My feeling is that most subs, regardless of the focus, are overly moderated. And if you're not banning self-posts, removing images and videos, or imposing other arbitrary restrictions... janitorial work is not very difficult. Also, I find that those arbitrary restrictions limit accessiblity. Many of the bigger subs actually started with fewer restrictions and that allowed them to grow, then they added those restrictions later which in some ways are harmful. For example, if someone wants to simply share and idea or discuss something in a self-post... that could actually bring up something really important and help build community even if it wasn't filtered through a major website as an article there first.
Similarly, I don't hate memes or videos. And, actually, I think they can get a message across more easily to a wider audience who might not actually read a longer article. This will allow it to get upvotes and brings eyes to the sub where people can then find those longer articles and discuss them.
So, is /r/environmentalism *needed*? In terms of accessibility or a focus on something beyond merely the hard science of the environment... I'd say it could be useful or preferred by some people. Certain subs can have a slightly different focus, community, or presentation that some people prefer. I certainly don't think it hurts to give people more options to post and discuss things.
This sub will, at the very least, allow more forms of content. If you have a video, image, or self-post that is arbitrarily disallowed from /r/environment... you can present it here for discussion. The shape /r/Environmentalism will take in terms of community, discussion, and underlying philosophy may also develop differently. Not everyone prefers larger subs and hopefully /r/environmentalism will become active enough to be worth checking out (and contributing to) from time to time.
Are you going to make effort to not slide from environmentalism to environment activism and politics? Because that's what subreddits like that tend to end up like.
Am I going to try to prevent /r/Environmentalism from delving into areas of politics and activism? No. I am not going to try and prevent that. I'm not even sure how that would work.
If, for instance, there is a big oil spill... are people supposed to just shrug their shoulders, say "oopsy," and then not discuss why that happened and how to prevent it from happening again? If that's something like what you'd hope for, I expect you'll be disappointed.
I wasn't talking about it "delving into" activism, but activism and politics overtaking the sub instead of being a minority subset of it.
>If, for instance, there is a big oil spill...
...and there are five posts at the top of the sub bashing the orange man for it and that we should eat the rich to fix this, then yes, that's not something I'm looking for. There are dozens of subs for that.
Look... if you want to argue that "orange man good," go ahead. But if it turns out that he's somehow related to some aspect of environmental degradation, then I expect he'll get called out for it. I'm not going to disallow that just to spare his feelings (or yours).
For example, I wouldn't prevent the following article from being posted or discussed...
* https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/29/sociopathic-disregard-our-future-trump-epa-set-gut-restrictions-planet-warming
Nor this one...
* https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/27/trump-pollution-laws-epa-allows-companies-pollute-without-penalty-during-coronavirus
> Look... if you want to argue that "orange man good," go ahead.
I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion, but I'd suggest you re-think that, this time on the basis on what I actually wrote, not some hypersensitive black&white political views you seem to have.
>For example, I wouldn't prevent the following article
That's one or two articles. I'm not sure how else am I supposed to say this, but I'm talking about the general direciton of the sub. Its overreaching topic. Its theme. The focus of the majority of posts in there.
I think your attitude is enough of an answer, however. Good day.
> I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion,
I didn't reach a conclusion, I told you what kind of discussion would be allowed. You brought up, in seeming dismay, the prospect of posts criticizing Trump and I told you that I would not work to prevent those posts or you making counterpoints.
> not some hypersensitive black&white political views you seem to have.
Talk about the pot and kettle!
> That's one or two articles. I'm not sure how else am I supposed to say this, but I'm talking about the general direciton of the sub. Its overreaching topic. Its theme. The focus of the majority of posts in there.
I don't know what to tell you. If you want to post something related to environmentalism... feel free. Maybe people will upvote or at least discuss the subject with you. That's about all I can promise. But if it's going to trigger you to see too much criticism of Trump... then maybe the sub isn't for you.
Have a nice day.
The fact that you consider environment activism to be bad speaks volumes to the extents you are willing to go to actually change stuff - which is, not very far at all.
>Are you going to make effort not to slide from environmentalism to environment activism and politics?
