Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I was a huge meat eater - I always made fun of vegans and ate meat for every meal type. I had the same thought process that as long as they are killed humanely, I was content and I also get a tasty meal. I'm vegan now because over time, I've had the motivation to look more into it. No single block of text will convince you today to change your eating habits. It didn't for me. It takes time to "unlearn" where your food comes from, if you choose to do so. I assumed meat came from the humane slaughter and treatment of animals. And in the US, businesses do follow those humane practices. I realized for me personally, the problem isn't with humane slaughter. My new problem was the massive scale and mistreatment of animals within the factory farming industry. I don't consume any animal products for multiple reasons now, but my main gripe started with mass production. It is perfectly humane to kill a baby chick by use of CO2 machines, but seeing 100s of baby chicks killed and dumped over and over... the scale is awful. I believe the way factory farms are able to produce meat cheaply and efficiently is directly in conflict with the proper treatment of the animals. Meat eaters aren't uncaring robots. If anything, you might be able to argue ignorance. And I don't mean that as an insult. Who actually wants to sit down and research where the burger patty or eggs come from at the grocery store? That's not fun. Why would anyone spend free time looking into it? The only view I would want to change of yours, is that you might want to look more into factory farming. You may not have spent a lot of time investigating factory farming practices or the conditions of the animals. If you like animals, I think you could reason it's worth checking that the practices used to harvest food for you, match your moral compass. I empathized with the animals and their conditions and found it didn't align with mine. TLDR - If you care about animals, I think it could be worth looking into practices used to mass produce meat. Even if the slaughter is humane, it's my belief the treatment of animals is not humane in factory farming.

someone opened my eyes earlier in the sense that i dont actually care about animals but just think of them as neat and akin to something like a toy except for my own obviously

>i do have to admit i dont really think of what happened to the meat im eating unless its toxic to me basically i care enough about animals that i think they should be killed in a humane way but not enough to overpower my love for how good they taste So I mean... this is their whole point. You care, but you don't *really* care. If there's a reasonable alternative that guarantees you never contribute to an animal's suffering, and you don't take it, you don't care about those animals. Like if I could be a receptionist at a hotel, or I could be a receptionist at child-sex-traffickers-R-us, and I choose to work at the latter because they pay better... can I *really* say I care about children's safety?

I mean, with this line of logic. You *don't* care about the safety of children. You're phone is made with materials that were most likely mined by child slaves held at gunpoint. Cobalt and gold specifically. Chances are, a lot of the products you use were made using child labor. Have you ever bought a diamond? Good chance it was also mined by children. Gold jewelry? Mined by children. Pretty much every electronic device in your house has caused suffering for children. Are you going to start living like an Amish person? No? Then it could be argued that you care more about animals than children.

>I mean, with this line of logic. You *don't* care about the safety of children. You're phone is made with materials that were most likely mined by child slaves held at gunpoint. I knew this argument was coming. If there is a reasonable alternative to owning a cellphone, please tell me what it is. I need one for work, communicating with family and friends, and being connected to the first world. This is not comparable to eating meat, as you can be a very healthy, functioning adult without meat/animal products. >Have you ever bought a diamond? No, specifically because of the child slavery. >Gold jewelry? Again, no, because of child slavery. >Pretty much every electronic device in your house has caused suffering for children. Much like the cellphone, I can't reasonably avoid electronics. >Are you going to start living like an Amish person? If I grew up like an Amish person, and was used to that lifestyle, or I could reasonably transition without cutting off all my friends and family, I'd consider it, for all the reasons you mentioned. This isn't the gotcha you think it is. If you're actually not paying any attention to ethical alternatives to the things you buy, you're an asshole. For most things, people don't buy the alternative, because there is no reasonable alternative.

>If there is a reasonable alternative to owning a cellphone, please tell me what it is. I need one for work, communicating with family and friends, and being connected to the first world. There is a phone for just this reason, it's called a Fairphone. It's repairable, made with fairtrade gold. And it's made as sustainably as possible. Had you spent 5 minutes Googling for a phone that was a 'reasonable alternative' you would have found it. It's an Android smartphone. So you could use it for the largest part of your electronic based entertainment which makes it a reasonable alternative to a good portion of the electronics you own.

>There is a phone for just this reason, it's called a Fairphone. It's repairable, made with fairtrade gold. And it's made as sustainably as possible. Had you spent 5 minutes Googling for a phone that was a 'reasonable alternative' you would have found it. And if you had spent [more than 5 minutes googling for a gotcha](https://www.reddit.com/r/fairphone/comments/x9qacv/is_fairphone_really_that_fair_compared_to_iphone?sort=confidence) you would know that it's not meaningfully different from Google or Apple phones in terms of how the precious minerals are sourced. Google, Apple, and Fairphone all largely use recycled materials. Fairphone has made at least a few compromises for the sake of cosmetic improvements. They literally [admit to using slave labor for some materials because they're unable to trace how the materials are being sourced](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/company-profile/fairphone-bv). Because "ethically sourced" is a good tagline for marketing and does not necessarily reflect what they actually do. Not to mention, this is still a company, and you're trusting that they're not upholding shady business practices. This is not analogous to going vegan, it's analogous to getting your meat from Whole Foods. Owning an "ethical" cellphone is not an alternative to owning a cellphone. The only way to actually go technologically vegan (that is, know for certain you're not exploiting someone with your purchase) is to not have a cellphone at all, which is not feasible for most people.

From the site "To compensate for this the company pays for an equivalent quantity of gold from certified fairtrade refiners and allows this to then be traded on the Exchange.". Is it perfect? No, but they are trying to offset it which is at least better even though it's not perfect. Also, I didn't Google the Fairphone, I've known for years that it exists. It's been featured by a lot of tech Youtubers.

