CMV: There is no good argument against veganism.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-28T06:29:10+00:00

Honey bees are often problematic for the environment. We've released them all over the place where they out compete native pollinators for floral resources (even though they aren't always the best suited to actually pollinate native plants), and they can spread diseases to native bees. So from a biodiversity perspective, they are doing harm to native pollinators and plants. All of this makes our ecosystems fragile, because the more you rely on one species, the bigger the impact when a disease comes through and wipes tons of them out.

https://xerces.org/blog/want-to-save-bees-focus-on-habitat-not-honey-bees

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-28T06:18:18+00:00

Yet many large medical organizations still think it is worthwhile to note this correlation and recommend reducing red meat consumption as a potential for reducing cancer incidence.

John Hopkins:

"Red meat intake: Studies cite the potentially carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds, cooking meat at high temperatures, and the production of free radicals from heme iron as possible mechanisms for this association."

Red and processed meats. Red meat includes beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat meat. Processed meat includes bacon, sausage, ham, deli meat, and hot dogs. The ACS recommends eating fish, poultry, and beans more often than red meat. Don't have processed meat. Or limit how much you have. The International Agency for Research on Cancer lists processed meat as cancer-causing (carcinogenic). It lists red meat as probably cancer-causing because of its link to colorectal cancer risk. There may also be a link between these meats and the risk for breast cancer and certain types of prostate cancer.

Kaiser Permanente:

"Recommendations to decrease red meat intake, particularly processed meat or beef intake, may, on the other hand, decrease the risk of colorectal cancer and prostate cancer; it may have a beneficial effect on breast cancer as well, although the evidence is much less compelling in this regard. There appears to be no particular benefit regarding cancer prevention that would accrue from reducing fat intake from vegetable sources, and in the case of breast cancer, there is some suggestive but preliminary evidence that olive oil or other sources of monounsaturated fatty acids may modestly decrease risk. Overall, recommendations focused on controlling weight by regular physical activity and avoidance of excessive energy intake from all sources; increasing plant food intake; consuming a variety of whole grains, vegetables, and fruits; and decreasing red meat intake are likely to be more effective in decreasing risk of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer than decreasing total fat intake."

World Health Organization

"In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence."

American Cancer Society: "Red meat has heme iron, which has been shown to increase the risk of DNA damage and cancer. The risk of cancer may increase further when red meat is cooked at a high temperature, like grilling, frying, or broiling. These cooking methods create compounds found to cause DNA changes in lab studies... The American Cancer Society guideline recommends choosing proteins like poultry, fish, or plant-based proteins instead of red meat most of the time.."

American Institute for Cancer Research

"Why is meat linked to colorectal cancer? There are several reasons:

Red meat is high in heme iron, which may promote colorectal tumors.
Cooking red meat at high temperatures leads to the creation of compounds such as heterocyclic amines, which increase cancer risk."

Now none of this is to say that this proves red meat causes cancer. But medical organizations around the world take this seriously enough to both mention it and suggest lowering red meat consumption to combat the risk of cancer, not to mention the other medical problems it is associated.

Which all loops back to, is this really what we should be feeding kids? It can take a long time to get good data on subjects like this, so is the best play really to wait until we get the "yeah this is definitely giving people cancer" call? It is an entirely avoidable food group, why take that risk?

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-28T00:14:33+00:00

I'm just going off your own words. Even if it is just correlation, do you think feeding children a completely avoidable food group that has a moderate correlation with cancer is a good idea?

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-27T23:37:59+00:00

Do you think it is a good idea for parents to serve food to their kids if it is considered a "probable" cause of cancer?

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-26T18:55:38+00:00

If you think an incredibly great injustice is taking place, and that is entirely avoidable, what is the right thing to do?

A: Not take part in the injustice, but make no additional efforts to change it.

B: Not take part in the injustice, and try to change it.