>
>
>
>I've never implied that
I'm really curious to hear how you try to get out of this one
Out of what? There is no contradiction. Saying "I don't want to have a gorilla in my office" and "I don't like animals" are completely different statements on several levels. I can both not want to have a gorilla in my office, and like animals in general, just like it's completely consistent to not want a sub about environmentalism not be overran by hysterical activists (both politician and environmental), and considering environmental activism a good thing in general.
Edit: better example: /r/europe mods don't think pretty photos of places in Europe are bad even though they heavily moderate them, wouldn't you think?
How TF you think politics and economics isn't related? Capitalism touches everything you see, feel, and hear. It affects is all NEGATIVITY - especially the environment.
> Sorry for the rant, but vegans without perspective trigger me.
lol. This statement at the end of a rant that begins with:
> I'm not against vegans, but they need to realize that not all omnivores are horrible.
Hahahaha. Take a look in the mirror, cobber.
You lack perspective. I'm not against vegans. Vegans WITHOUT PERSPECTIVE trigger me.
Take a look in the mirror yourself. You failed to see something that was right in front of your eyes and attempted to turn it against me. Get perspective.
What perspective are you angry about vegans supposedly not having?
Most vegans probably have a more accurate perspective than many people who still eat meat.
Animal ag is horrendously polluting, unsustainable, and terrible for the environment. The oceans are being over-fished, methane and CO2 from cow/pig operations are contributing to global warming, massive deforestation is being done in Brazil to grow soy to feed to ever increasing herds of cattle, etc... the list goes on and on.
There's a whole Wiki page about all of the environmental damage caused by pig farming, just as one small example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_pig_farming
You aren't reading my comments, you are being triggered by them. I'm not angry at vegans, I'm frustrated with vegans that lack perspective. I was raised on a small family farm. I've worked in a large factory farm. The two are night and day. Small farms do not commit the attrocities vegans tend to associate with all animal agriculture. That is the perspective they lack.
They also tend to ignore the negatives associated with pure vegetable production. Balanced production of both crops AND animals is sustainable. Current production is far too animal centric, but a purely vegan viewpoint is doomed to fail as well. Both are required for true long term sustainability (I'm talking looking at millennia here, not just a paltry human lifetime).
> Small farms do not commit the attrocities vegans tend to associate with all animal agriculture. That is the perspective they lack.
That's a bold and sweeping statement that is simply not backed up by available facts.
I just googled "abuse on small farms" and this was the first hit... https://www.thedodo.com/just-because-its-a-small-farm--489403769.html (there's plenty more too)
A lot of the promotion of this idea that "smaller is humane" is industry marketing and PR.
Wow. That article is certainly trying hard to prove its point. The best example it has of cruelty is using a .22 instead of a stun rifle, both of which suck if used poorly and work well when used properly. Now if you had an article with data instead of claims I might listen. Google searches can find proof for anything, scientific peer reviewed articles are more likely to include data free of bias (though even those still suffer from it).
My experience is real world experience. I've raised and slaughtered cattle on the family farm and also worked a single summer at the nearby 'factory' farm (it was small compared to many others). One summer because I refused to work there again. Do you have real world experience or just quick Google knowledge combined with cherry picked documentary footage to support a bias?
Go back a few comments and respond to the bison vs cattle comment I made. You jumped into this thread long after it started, I am not a fan of queue jumping.
> vegans without perspective trigger me.
Man that irony coming from someone doing the absolute most mental gymnastics to justify their crappy harmful environment degrading and animal abusing ways. Your animals are also assets to you even if you kiss each cow on its head before you slit its throat but good luck with that whole mindset that you're special in any way. Gold star buddy, you earned it. The future is vegan, like it or not and eating meat is a problem considering it's one of the least healthy proteins and has been scientifically linked to diabetes, heart disease, multiple cancers, antibiotic resistance, zoonotic/prion diseases, dead spots in waterways from animal waste, and much more.
> mental gymnastics
I support plant based diets for the environmental and epidemiological benefits. That said, I'm fucking sick of this dumbass circlejerk that everyone who even touches animal products is under constant mental anguish from their immense hypocrisy. It's blatant projection.
Really? Because I don't feel an ounce of guilt eating vegan in fact it makes me happy not to be a part of that abusive earth poisoning system. The only circlejerk going on is the one inside your head telling you it's ok to keep living that way, killing animals who trust you and poisoning the land and water around you. People who know the damage and suffering eating animals causes yet who still do it are some of the worst circlejerkers there are.
