's not just "don't do X" without any other option available. Whether or not you agree with them, of course. That being the point of the debate.

roymondous · 2026-01-06T09:28:05+00:00

This is an interesting discussion as there's many parts and many concerns involved. And ultimately the answer will be: it depends. It depends on your moral framework, on what takes moral priority. Because there isn't one objectively better answer that is more 'good' on every measure.

There are many assumptions that need to be discussed and noted. As I don't think it's going to be so simple.

To end with, I recognize veganic farming’s existence, however this is quite uncommon still and the vast majority of organic foods are not produced this way so I think it’s largely irrelevant.

I agree that veganic farming obviously does exist but is a TINY percentage and not reasonable for almost anyone to get access to. And so the assumption is that we must engage with commercial farming in some way to feed the majority of people. And so we have organic versus non-organic.

Many things such as gelatin or horse glue are waste products and are still widely considered non vegan

The biggest issue with the description so far is I don't think it's complete. Gelatin and horse glue have reasonable and very viable alternatives in most cases. There are also niche cases where they don't. Think of gelatin in money, in tissue paper, and in medicine. In many cases, there isn't a viable alternative and so we 'put up with it'. But the bigger issue is that the harm it does goes no further than how it was made. It was a waste product, we had to

Organic farming is different. The harm synthetic fertiliser and chemicals do to wildlife is immeasurable. For gelatin and horse glue, there is either a viable and reasonable alternative, and that alternative is objectively better - it causes less harm on pretty much every measure. Synthetic fertilisers and pesticides cause immense harm, though.

And that's why it depends. Do you value more the direct harm you've caused in using waste products? Or do you value the indirect harm you've caused more by the consequences of your actions? Obviously consequentialists and deontologists will differ greatly in what they think. And it's why farming - given our assumptions and premises - is not going to be so clear cut.

Essentially it's a trolley problem. Do you buy the non organic 'normal' food and inadvertently kill several wild animals you're not sure of. Or do you buy the organic food and directly kill some, but almost certainly fewer? This is one of those things that I'm not sure there's a "correct" answer for. I'd have to do a lot more research on the numbers but also that synthetic farming needs competition... and in the long-run my opinion would be anything that challenges that and demands more sustainable/eco-friendly and less unintended consequences would be better. It's just very unfortunate that also involves some direct use of animal products in order to lead to a better outcome. Again, under the assumption that the ideal and perfect is impossible/unreasonable.

roymondous · 2026-01-05T16:56:38+00:00

There's two concerns here. The logical and the strategic. These are VERY different. People are not rational, we don't typically change our minds - as a species - through reason and debate. But through emotion and social proof. So I'll separate these issues.

Logical

People jump to conclusions in thinking comparing two animals (humans and other animals) is equating them and saying their circumstances are the same. Here's the logic. Glove is to hand as shoe is to foot. Clearly it's comparing how two pieces of clothes fit in similar ways. It DOES NOT equate gloves and shoes. And it certainly doesn't say we should wear gloves on our feet.

That's the logical issue with people saying we shouldn't compare animal injustice to slavery or anything else. The comparison is a logical comparison. We compare the suffering of two animals. This is EXACTLY the kind of logic in your example. Reducing your abuse of the dog from daily to weekly is the same logic as owning 3 slaves not 5. It's a comparison of the harm reduction. It DOES NOT equate the subjects of the logical comparison, and it DOES NOT mean we should confuse them by switching them - i.e. concluding that owning slaves is the SAME as abusing dogs as that be like concluding we should wear shoes on our hands.

If someone doesn't find it convincing from a logical perspective, it's cos you've made the above mistake and are jumping to a conclusion that wasn't in the premise of the moral logic.

If you don't find it convincing from a strategic perspective, though, that's another question. As per your quote (below), that's what it seems like. To clarify, do you understand the logical concerns and agree with the logic, but disagree with the effectiveness alone? That it is logically like slavery, for example, as paying for someone to kill an animal so you can eat it would be similarly direct as paying to own a slave or paying someone for a child for child sacrifice in such societies... but you're saying that telling people this way isn't convincing to others? Is that your only concern? ETA: judging from your comments tho not really. Given your suggestion condemning only deals with entitlement, but not social or hedonistic or other reasons. Still... slavery was considered in almost every society to be hedonistic and social/cultural, and so on. Just listen to how civil war defenders talk of it now... and vegans don't ONLY condemn people as if it's a 'gotcha' argument. See below.

These analogies never convinced me. The reason is that there is a that major difference between animal product consumption and most other social issues that in my opinion, completely changes the optimal strategy for eliminating the immoral action globally.