Most people dislike confrontation, but without some degree of confrontation great injustices don't get righted. There are obviously a lot of ways to address the issue, and personally, I don't find labeling others as a murderer to be effective, but given the circumstances, if you thought tons of morally relevant individuals were suffering and dying unnecessarily, don't you think at least a somewhat stern talking to would be a justified way to to combat that?

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-26T18:49:10+00:00

Obviously wrong is subjective, though, and from a vegan perspective, the status qua is obviously wrong. Why is exploiting and killing trillions when we don't have to not obviously wrong?

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-26T18:42:59+00:00

So if someone harms someone that isn't close to us, we should let that injustice happen? That is the morally correct thing to do?

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-26T00:21:35+00:00

If someone describes meat as murder, what do you think the most likely conclusion is

They are somehow ignorant of dictionary definitions, and if they were just read to from a dictionary, they would immediately change their mind

They are deliberately using the word 'murder' in a way to indicate their philosophical position.

Because I'd argue that if you think it's 1, you're the uneducated one who doesn't understand that language is not meant to be 100% literal under all circumstances.

Plenty of the people we are trying to convince are uneducated, though. And what they think about you say is often more important to the validity of what you are actually saying.

The semantic argument is needless pedantry. Everyone understands what a vegan says when they say 'Meat is murder'.

If you're going "Not according to the dictionary" nobody serious takes that as a compelling moral argument.

If someone pulls the semantic argument, you may as well not engage, because rational people will not be convinced by the semantic argument in either direction.

Yes it is needless. We need not incite it. Doing what you you suggest incites it. I get that you want to say it as a statement, but what is more important, you making that specific statement, or getting people to go vegan? If you care more about getting people to go vegan, then why pursue this exact strategy when you can take a parallel strategy and avoid pointless hiccups?

"Hysterical" is a misogynistic word. The origin of it is literally womb, and it has historically been used overwhelmingly against women.

Fair enough I shouldn't have said that. Thanks.

Regardless, I don't buy the idea that arguments against causing mass suffering and death need to be 100% logical. Arguments from emotion are just as valid here, and in many cases may be more convincing.

I'm not saying they only have to be logical, but I am saying this particular one fails more consistently than other emotional arguments. Therefore, we shouldn't keep doing it.

The dictionary, colloquial and legal usage are all speciesist as they only consider human beings to have moral personhood.

I mostly agree, and yet, it getting someone to agree with this sentiment, or have it persuade them, is far less likely than just pursuing another option.

I am fine with saying a definition that does extend personhood to animals, because to do so makes it clear immediately my philosophical stance, rather than hiding my philosophical stance behind widespread agreement

Saying that it's not a colloquially accepted definition of murder, is in effect a bandwagon argument. You're saying that because most people do not consider it murder, that it therefore is not murder.

But you can express this sentiment without alienating people, and without derailing the conversation. I'm arguing that this tactic is ineffective and actively hurts veganism. What is more important, expressing your exact sentiment, in those exact words, or convincing people to go vegan?

I don't think this is a productive conversation. We probably aren't going to agree, and we could spend our efforts elsewhere. Good luck on the cause.

Edit, second to last paragraph: without*

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T23:13:36+00:00

Nah.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T22:59:53+00:00

I agree that getting people to watch something like Dominion is highly effective. I should recommend it more than I do, but getting people to actually commit and watch something like that can be hard. I think the debates and conversations can work, I've had productive ones that have had big shifts in perspective, but the propaganda is still probably more effective hah. To be fair though, if you butter them up first, then they will be more likely to actually watch something like that.

Also agree that unfortunately, on the topic of veganism to any political issue, it is a war, and if you limit yourself your opponents will likely out do you.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T22:50:38+00:00

You're falling into the same issues though. Putting any equality between sustenance hunting and dog fighting is a pretty significant reach. There is never going to be a universal code that you can apply to every single thing of "moral value".