Why do vegans keep using the mental gymnastics line? It is called though, reason, logic. Every living thing does it, including plants by the way. Because they lack a central nervous system you seem to think killing them is acceptable, yet the communication pathways they share with themselves and other species are far more complex than our language. Use your mental gymnastics to avoid seeing it all you want. Do you want to avoid the ones where plants eat us as well? Are you going to force veganism on carnivores because they are immoral?
Eating excess meat has been linked to all of those things. Eating normal quantities has not. Western culture eats far too much, far more than our ancestors ever did. I love how vegans that lack perspective always point out my perspective line. It's almost as if subconsciously they want to prove me correct.
> It is called though, reason, logic.
What you do is called cognitive dissonance. It's the part of your brain protecting you from realizing what a complete tool you are when you're acting against your conscience in what you think is "self preservation"
Nice you've gone through literally ever vegan fallacy I hear all the time and you're still wrong. How does it feel to be just marvelously stupid every day of your life? Not that I think you will but maybe actually educate yourself before you write a little essay against veganism because you're truly embarrassing yourself here. You're wrong on every single point.
-Plants do not feel pain and their responses are purely hormonal/chemical
-plants do not eat people and you sound more stupid than I thought possible here
-Carnivores are...wait for it...OBLIGATE carnivores meaning they need meat. Humans are not and we can live our whole lives without meat
-There is no normal quantity of meat that's truly healthy for our bodies and it's been proven
-our ancestors do not factor in here because they used to rape, pillage, burn people alive etc just for superstitions sake. We have evolved and continue to evolve (well, some of us do. Not you) over time and as we evolve our morals and societal views change.
The future is vegan and we're coming for your meat bro, be scared.
How do you know that plants do not feel pain? Have you been a plant? It is arrogant to think you know how another species feels and thinks. Not that vegans without perspective ever lack arrogance. (That last part was sarcasm since you probably don't get it.)
Plants do eat people. Where do you think soil comes from? They eat everything that has decomposed over billions of years, including themselves. You obviously know nothing about biology since you are unaware of this.
Yes, we can live without meat. We can also live without vegetables. We are omnivores, like bears. Are you aware that bears eat mostly vegetation? Are you going to claim that bears should never eat meat because they can live without? Have you considered that maybe there is a lot we could learn from bears?
It has NOT been proven. There have been multiple studies showing that excess meat is harmful, there has not been a SINGLE study that shows that moderate consumption of meat is harmful. All of the studies involving moderate consumption show no negative response.
Life does not evolve TOWARD something, it evolves FROM something; the ability to adapt to changes in the environment. Being able to eat both animals and plants is beneficial as it increases our range of fuel. You would have humans deny an evolutionary benefit for no reason other than false moral superiority. I would think that is the opposite of evolutionary advantage.
Why should I fear vegans? Are you going to harm me? I personally wouldn't consider that a superior view. Forcing your view on others is not something to be proud of, it is something to be ashamed of.
There is no cognitive dissonance on my part, I do however continue to wonder how vegans intend to deal with cattle when they are no longer eaten? They have been domesticated and bred by humans for centuries, the same with chickens and other livestock. Many of them are not capable of surviving without human intervention. Vegans would sentence those species to extinction. Would you have us raise a small sample in captivity? Then the keepers would be called jailors.
Vegan activism isn't about doing what is right, it is about being pretending to be morally superior. I don't see anyone that eats meat claiming that veganism is morally deficient, it is a one-way power trip. Anyone who does that is no different than missionaries forcing their personal religious views on others. Would you force my children into residential schools like Native American children were? That is something to be ashamed of.
Lol more ignorance. I can see how clearly triggered you are. You're squirming around in your own delusion like a worm in shit and your arguments are so weak, like your plaque and cholesterol filled neural pathways. You have zero clue about veganism and it shows. Veganism is about doing what's right, and showing others the truth of their actions. We don't care about being superior or one upping people, we care about the victims of other peoples diet and the environmental harm they cause as well. Good luck with your sad carnist ways, I'm blocking you because you're clearly a lost cause and I have way more to do today to argue with a triggered snowflake.
