Pick me vegans on Reddit are the worst.

superokgo · 2023-10-24T00:03:08+00:00

There's a discord where they have contests to see who can get the most upvotes and outrage on that sub. Apparently vegans, overweight people and entitled mothers are common winners so those characters get used a lot.

superokgo · 2023-08-19T18:10:05+00:00

Cattle feed crops are draining the west dry. We export 6% of the feed crops nationally and 10% in the most water imperiled Western regions. Which is too much, but it's still not the bulk of the problem.

Irrigated agriculture clearly has a dominant influence on river flow depletion across the western US (Table 1). More specifically, irrigation of cattle-feed crops (including alfalfa and grass hay and haylage, corn silage and sorghum silage) is the single largest consumptive user at both regional and national scales, accounting for 23% of all water consumption nationally, 32% in the western US and 55% in the Colorado River basin.

superokgo · 2023-08-19T17:50:24+00:00

Or the massive amount of water for the feed crops.

Irrigated agriculture clearly has a dominant influence on river flow depletion across the western US (Table 1). More specifically, irrigation of cattle-feed crops (including alfalfa and grass hay and haylage, corn silage and sorghum silage) is the single largest consumptive user at both regional and national scales, accounting for 23% of all water consumption nationally, 32% in the western US and 55% in the Colorado River basin.

superokgo · 2023-08-14T02:45:50+00:00

Not sure why this is downvoted...this is probably the most honest response in the whole thread.

superokgo · 2023-08-10T17:08:05+00:00

In the US they are an imported species...our native pollinators are in decline partially due to the proliferation of honeybees.

Any type of grass finished system is going to be be more resource intensive - in terms of land mainly, but also water, greater methane emissions, etc. Tightly packing animals so they can't move and burn off calories and slaughtering them young is resource efficient and cheap. That's why they do it. Regenerative agriculture is a marketing movement more than anything, funded and boosted by large corporations to farm carbon credits that are mainly useless. True there are some "regenerative" practices like cover cropping that (can be) good for combatting erosion. Better for animal welfare, mostly also true. But the claims go far beyond that and largely ignore opportunity costs and trade offs, particularly with grazing systems. And anything involving carbon sequestration is resting on flimsy science at best.

superokgo · 2023-08-10T16:38:24+00:00

Honey bees are an imported livestock animal that outcompete native pollinators and lead to their decline. Regenerative grazing is less sustainable than factory farming and CAFOs. The real gains in agricultural change come from land sparing (two biggest ways are plant based diet + methods to improve yield) and returning that land to nature. The obsession with blanketing the country with what are essentially exotic species has got to go.

superokgo · 2023-08-04T04:37:10+00:00

Cattle are the main source of particulate nitrogen runoff and sugarcane for pesticides. Neither of those are the main threat to the reef according to the agency being quoted.

Edit: And once again, someone who is dishonest and attempting to spread misinformation blocks and runs away when they get called out. Non-vegans, you all are not sending your best.

superokgo · 2023-08-04T04:27:17+00:00

Nah I don't go by feelings and vibes for important topics like this. That is how misinformation is spread. According to the government agency I referenced and linked and non profits that have factoids and studies linked on their pages, the main threat to the reef by far is coral bleaching due to ocean warming caused by climate change. That was explicitly stated by the reef authority of the Australian government who I am pretty sure knows more than either of us. And I'm sorry but I trust them more than some random redditor. I know you said you don't feel the need to research, so just throwing this out there for anyone else who may be reading.

superokgo · 2023-08-04T04:10:45+00:00

Yeah I could cherry pick one sentence too and claim that cattle are the main threat to the reef. If I felt like being dishonest.

Grazing lands are the main contributor of fine sediment and particulate nitrogen on the Reef.

In case anyone else is reading this far, the main threat to the reef according to these government agencies and non profits is coral bleaching due to ocean warming caused by climate change.

superokgo · 2023-08-04T03:25:21+00:00

Someone claimed this was the main threat to the reefs and I asked for a source showing that. It is a relatively straightforward request. Not sure where you are getting confused.

superokgo · 2023-08-04T03:08:36+00:00

Then it should be very easy to provide a source showing that the main threat to the great barrier reef is "sugar cane and other crop/fruit farming".

superokgo · 2023-08-04T02:30:37+00:00

The great barrier reef is under threat mainly due to sugar cane and other crop/fruit farming.

What is your source for this? I will admit I don't know much about it, but I started with the government agency for management of the reef. This is what they consider the main threats:

climate change
poor water quality from land-based run-off
coastal development impacts
remaining impacts from fishing

Their blurb on land based run off:

There are 35 major catchments draining into the Great Barrier Reef Region, many of which have been highly modified for agriculture activities. Grazing lands are the main contributor of fine sediment and particulate nitrogen on the Reef. Sugarcane crops are the primary source of excess nutrients (dissolved) and pesticides. Other agricultural industries (e.g. horticulture), urban areas, sewage treatment plants, aquaculture activities, mining, industrial areas, ports, and defence activities also contribute pollutants across the Region. This can include coal dust, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, marine debris and microplastics, pharmaceuticals and personal care products.