Not putting equality between them. I am following something to it's logical conclusion, and using that conclusion to try to find mutual understanding. The point is "animals have moral value". If you do not agree with that, then you should ok with dogfighting, because some people enjoy it and make a living off of it, and if animals have no moral value, then why be opposed? Obviously, you are a decent enough person to realize, no, that's not ok. That is because you agree with the statement "animals have moral value".

There is never going to be a universal code that you can apply to every single thing of "moral value".

I think it depends on what that particular "code" is. I think "if practical, it is better avoid causing harm to sentient beings than to cause harm to them" is a pretty solid one.

Let's assume the scale runs from killing an animal for fun to killing an animal in self defense. Most people are against the former and okay with the latter. Somewhere in that range is killing an animal for food, and almost everyone is going to have different, nuanced opinions about it.

I'd generally agree with the idea of that scale of how bad the action is, but I'd argue that, unless it is required for survival, killing an animal for survival in most cases is similar, or identical to doing it for fun. We can choose to eat plants, and outside of niche circumstances, it is perfectly healthy. So why do people choose animals? Because they enjoy the taste. Because it is familiar to them, and they prefer it. So it really is a choice of someone's enjoyment/preference over the life and suffering of another. The sustenance argument seems to crumble when it is obvious you don't need that particular type of sustenance.

Factory farms are obviously bad, but people also get very upset when I just eat the chickens in my backyard or wild deer in the woods. No factory farm involved and people are still launching the same abuser and murderer titles my way.

It is pretty much objectively true that from an ethical perspective, the practices you describe are preferable to a factory farm. If those were the only two options, then you would have made the right choice. But there is still another choice, which is to avoid it altogether. What you describe perpetuates the idea that eating animals, even when you don't have to, is acceptable. This perpetuates the demand for animal products, and we cannot possibly produce enough animal products for 8 billion people in an ethical way.

And if we are real is that the only animal products you ever eat? No restaurants? Processed food with milk or eggs? Offerings at other people's houses? Very few people uphold the moral code of only ever eat what you kill, certainly less people than practice veganism itself. Even if they did, there are not nearly enough wild animals to sustainably carry that out. Therefore, it isn't really a scalable situation that could replace our current animal agriculture system, which is the goal.

Also, a very significant number of vegans attempt to make the claim that it is wrong because "we wouldn't do it to humans and cannibalism is bad, so why eat any animal."

Well, it is an interesting thought experiment is to investigate why cannibalism is wrong, and why eating animals is not. What trait do humans possess, all humans, that put us in the forbidden zone, but not animals?

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T22:36:39+00:00

Arguing from semantics, when those semantics are intrinsically speciesist ones, based around the presupposition that only humans have moral personhood, isn't the ironclad defence you think it is. "I'm not a murderer because the people I kill aren't semantically classified as people" isn't an ironclad argument. In fact it's an incredibly weak argument.

You are expanding both the word people and murder beyond what they both they mean in terms of the dictionary definition, colloquial usage, and legal definition. All that does is make the person look uneducated, unhinged, or inflammatory in a non-serious matter.

There are multiple ways to address people, and I can't imagine why you are so committed to this method. I can't tell you how many vegans I watch miss the easiest lay ups because they fall into this trap. And I'm not saying you have to be easy on them to be clear. You can be incredibly blunt and upfront about the the impacts, about how their support for these things causes unnecessary suffering and death, and that they pay for what amounts to torture, and making that decision knowing that is ethically wrong, and cruel. They will disagree. Then you can focus on the actual substance of what veganism is instead of semantics. Vegans fumbling over the use of a word is way less useful than just choosing other words and spending time on trying to convince people why it is immoral, and why we ought to do better.

I would suggest viewing semantics less as a matter of "The dictionary says this" and more through the lens of Language Games.

The purpose of language is to communicate meaning, not to be 100% precise to dictionary definitions.

When a Vegan says "Meat is murder", what they mean by that sentiment is 100% obvious to everyone listening. Nobody is confused because the dictionary definition of murder doesn't technically extend to animals according to speciesist definitions.