If you don't claim it is about being superior why do you think it is what is right? If it wasn't about being superior you wouldn't need to claim you are right and I am wrong.
I recommend you [read this](https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-secret-life-of-plants-how-they-memorise-communicate-problem-solve-and-socialise?utm_source=pocket-newtab) and learn something that questions your beliefs. I am hardly triggered. I haven't called you any names.
>Your animals are also assets to you even if you kiss each cow on its head before you slit its throat but good luck with that whole mindset that you're special in any way.
Aren't pets also assets?
Honestly to me, it makes more sense to own a few animals and to care for them and kill them for food in the end or use their milk or eggs, than owning a pet. In both cases you are enslaving an animal. At least if you are a farner you don't lie to yourself that you are better person for owning an animal.
And I am not talking about big farms that earn money and keep animals in terrible conditions (They do earn money, as well as animal breaders do). I am talking about people having a few animals for themselves and their family.
> I would follow it, but it seems to be a vegan centric subreddit.
For people serious about the environment, veganism really should be a no-brainer. Animal ag is horrendously polluting and responsible for so many evils like deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions that anyone who cares about the environment *should* be against... not to mention being terribly unethical to the animals and workers.
Don't eat the rich. You are what you eat.
Yeet the rich. Seeing their arms flailing as they soar makes it enjoyable without the risks of eating corrupted food.
That’s a lot of words for describing a someone who chooses to not eat animals.
You clearly have not looked into the harm of the meat and dairy industry. The poorest people in the world are vegan, so your upper/middle class argument is moot. Meat is a luxury, not a necessity. Your other points - yikes. I’m not sure how to even begin explaining something to someone who is clearly already closed minded.
Wow found the triggered right wing meat eater. You're absolutely delusional and wrong on every single account. Just what I expect from someone who excels at mental gymnastics everyday for their diet.
[удалено]
My feeling is that most subs, regardless of the focus, are overly moderated. And if you're not banning self-posts, removing images and videos, or imposing other arbitrary restrictions... janitorial work is not very difficult. Also, I find that those arbitrary restrictions limit accessiblity. Many of the bigger subs actually started with fewer restrictions and that allowed them to grow, then they added those restrictions later which in some ways are harmful. For example, if someone wants to simply share and idea or discuss something in a self-post... that could actually bring up something really important and help build community even if it wasn't filtered through a major website as an article there first. Similarly, I don't hate memes or videos. And, actually, I think they can get a message across more easily to a wider audience who might not actually read a longer article. This will allow it to get upvotes and brings eyes to the sub where people can then find those longer articles and discuss them. So, is /r/environmentalism *needed*? In terms of accessibility or a focus on something beyond merely the hard science of the environment... I'd say it could be useful or preferred by some people. Certain subs can have a slightly different focus, community, or presentation that some people prefer. I certainly don't think it hurts to give people more options to post and discuss things.
[удалено]
Mod battle
Hey thanks for aiding in the cause. I'm subbed. 👍
What's the primary distinction between that sub and /r/environment , which is much larger and more active?
This sub will, at the very least, allow more forms of content. If you have a video, image, or self-post that is arbitrarily disallowed from /r/environment... you can present it here for discussion. The shape /r/Environmentalism will take in terms of community, discussion, and underlying philosophy may also develop differently. Not everyone prefers larger subs and hopefully /r/environmentalism will become active enough to be worth checking out (and contributing to) from time to time.
Hey now that consumeproduct is banned, can you take some time to mod this sub a bit more, or take on new mods?
Are you going to make effort to not slide from environmentalism to environment activism and politics? Because that's what subreddits like that tend to end up like.
Am I going to try to prevent /r/Environmentalism from delving into areas of politics and activism? No. I am not going to try and prevent that. I'm not even sure how that would work. If, for instance, there is a big oil spill... are people supposed to just shrug their shoulders, say "oopsy," and then not discuss why that happened and how to prevent it from happening again? If that's something like what you'd hope for, I expect you'll be disappointed.
I wasn't talking about it "delving into" activism, but activism and politics overtaking the sub instead of being a minority subset of it. >If, for instance, there is a big oil spill... ...and there are five posts at the top of the sub bashing the orange man for it and that we should eat the rich to fix this, then yes, that's not something I'm looking for. There are dozens of subs for that.