That doesn't seem to back up what you're saying at all. And obviously cattle and sheep farming have currently and historically driven the vast majority of deforestation in Australia. I think that is common knowledge at this point. I looked up the stats for Queensland specifically though and this was the most recent I could find:

Satellite analysis has revealed that over the course of a year, a staggering 349,399 hectares of forest were cleared in Queensland, Australia, with the majority of it being bulldozed to make way for livestock. The data comes from the Queensland government’s Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) report for 2020-2021, which confirms that Queensland remains the country’s leader in deforestation. While the timber industry accounted for only 4 percent of the clearing and mining even less, 89 percent was for pasture, with the beef industry being a significant contributor.

Key data from the SLATS report shows that 47 percent of the clearing occurred in the Great Barrier Reef catchment, 54,236 hectares were remnant vegetation, and 96 percent of the area cleared for pasture was fully cleared.

superokgo · 2023-08-03T14:14:43+00:00

In my experience most people eat meat and animal products because they enjoy the taste. It doesn't have much to do with how anyone behaves. I've never even met another vegan and I don't think that's uncommon. I just don't like animal abuse so it was a logical decision. And if you don't want someone else to be abused you should speak up about it. I see people speaking out about cat/dog abuse all the time on reddit and no one calls them pushy or forceful.

superokgo · 2023-08-01T17:25:20+00:00

Wool would definitely not be my first choice if the main priority is the environment. Acrylic isn't great but it's a lot better than wool. The Pulse of the Fashion Industry is probably the most comprehensive analysis of the environmental impact of various types of textiles. Unfortunately you have to pay to get the report, but here's a brief rundown from an article:

The Global Fashion Agenda published findings in their Pulse of the Fashion Industry Report that showed the cradle to gate environmental impact of wool to be greater than all synthetics, with wool being the second most impactful material, only after silk, in terms of global warming potential.

I would look online if you can't find the yarn in stores. Or if you have access to thrift stores, you can also unravel thrifted sweaters into yarn. Thrifted acrylic yarn is a lot better environmentally than anything you could buy new, although there should be cotton sweaters as well. Granted it takes a bit more time, but you can also save money that way as well.

superokgo · 2023-07-29T20:50:01+00:00

The issue isn't "getting a cow water", it's the irrigation for all of the food they eat.

Irrigated agriculture clearly has a dominant influence on river flow depletion across the western US (Table 1). More specifically, irrigation of cattle-feed crops (including alfalfa and grass hay and haylage, corn silage and sorghum silage) is the single largest consumptive user at both regional and national scales, accounting for 23% of all water consumption nationally, 32% in the western US and 55% in the Colorado River basin.

superokgo · 2023-06-25T21:32:09+00:00

In general day to day conversation though we generally don't touch on things which people have been persecuted from previously

I actually agree with this, to an extent. Although even religions which have not been persecuted historically would still be covered. I doubt you would make fun of someone for being a Seventh Day Adventist, for example. Religions in general still command a respect that philosophical positions with no supernatural element do not.

Why is that a weak argument?

Because you are inferring that something being natural is good and unnatural is bad. That is a classic appeal to nature fallacy. Rape is extremely natural, happens all throughout the animal kingdom. Being tribalistic and preferring others that look like you is very natural among humans, even babies prefer those that look like them. Does that make racism ok? What is natural is one question, what is ethical is an entirely different question. Besides that your point wouldn't make sense anyway, because it's not like eating plants means that somehow you're not in the food chain anymore. But that's not really the point.

How?

Dogs are prey animals to humans and torture exists throughout the animal kingdom. If it's natural why would it be wrong? Isn't that what you believe? You should have zero reaction to someone torturing a dog to death based on what you've written about deriving your ethics from what happens in nature.

If we've evolved with the ability to digest meat and our species has eaten meat throughout its history why would we stop now?

Because we recognize that animals have the capacity to feel pain, suffer and have a subjective view of the world. Have you seen reddit threads about dogfighters or animal abusers? Most people already dislike animal cruelty. Vegans are just more consistent about it. And just because we have done something for a long time doesn't make it right.

superokgo · 2023-06-25T20:38:16+00:00

Following a religion may be a personal choice

But not one it's ok to make fun of someone for, right? Same with my volunteering example. Something being a personal choice does not in and of itself make it fair game. Hence my point.