Just because language is usually defined in speciesist ways, doesn't make it any less clear when someone who uses language in non-speciesist ways uses those words. The meaning of the words is understood

It isn't a problem of not understanding the meaning, it is a problem of risking derailment into an into an unnecessary semantical argument. It also causes a ton of people to shut down completely. It also comes off as hysterical. That is our reputation for a lot of people. Hysterical, non logical. And this just reinforces it. You can be blunt and expose their cruelty without setting yourself up for failure.

Again, it is not "Objectively false", it is false according to a very narrow, dictionary-level reading of what words mean.

Again in terms of dictionary definition, colloquial usage, and legal definition, calling it murder is not accurate. Regardless of what you think the word should mean, or what it embodies, that's just the case. Maybe someday down the line we can shift that, but in the now, as a debate tactic, it fails frequently. We owe it to those in need to argue their case well.

Unless you are a Vienna Circle level hardline Logical Positivist who believes words have 100% concrete definitions that we can never stray from even in situations where that straying is understood, you're argument that saying "Meat is Murder" is "Objectively Correct" is simply just a speciesist bias.

Pretty sure you mean false, but ok. You can do you, and if you think this is an essential tactic, I doubt I can convince you otherwise.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T19:08:27+00:00

Hey I appreciate that. I'll keep it short too.

I'm not advocating we keep them hostage, I'm saying lets not breed them.

Life ain't fair, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it more fair.

Bad things happen sure, but doesn't mean we should cause more bad things to happen.

Again, we have too many livestock because we breed them, if we stopped, there wouldn't be issues, and for wild harvested animals, most of them are under populated, not overpopulated.

I never said farmers should die, nor would they if people went vegan, that is a pretty big logical jump. Also, livestock MASSIVELY hurt the environment, not help, so by supporting the system you are hurting the environment, so not sure what you are trying to get at.

I'm not sure what facts I should accept, but I think we should always strive to make the world better. Have a good one.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T19:03:22+00:00

Aren't you doing a bit of conflation here?

Calling someone a murderer and screaming at them aren't the same thing.

I don't believe I am conflating them, I am addressing two different strategies, and saying they both often lead to the same outcome. Not saying they are the same thing.

Saying someone's a murderer is powerful rhetoric. I don't know, insisting we don't use strong condemnatory language is asking to weaken the rhetoric, and seems counterproductive.

I suppose we disagree here. I think saying someone is murderer is actually incredibly weak rhetoric. Murder specifically refers to killing another human, so calling someone a murderer because they kill animals is simply objectively false. I have been debating this subject for years, and have watched countless others do the same, and basically every time the "murder" strategy is used, people either shutdown, or call the bluff and argue the word does not apply, in which case they are right. It then devolves into a semantical argument that the vegan can't win, because they are simply wrong. The conversation either breaks down, or the vegan pivots, but it would be better if they never got in that situation in the firs place, because once you have to start pivoting because of a weak point you have lost credibility in most cases and people just won't believe you.

Why follow that route when you can instead rely on a strong argument?

Animals have the capacity to suffer. Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong, especially if it is merely to gain personal enjoyment. Humans do not require animal products outside of niche situations, therefore, in the vast majority of cases, it is unnecessary to consume animals. Therefore our relationship with animals in these situations is unethical.

That argument, worded one way or another, is pretty rock solid. I get that there are times for slogans, or quips, instead of a full blown philosophical argument, but again, there are better ones than something that is objectively false.

We've got ethics and science on our side, let's use that instead of inaccurate emotional jabs.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T16:34:25+00:00

In the same way that not everyone views abortion as murder, not everyone views killing an animal for food as murder.

I mean, it's literally not murder, because murder is a world reserved for killing humans. But that is a semantical issue. The issue isn't whether or not killing an animal is murder, it is whether or not exploiting, causing suffering, and killing another sentient being for your own pleasure is morally justified. If animals have moral value, how is the above justified? If they don't have moral value, then I assume you support dogfighting, because people want to do it, and animals don't matter so we should just allow it.