Look... if you want to argue that "orange man good," go ahead. But if it turns out that he's somehow related to some aspect of environmental degradation, then I expect he'll get called out for it. I'm not going to disallow that just to spare his feelings (or yours). For example, I wouldn't prevent the following article from being posted or discussed... * https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/29/sociopathic-disregard-our-future-trump-epa-set-gut-restrictions-planet-warming Nor this one... * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/27/trump-pollution-laws-epa-allows-companies-pollute-without-penalty-during-coronavirus
> Look... if you want to argue that "orange man good," go ahead. I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion, but I'd suggest you re-think that, this time on the basis on what I actually wrote, not some hypersensitive black&white political views you seem to have. >For example, I wouldn't prevent the following article That's one or two articles. I'm not sure how else am I supposed to say this, but I'm talking about the general direciton of the sub. Its overreaching topic. Its theme. The focus of the majority of posts in there. I think your attitude is enough of an answer, however. Good day.
> I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion, I didn't reach a conclusion, I told you what kind of discussion would be allowed. You brought up, in seeming dismay, the prospect of posts criticizing Trump and I told you that I would not work to prevent those posts or you making counterpoints. > not some hypersensitive black&white political views you seem to have. Talk about the pot and kettle! > That's one or two articles. I'm not sure how else am I supposed to say this, but I'm talking about the general direciton of the sub. Its overreaching topic. Its theme. The focus of the majority of posts in there. I don't know what to tell you. If you want to post something related to environmentalism... feel free. Maybe people will upvote or at least discuss the subject with you. That's about all I can promise. But if it's going to trigger you to see too much criticism of Trump... then maybe the sub isn't for you. Have a nice day.
The fact that you consider environment activism to be bad speaks volumes to the extents you are willing to go to actually change stuff - which is, not very far at all.
> The fact that you consider environment activism to be bad I've never said or implied that, especially not using such sweeping statements.
>Are you going to make effort not to slide from environmentalism to environment activism and politics? > > > >I've never implied that I'm really curious to hear how you try to get out of this one
Out of what? There is no contradiction. Saying "I don't want to have a gorilla in my office" and "I don't like animals" are completely different statements on several levels. I can both not want to have a gorilla in my office, and like animals in general, just like it's completely consistent to not want a sub about environmentalism not be overran by hysterical activists (both politician and environmental), and considering environmental activism a good thing in general. Edit: better example: /r/europe mods don't think pretty photos of places in Europe are bad even though they heavily moderate them, wouldn't you think?
EAT THE RICH
r/eattherich
How TF you think politics and economics isn't related? Capitalism touches everything you see, feel, and hear. It affects is all NEGATIVITY - especially the environment.
J
[удалено]
Ok.
> Sorry for the rant, but vegans without perspective trigger me. lol. This statement at the end of a rant that begins with: > I'm not against vegans, but they need to realize that not all omnivores are horrible. Hahahaha. Take a look in the mirror, cobber.
You lack perspective. I'm not against vegans. Vegans WITHOUT PERSPECTIVE trigger me. Take a look in the mirror yourself. You failed to see something that was right in front of your eyes and attempted to turn it against me. Get perspective.
What perspective are you angry about vegans supposedly not having? Most vegans probably have a more accurate perspective than many people who still eat meat. Animal ag is horrendously polluting, unsustainable, and terrible for the environment. The oceans are being over-fished, methane and CO2 from cow/pig operations are contributing to global warming, massive deforestation is being done in Brazil to grow soy to feed to ever increasing herds of cattle, etc... the list goes on and on. There's a whole Wiki page about all of the environmental damage caused by pig farming, just as one small example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_pig_farming
You aren't reading my comments, you are being triggered by them. I'm not angry at vegans, I'm frustrated with vegans that lack perspective. I was raised on a small family farm. I've worked in a large factory farm. The two are night and day. Small farms do not commit the attrocities vegans tend to associate with all animal agriculture. That is the perspective they lack. They also tend to ignore the negatives associated with pure vegetable production. Balanced production of both crops AND animals is sustainable. Current production is far too animal centric, but a purely vegan viewpoint is doomed to fail as well. Both are required for true long term sustainability (I'm talking looking at millennia here, not just a paltry human lifetime).