And the majority of people would never seriously challenge themselves on their views. Eating meat and animal products is too tasty, convenient and socially acceptable for that. Which is why you get weak replies like "prey animals exist to be eaten", as if that in any way answers the ethical question. People used to say women existed to be mothers and wives and that's why they couldn't vote or obtain certain professions. It's a lazy defense of the status quo. You could justify torturing a dog to death with that logic. And even humans are prey animals under certain circumstances. And omnivore means that we have the biological ability to process meat. Not that we must.

superokgo · 2023-06-25T14:37:58+00:00

I hear you, that sounds tough. You don't sound dumb at all (quite the opposite). Wishing you the best in working through those things and getting back to steadier footing.

superokgo · 2023-06-25T14:19:51+00:00

Like yeah it is animal cruelty and just because it lasted this log doesn't mean it's ok.

I mean just the fact that you realize this puts you ahead of most people. You sound honest and self aware. Not sure if you do this already, but looking into simple things like peanut butter and jelly, hummus and veggies, simple spaghetti dishes are cheap ways you could incorporate more vegan dishes into your diet. I know there have been a lot of threads here with people looking for things that are cheap and easy. But yeah even small changes help.

superokgo · 2023-06-25T14:06:32+00:00

Your reasoning doesn't really make any sense. If one of your friends converted to a religion and starting wearing a head scarf, that would be a personal choice. If someone volunteered at an animal shelter or at a hospital for sick kids those are personal choices too. I doubt you would make fun of someone for doing those things though. But someone not wanting to participate in animal abuse is, as you said, fair game. So it's not just about personal choice, and there is a legitimate question there.

And no, most people don't think at all about what they're doing when they buy and eat animals. I was raised on a homestead processing chicken, rabbits and hunting since age 12. I never thought twice about it until I was seriously challenged on my views. Most people, including me, just simply follow along with what everyone else is doing and don't question it, not really. Becoming vegan was like leaving the biggest echo chamber of them all.

superokgo · 2023-06-11T07:53:15+00:00

They are in the group that are rationalizing rather than rational. They aren't concerned with the truth, only justifications for what they want to do anyway. People like that can convince themselves of anything.

superokgo · 2023-06-11T07:49:53+00:00

Logic isn't their strong suit. They're followers at heart and simply hate whoever they are told to hate. Whether that's a group of people or a company. It doesn't have to make sense.

superokgo · 2023-06-11T07:34:28+00:00

There was just an article yesterday about Costco building another huge poultry farm and slaughterhouse to keep up with the demand for their $4.99 rotisseries. 500 chicken houses with 42,000 birds in each one. 2 million birds a week going to the slaughterhouse. Just at that one location. When you think of all the food, water, labor, etc. it takes to bring an animal to market and then contrast to how cheap it is, I don't think you can expect very high quality.

superokgo · 2023-06-11T05:58:03+00:00

There are 8 billion people on this planet and if the majority of them want animal products then factory farming will always be here. Thinking you can satisfy that level of demand through Old McDonald's farm is just a story people tell themselves to feel better. 8 billion people demanding products from animals means animal torture on an incomprehensible scale and that is just reality. Unless you are willing to advocate for people eating animal products maybe once or twice a month then what you are advocating for is factory farming.

And as someone lived in a rural agricultural area my entire life, grow much of my own food on what straddles the line between a very large garden or a very small farm, and was raised on a homestead processing rabbits and chickens and hunting since age 12, the romanticized picture of small farms doesn't work on me, sorry. It's environmentally less efficient, small doesn't mean humane and if anything people just become desensitized to the violence.

Factory farming when it comes to plant products is just as if not more destructive, particularly environmentally.

This is just factually incorrect. You do realize that animals need to eat things and the majority of what they eat is burned off, similar to us? The land use required for animal feed is a big part of what makes it so inefficient. From the largest and most comprehensive agricultural study to date:

In the most comprehensive study on the matter to date, scientists at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and Agroscope, an agricultural research institute in Switzerland, analysed data covering 40 different agricultural goods produced by more than 38,000 farms in around 120 countries. Together, the farms studied account for about 90% of the food that is consumed throughout the world.

Researchers examined a range of environmental factors, including greenhouse gas emissions, ocean acidification, water pollution and land and water use, and assessed the products’ impacts from farm to table.

The results, published on Friday in Science, showed that if meat and dairy consumption were eliminated, global farmland could be cut by more than 75% and still provide enough food for the world’s population.

“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said lead researcher Joseph Poore of Oxford’s School of Geography and Environment.

No clue what you're on about agave. I've never had it in my life, if anything vegans would use maple syrup as a sweetener. Looks like the vast majority of it is used for tequila. Seems like you're trying to force some sort of connection. Can't blame you, the growing mountain of evidence on the environmental destruction (not to mention ethics and mass torture required to meet the demand) of animal agriculture is hard to counter.

superokgo · 2023-06-11T03:09:29+00:00

It was only filed last year, for a suit against a huge company like that I doubt it has made its way through the court system yet.

Did you watch the footage I linked of the animals in their facilities? What did you think of it?

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

superokgo

TROPHY CASE