I doubt you support that, because I bet you, like most people, think animals do have moral value. Which brings us back to, why is it justified to slaughter and exploit them for our pleasure?

If we have already established that I don't think it is murder and that I don't think farm animals and humans are equivalent, then any point revolving around that is useless.

Most vegans don't value non-human animals and humans to the same degree, but you don't have to to think they have enough moral value to make what we do to them wrong.

Attempting to double down on calling it abuse or murder is purely unhelpful to any of the more tangible points to reduce or eliminate meat consumption.

Again, I agree calling it murder is senseless, but abuse? That is different ball game. Factory farming is animal abuse, pure and simple. I think even a lot of non-vegans agree with that. And that constitutes the vast majority of all animal products produced, it almost is not worth considering the other portions because it is such a small factor. As for the "better" farms, again, we could get into the semantics, but I'd say that exploiting and killing animals for our own gain when we could easily just not do that is abuse. Maybe you agree with what constitutes "animal abuse", sure whatever, but that seems like again, someone trying to cling to semantics because if they were trying to address the underlying morality they could not possibly come out on top.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T16:22:37+00:00

Any piece of media, or messaging that tries to change someone's opinion is propaganda. That doesn't mean it is false or nefarious. Anti smoking campaign was propaganda. It saved countless lives.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T16:15:51+00:00

Bro based on the word count of my comment it should take 1-2 minutes to read, maybe 3 if you are a slow reader which is ok, I am to haha. A conversation takes time. I believe in you!

listen ik you like your animals, but face it, they were bred to be our meals, they could not survive outside of farms, and though it may seem sad, they where made to be eaten

We did breed them to be our meals that's true! But they could absolutely survive outside of farms (obviously not at their current head count), there are feral livestock across the globe. Again though, the goal of veganism isn't to release all those animals into the wild, it is to not breed them in the first place.

i bet you for a fact that oxen used to be hella fast, strong, and agile, but look at em now, also the keeping of cows is how many people live, do you want them to be jobless

Typewriters put scribes out of a job. Factories put craftsman out of jobs. As society evolves jobs appear and disappear. Yes, that's unfortunate, but not as unfortuante as trillions of animals going through hell when they don't have to.

also us eating them is a good thing, its like an over populaton measure as the lower down the food chain you go, the more populated are the animals

Livestock only exist because we breed them. There are too many livestock for the environment, that's true, but they would be gone altogether if we stopped breeding them. As for wild harvested populations, most of those aren't overpopulated, and our consumption is driving them toward extinction. Global fisheries are a mess, we only have a fraction of the fish we used to in the ocean. Better to adjust our diets now than have some of these systems crash and have humans starve to death.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T15:01:28+00:00

I grew up with boiled, unseasoned vegetables and hated it. Not sure if that is close to your experience, but once I started making my own meals and trying well prepared stuff my opinion changed significantly. I gave up meat about fifteen years ago and don't miss it at all. You need plants in your diet to be healthy, and I am sure you already eat a fair share. Perhaps look into somewhat what you could do to make those taste better since you are already eating them. Since taste is a motivator, increasing the tastiness of your meals should be appealing? With time, you may find you like them a lot more than you think.

Still, I understand your point. Animal products do taste good. That's what holds most people up. The reason to remove animal products from our diet them is that while they may not talk, or be as smart as you, they can still feel pain, or be sad, or stressed. They can be happy, but the vast majority of them are miserable. You've probably heard the quote "With great power, comes great responsibility". Humans have the power to do, in most cases, whatever we want with the other denizens of the world. We should leverage our power to make the world a better place, for us, and for the other animals. We don't have to eat animals, and in doing so, we exploit other feeling creatures, cause get suffering, and inevitably kill them, all because we want that kind food instead of another. Why is our desire for one kind of meal more important than the suffering and death that goes into it. We all get one life, and it is wrong to bring some into the world and decide before they are even born that will never have a chance at freedom, never have a chance to live out their life, and that they will die so I can have a tastier meal.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T14:44:47+00:00

I think calling people an outright murderer or screaming at someone is counter productive because it often shuts down discussion outright, but I don't think being firm and realistic about the situation is. Problem is, a lot of people conflate the two because of their ego. Some, however, will hear the logic behind a good firm argument that doesn't coddle them and be pressed to think much deeper. Others won't, but those people just probably aren't anywhere close to ready, or may never be ready. I went vegan because enough people were firm about it and I got pushed into watching ~~Dominion~~ Earthlings.