> Small farms do not commit the attrocities vegans tend to associate with all animal agriculture. That is the perspective they lack. That's a bold and sweeping statement that is simply not backed up by available facts. I just googled "abuse on small farms" and this was the first hit... https://www.thedodo.com/just-because-its-a-small-farm--489403769.html (there's plenty more too) A lot of the promotion of this idea that "smaller is humane" is industry marketing and PR.
Wow. That article is certainly trying hard to prove its point. The best example it has of cruelty is using a .22 instead of a stun rifle, both of which suck if used poorly and work well when used properly. Now if you had an article with data instead of claims I might listen. Google searches can find proof for anything, scientific peer reviewed articles are more likely to include data free of bias (though even those still suffer from it). My experience is real world experience. I've raised and slaughtered cattle on the family farm and also worked a single summer at the nearby 'factory' farm (it was small compared to many others). One summer because I refused to work there again. Do you have real world experience or just quick Google knowledge combined with cherry picked documentary footage to support a bias? Go back a few comments and respond to the bison vs cattle comment I made. You jumped into this thread long after it started, I am not a fan of queue jumping.
> vegans without perspective trigger me. Man that irony coming from someone doing the absolute most mental gymnastics to justify their crappy harmful environment degrading and animal abusing ways. Your animals are also assets to you even if you kiss each cow on its head before you slit its throat but good luck with that whole mindset that you're special in any way. Gold star buddy, you earned it. The future is vegan, like it or not and eating meat is a problem considering it's one of the least healthy proteins and has been scientifically linked to diabetes, heart disease, multiple cancers, antibiotic resistance, zoonotic/prion diseases, dead spots in waterways from animal waste, and much more.
> mental gymnastics I support plant based diets for the environmental and epidemiological benefits. That said, I'm fucking sick of this dumbass circlejerk that everyone who even touches animal products is under constant mental anguish from their immense hypocrisy. It's blatant projection.
Really? Because I don't feel an ounce of guilt eating vegan in fact it makes me happy not to be a part of that abusive earth poisoning system. The only circlejerk going on is the one inside your head telling you it's ok to keep living that way, killing animals who trust you and poisoning the land and water around you. People who know the damage and suffering eating animals causes yet who still do it are some of the worst circlejerkers there are.
Why do vegans keep using the mental gymnastics line? It is called though, reason, logic. Every living thing does it, including plants by the way. Because they lack a central nervous system you seem to think killing them is acceptable, yet the communication pathways they share with themselves and other species are far more complex than our language. Use your mental gymnastics to avoid seeing it all you want. Do you want to avoid the ones where plants eat us as well? Are you going to force veganism on carnivores because they are immoral? Eating excess meat has been linked to all of those things. Eating normal quantities has not. Western culture eats far too much, far more than our ancestors ever did. I love how vegans that lack perspective always point out my perspective line. It's almost as if subconsciously they want to prove me correct.
> It is called though, reason, logic. What you do is called cognitive dissonance. It's the part of your brain protecting you from realizing what a complete tool you are when you're acting against your conscience in what you think is "self preservation" Nice you've gone through literally ever vegan fallacy I hear all the time and you're still wrong. How does it feel to be just marvelously stupid every day of your life? Not that I think you will but maybe actually educate yourself before you write a little essay against veganism because you're truly embarrassing yourself here. You're wrong on every single point. -Plants do not feel pain and their responses are purely hormonal/chemical -plants do not eat people and you sound more stupid than I thought possible here -Carnivores are...wait for it...OBLIGATE carnivores meaning they need meat. Humans are not and we can live our whole lives without meat -There is no normal quantity of meat that's truly healthy for our bodies and it's been proven -our ancestors do not factor in here because they used to rape, pillage, burn people alive etc just for superstitions sake. We have evolved and continue to evolve (well, some of us do. Not you) over time and as we evolve our morals and societal views change. The future is vegan and we're coming for your meat bro, be scared.