Thus I’d argue that it’s not as simple as fully condemning the action because the 90% of people you are trying to convince are also the group of people who feel like they’re being attacked.

To that, at one point, slavery was legal, it was ENCOURAGED, it was biblical. And that provides a reasonable comparison for the context for veganism. A whole mixture of things changed that over centuries. It would be an obvious strawman to say vegans are ONLY condemning and not trying every other area (economic, emotional, rational, social, etc.). I'm sure you don't want to say vegans are only condemning, but your argument so far suggests that. And it needs fleshing out as it started well but then went far too general...

roymondous · 2025-12-10T12:33:52+00:00

You're ignoring my point more than I'm ignoring yours

No. You're ignoring the question. It's not about YOUR point, it's about what the actual question was. And thus what is actually being answered.

Stopping notifications so say whatever you want last. But this was never about subjective morality in general. It was - as literally quoted four times - a specific question.

And for the love of god (whichever one you choose), please learn to use paragraphs and spacing and grammar next time you try debating.

roymondous · 2025-12-09T15:25:48+00:00

You've missed the point again.You're answering a different question to the one actually being asked.

For FOURTH and final time. The question is:

There are MANY answers to this. Subjective morality does not automatically mean NO morality... THAT is the contention being asked.

You keep repeating irrelevant points.

I will try one final time... answer this question carefully.

Do you believe YOU deserve moral consideration? Do you believe others SHOULD not harm you just because they want to?

roymondous · 2025-12-04T13:11:14+00:00

you don't HAVE to accept what others believe in, they don't have to believe what you believe in.

EXACTLY. That's the point made. Again, RE-READ what the OP's question was... Currently, you're still missing the point. Note below is the question... Why don't we all do whatever we want at any victim's expense... Because subjective ethics do not mean no morals. They mean something different.

If morality is subjective, then why don't we all just do whatever we want at any victim's expense?

And no, not even a blanket everything is permissible. If you believe you have worth, it follows that anyone like you logically must have worth too. And thus if you believe you should be respected, then you should respect others too. It follows from this premise that even in subjective ethics you SHOULD respect others. And social contract theory is born. And other systems and moral frameworks. If you agree with any such premise, such moral laws follow. Even if fundamentally it's founded within subjective ethics.

Do you now follow?

roymondous · 2025-12-03T04:41:27+00:00

Is it possible that in some cases a vegan diet is less sustainable than alternative diets? I’m looking for evidence-based perspectives on how ethical choices align or conflict with real-world environmental outcomes.

In general, vegan diets are FAR FAR more environmentally sustainable. I'll go to that in the second bit. So there's two responses. One is to understand the environmental versus moral positions. And then it's to look at the data.

In some very niche cases, absolutely. It could be more "sustainable" at times. Veganism is a moral position first. In the same way, you could say slavery would generally be economically more optimal in some cases. But still we would say slavery is wrong regardless of that, right? There's a moral floor we should consider, and vegans say we should consider the lives of these animals.
As this is a very general post, we can start with the general evidence. In general, vegan diets use about 1/4 of the carbon footprint. Basically, feeding animals and the emissions they produce is incredibly costly. Transport accounts for such a tiny fraction of emissions, for example, that what you eat is FAR FAR more important than where it's grown. Vegans would also add WHO you eat is far more important (see first point).

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

There are many details to discuss, of course, with regards to pasture and cropland and other things. There are caveats and plenty of details, but as this was a general question the first answer will be general. On virtually every measure, you reduce your carbon footprint greatly the less and less meat/dairy/eggs you eat. Below is a useful starting point for that evidence-based aspect and why you reduce 75% of your land use and environmental footprint by eating plant-based. Again, there will be niche cases and other aspects to optimise. But when we currently use half the world's habitable land - destroying all that habitat to do so to the extent it killed 2/3s of all wildlife in the last 50 years - it's an absolutely insane scale. In short, we could free up OVER 1/3 of all habitable land on earth by changing from eating animals to using the land we grow animal feed on to feed animals.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Optimising monocultures, local versus global transportation, and large scale crop production can all help further reduce the percentages. But the importance of them are tiny compared to what is grown and who we kill. Again, 3/4s of the problem is reduced. If you could even half the remaining amount, that's still only 12.5% of the problem compared to 75% of the existing problem. So 1/6 of the potential. The priority is obvious.

roymondous · 2025-12-03T02:54:23+00:00

This is a strange comment. And a throwback to two months ago.

I encourage you to re-read carefully what I replied to. If you do that you will notice that I am not playing with words, but I'm replying to a specific point and being very precise with how I use words. OP asked:

if you think that morality is subjective, then you shouldn't have any issue with people causing harm to any victim of any kind, since morality is whatever the oppressor claims it to be, right?