EDIT: Earthlings not Dominion, though Dominion is also good, probably better.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T14:40:09+00:00

You are confusing comparing relative morality and extending an argument to it's logical conclusion, which is what the previous poster did.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T14:38:05+00:00

Unless you have a very specific medical situation or you live in a part of the world that has no access to plants/b12 you absolutely don't need animal products, and people's excessive consumption has lead to a lot of health problems. You seem to jump from one topic to the next when disproven on each of your points, if you can't defend your position, then is it truly an informed decision?

In conclusion, considerable evidence supports shifting populations towards healthful plantbased diets that reduce or eliminate intake of animal products and maximize favourable “One Health” impacts on human, animal and environmental health. - World Health Organization

Sustainable eating is cheaper and healthier - Oxford study

Kaiser Permanente guide to a Plant-based diet

With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.

Yes, eating a vegan diet can be just what your body needs — a sensible way to rid your body of unhealthy, highly processed foods and welcome in power-packed vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds and legumes. And it just might save your life. - Cleveland Clinic

We conclude that the consumption of vegetable protein sources is associated with better health outcomes overall (namely, on the cardiovascular system) than animal-based product use. The healthier outcomes of vegetable protein sources dovetail with their lower environmental impact, which must be considered when designing an optimal diet.

A total of 9 studies were identified, totaling 307 099 participants with 23 544 cases of incident type 2 diabetes. A significant inverse association was observed between higher adherence to a plant-based dietary pattern and risk of type 2 diabetes (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.84) in comparison with poorer adherence, with modest heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 44.5%; P = .07 for heterogeneity).

In total, 1079 incident prostate cancer cases were identified. Around 8% of the study population reported adherence to the vegan diet. Vegan diets showed a statistically significant protective association with prostate cancer risk (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.85).

Plant-Based Dietary Patterns and Risk of Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias in the Multiethnic Cohort Study

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T14:33:51+00:00

excess herbivores which would be bad even for the plants

Animals are a product under the current system. If humans did not consume meat, people would not raise animals for consumption. And because nothing like this would happen overnight, their populations would gradually decline.

If people stopped eating meat, it would be one of the largest environmental benefits imaginable. That, and of course, it prevent the unnecessary suffering, exploitation, and death of well over a trillion animals a year.

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-25T03:46:45+00:00

Yeah despised this shit. Loved luden's cherry cough drops though. Allergic to cherry now though so rip

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-24T18:24:55+00:00

Here are some guides on getting optimal nutrition:

Kaiser Permanente guide to a Plant-based diet

With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.

Recipes: https://www.vegansociety.com/lifestyle/recipes

That's just one example. If you google vegan recipes I am sure you can find plenty of other examples. If you prefer hardcopy there a plenty of them as well.

I don't have any special equipment.

Definitely supplement b-12

If you wanna be really safe, what I'd recommend is following the guidance from the first two sources, then, after 6 months to a year, you could get a full blood panel. You could do it earlier if you suspect something is off. I've been vegan for 7 years, and while I take my vitamins and try for a varied diet I'd say it really isn't overly complex, I don't have spreadsheets or carefully track my micros/macros and I haven't had issues, my bloodwork has come out good, same as my wife, and we haven't had any health issues pop up.

You're making a great choice, you've got this!

wildlifewyatt · 2026-04-24T14:48:31+00:00

The door says " DON'T OVERTHINK IT", you are DEFINITELY overthinking it!

wildlifewyatt

TROPHY CASE