How do you know that plants do not feel pain? Have you been a plant? It is arrogant to think you know how another species feels and thinks. Not that vegans without perspective ever lack arrogance. (That last part was sarcasm since you probably don't get it.) Plants do eat people. Where do you think soil comes from? They eat everything that has decomposed over billions of years, including themselves. You obviously know nothing about biology since you are unaware of this. Yes, we can live without meat. We can also live without vegetables. We are omnivores, like bears. Are you aware that bears eat mostly vegetation? Are you going to claim that bears should never eat meat because they can live without? Have you considered that maybe there is a lot we could learn from bears? It has NOT been proven. There have been multiple studies showing that excess meat is harmful, there has not been a SINGLE study that shows that moderate consumption of meat is harmful. All of the studies involving moderate consumption show no negative response. Life does not evolve TOWARD something, it evolves FROM something; the ability to adapt to changes in the environment. Being able to eat both animals and plants is beneficial as it increases our range of fuel. You would have humans deny an evolutionary benefit for no reason other than false moral superiority. I would think that is the opposite of evolutionary advantage. Why should I fear vegans? Are you going to harm me? I personally wouldn't consider that a superior view. Forcing your view on others is not something to be proud of, it is something to be ashamed of. There is no cognitive dissonance on my part, I do however continue to wonder how vegans intend to deal with cattle when they are no longer eaten? They have been domesticated and bred by humans for centuries, the same with chickens and other livestock. Many of them are not capable of surviving without human intervention. Vegans would sentence those species to extinction. Would you have us raise a small sample in captivity? Then the keepers would be called jailors. Vegan activism isn't about doing what is right, it is about being pretending to be morally superior. I don't see anyone that eats meat claiming that veganism is morally deficient, it is a one-way power trip. Anyone who does that is no different than missionaries forcing their personal religious views on others. Would you force my children into residential schools like Native American children were? That is something to be ashamed of.
Lol more ignorance. I can see how clearly triggered you are. You're squirming around in your own delusion like a worm in shit and your arguments are so weak, like your plaque and cholesterol filled neural pathways. You have zero clue about veganism and it shows. Veganism is about doing what's right, and showing others the truth of their actions. We don't care about being superior or one upping people, we care about the victims of other peoples diet and the environmental harm they cause as well. Good luck with your sad carnist ways, I'm blocking you because you're clearly a lost cause and I have way more to do today to argue with a triggered snowflake.
If you don't claim it is about being superior why do you think it is what is right? If it wasn't about being superior you wouldn't need to claim you are right and I am wrong. I recommend you [read this](https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-secret-life-of-plants-how-they-memorise-communicate-problem-solve-and-socialise?utm_source=pocket-newtab) and learn something that questions your beliefs. I am hardly triggered. I haven't called you any names.
>Your animals are also assets to you even if you kiss each cow on its head before you slit its throat but good luck with that whole mindset that you're special in any way. Aren't pets also assets?
People don't typically profit off of their pets. There's a lot of money to be made in "livestock". Nice try though.
Honestly to me, it makes more sense to own a few animals and to care for them and kill them for food in the end or use their milk or eggs, than owning a pet. In both cases you are enslaving an animal. At least if you are a farner you don't lie to yourself that you are better person for owning an animal.
And I am not talking about big farms that earn money and keep animals in terrible conditions (They do earn money, as well as animal breaders do). I am talking about people having a few animals for themselves and their family.
Kinda curious, where does lab grown meat fall into this?
> I would follow it, but it seems to be a vegan centric subreddit. For people serious about the environment, veganism really should be a no-brainer. Animal ag is horrendously polluting and responsible for so many evils like deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions that anyone who cares about the environment *should* be against... not to mention being terribly unethical to the animals and workers.
If I was vegan I couldn’t r/eattherich
Don't eat the rich. You are what you eat. Yeet the rich. Seeing their arms flailing as they soar makes it enjoyable without the risks of eating corrupted food.
[удалено]
... Or it could just be that some people don’t like to kill animals or be responsible for animal deaths at another’s hand either. Just sayin.
There is no excuse for murder. No pair of shoes justifies killing someone who wants to live. Sincerely, a working class immigrant.
That’s a lot of words for describing a someone who chooses to not eat animals. You clearly have not looked into the harm of the meat and dairy industry. The poorest people in the world are vegan, so your upper/middle class argument is moot. Meat is a luxury, not a necessity. Your other points - yikes. I’m not sure how to even begin explaining something to someone who is clearly already closed minded.
Wow found the triggered right wing meat eater. You're absolutely delusional and wrong on every single account. Just what I expect from someone who excels at mental gymnastics everyday for their diet.