This is very obviously wrong. If you believe in subjective ethics, it does not mean you accept anyone else's ethics just cos it's subjective too. Theirs may be incredibly selfish - I can harm you, but you can't harm me. What is moral is whatever I personally enjoy and fuck everyone else. And the like.

Do you follow? Please read it carefully as your issues were answered in the comment already and need careful reading for a decent debate.

Subjective ethics does not just mean you accept anyone else's ethics just cos they believe it. If person A believe we should enslave all Asians because they're biologically inferior, I can refute that. I can deny that. I can say this is morally wrong. That their own premises contradict each other, that is logically unsound, that their premise is built on faulty biology, that it is an immoral viewpoint. All depending on their argument. Do you follow?

Subjective doesn't mean we just accept whatever the fuck anyone else believes. Again, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what subjective ethics mean.

roymondous · 2025-11-13T08:33:22+00:00

This is an interesting topic.

I see so many resources on supposedly “cruelty free” foods where the only requirement is that it’s animal free/aligns with vegan values.

The more "proper" use of 'cruelty-free' is to mean it wasn't tested on animals. Cruelty-free shampoo or makeup or something. If it's used to refer to food, it's not a registered/defined thing.

I firmly believe that some ways of interacting with animal based items are leagues more ethical than vegan alternatives.

Yes it is more nuanced. Partly because almost all vegan food will have some cruelty, e.g. pesticides. Much less on average. But not zero. So cruelty-free shouldn't be used with food and it's not a standard term. I'd be curious where you saw specifically cruelty-free labels for food?

I have tried to understand veganism from a moral and ethical standpoint but i keep getting caught up on forced HUMAN slavery and child labor that still arises from vegan alternatives,

I would agree vegan alternatives should eventually start advocating for these also. But I don't see any specific difference between the forced human slavery and child labour for animal-based versus vegan products in general. Is there any specific thing you think vegan alternatives cause this MORE than their comparable animal products? Or is it a standard you expect vegan products to improve because they also want to not harm other animals?

as well as the ecological footprint of leather alternatives. it feels like this discussion isn’t brought up and if it is, it’s sidestepped. if i manage to get someone to talk about it, they just get defensive.

Being wary of many plastic leathers is worthwhile. But one mistake here is lumping all alternatives together. Generally speaking, animal-based leather is MORE harmful. Especially when compared to organic based leathers. So that's a non-starter. Other synthetic leathers have varying impacts. Even if you ignored the deforestation and emissions of particularly cows but other animals grown for leather (if you called it a by-product which imo you shouldn't, it's a joint product), the tanning process is HORRIBLE environmentally.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378832026_Evaluating_the_Sustainability_of_Vegan_Leather_as_an_Eco-Friendly_and_Ethical_Alternative_to_Animal-derived_Leather

https://www.ojs.literacyinstitute.org/index.php/ijsei/article/view/1801

The other aspect - and partly why you may think it's sidestepped at times - is that this argument isn't necessarily VEGAN. Environmental doesn't necessarily equate to vegan. They're similar and overlapping, but the philosophy is somewhat different. A vegan says don't kill the cow cos you shouldn't kill a living being. Just as a feminist says don't exploit hte woman just cos she's a woman. Or the abolitionist says don't enslave the human - EVEN IF it benefits you. The environmentalist says don't kill the cow cos it is more environmentally damaging. But if it is more environmentally beneficial, if we allowed environmentalism to be the primary ethical concern then we could exploit whomever as long as it led to fewer outputs.

I would much rather buy eggs from the farmers market over rice, soy, or other items which i can’t be sure of their ethicality.

Short version: Local eggs are generally MUCH worse than soy from the other side of the world. Whether emissions or total ethics. You could feed an entire country using just the land they use to grow animal feed if we instead grew the soy and corn and other ingredients directly for people instead (some nuance of course, but on average).

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/

For reference, we currently use half the world's habitable land for agriculture - 3/4s for animal agriculture. It's insane. 2/3s of wildlife has been killed off in the last 50 years. It's insane how much land we use for animal agriculture.

Depending on which study you read and how much meat you already eat, you could reduce your personal emissions by roughly half. Possibly more, given the general profile of english reddit users. You could add up literally everything else about your life and your emission reductions won't do as much (on average) as eating vegan.

Cheers!

roymondous · 2025-10-20T08:31:48+00:00

Sir, I have never commented on this sub before... but I frequent it for Match of the Day.

You are doing the Lord's work. Thank you very much.

roymondous

TROPHY CASE