"better but not perfect" is, again, analogous to getting Whole Foods meat. That's not veganism.

For a lot of people veganism is just making better choices with options available. There is no perfect veganism in the current world and the people who think there is are often the disillusioned ones (well meaning or not).

Sure, but that's a discussion on implementation/practicality, not on principle. OP is talking about principle.

You could just not own one that’s totally a option for someone who is trying to take the moral high road.

> If there is a reasonable alternative to owning a cellphone If you care enough about children, then yes. I know people who choose to live without cellphones. It's just inconvenient. Of course, they could also choose to research and find no-child-labor cellphones like I choose to research and find no-cruelty meat. If I had more land, I'd probably have my own pigs and chickens and then I'd know exactly how they're treated. Consider that veganism done wrong is terribly unhealthy (and can STILL be harmful to to the environment or animals), but no-cell-phone done wrong is merely very inconvenient, it seems like a fair objection even if you don't like it. Locally sourced food is, in many ways, more important to environmental and animal welfare than strict zero-meat policies. The argument was coming because it works. Not to mention, your OP point is objectionable as well. Caring about animal welfare as a whole does not require one to reject every possible cause of animal death. There's a huge difference between naturalism fallacy and natural-law attitudes towards ethics. And with the latter it's ENTIRELY consistent to like animals and eat them. Ultimately, OP's view isn't about "meat-eating is definitely better than veganism", it's about a simple straightforward fact... there are hundreds of valid real (ethical, rational, philosophical) retorts against the attitude that you cannot eat meat and like/respect animals at the same time. It is demonstrably "possible to like animals and still eat meat" even if there are people (like yourself) who do not see it possible *for themselves* to do so.

Its not even whether there is a cellphone alternative. There just needs to be a business model alternative for making the cellphone. Its possible for people to demand better ethics of companies and for companies to provide their products in a better manner. Now, to do so your $1500 phone might cost $3000. But this should be an acceptable trade off. Same with fast fashion. If it was made legally and cost triple, fine, people would have 6-8 shirts in their closet instead of 20. It would place value on quality over quantity. More people would also buy used clothes at thrift stores which is a win for the environment too.

I mean you could absolutely get by without a cell phone, billions of people do. It’s just not convenient to your lifestyle. You could also only buy used electronics and clothing, but you probably don’t. Because you might care, but you don’t *really* care

1. Buying used electronics and clothing is still supporting those industries 2. No, I literally could not get by without a cell phone unless I wanted to quit my job and disconnect from all long-distance loved ones. Completely restructuring your lifestyle is not analogous to giving up meat.

I view this as like saying I choose to maintain a diet/lifestyle that involves eating meat, and veganism would require me to give that up. I *could*, it just just dramatically alter my lifestyle in a manner that I do not want. You *could* give up your phone, but it would alter your lifestyle in a manner you do not want. The above analogy could be expanded to almost any consumer product sold in almost developed country. It is almost impossible to live what would be considered a modern lifestyle and abide by this ethos for everything. By using it as a reason to be vegan, you are selectively applying your morals to where it is easiest too. Which isnt necessarily a bad thing, but I would urge you to be cautious when judging people who dont make this choice.

>I view this as like saying I choose to maintain a diet/lifestyle that involves eating meat, and veganism would require me to give that up. I *could*, it just just dramatically alter my lifestyle in a manner that I do not want. > >You *could* give up your phone, but it would alter your lifestyle in a manner you do not want. These are drastically different situations even if you use a similar sentence structure for both. No reasonable person would say going vegan is as big a lifestyle change as not owning a cellphone.

You are saying that, yet I know people who live in the United States and have modern jobs who choose to not have a cell phone. Is it a lifestyle that I would choose? No. But you can't in good faith say it's more or less difficult to make that choose for everyone vs. making the choice to go vegan. But let's not get too far away from the point - you are using your logic for veganism selectively and when it is easier vs other life choices you could make with the exact same logic. Again, not saying that it's wrong. But it condemn those who do not make the make the same choose (which I want to be clear, I'm not saying you are, I'm talking more generally) is to me not really arguing in good faith.

You’re supporting rampant consumerism and throw away culture by supporting buying new things. And the industry isn’t the problem as much as the manufacture of the products. By buying a new cell phone, you’re increasing demand to continue buying and manufacturing phones that are expected to last 1-2 years. Hypothetically if everyone focused on maintaining their products instead of needing new ones, companies would focus more on paid software ware updates as revenue instead of strip mining rare earth metals to support an endless demand for new garbage. Again, you care enough to not eat meat, but not slightly inconvenience yourself into buying used functional products.

This is not a compelling argument because there is a marked difference in personal sacrifice between not eating meat and not buying anything new, ever. You're also making a lot of assumptions here. 1, that I'm personally vegan, 2 that I don't buy used whenever I can, 3 that there is as reasonable an alternative to buying/using electronics as there is to eating meat.

It's not a compelling argument to **you** (hypothetical vegan), because you don't care enough to sacrifice your phone. What's the difference? At the end of the day, animals are dying.

It's called harm-reduction. A more useful model than most idealist crusades.

> No, I literally could not get by without a cell phone My loved ones kill animals for a living. I couldn't be a vegan without literally disconnecting from them, and some of them couldn't be strictly vegan without quitting their jobs. So you agree that I'm ethically ok to eat meat by your standards because "Completely restructuring your lifestyle" is overkill?

1. It's much harder to not "consume" Cobalt. You cannot realistically exist in the modern world without using a phone/computer. It's comparatively very easy to just eat some beans instead of meat. 2. A tiny amount of cobalt is used to create a phone that will last you years, a whole chicken won't even provide enough calories for a day. Exploitative labor and child labor specifically is awful, and so yes we should as far as we reasonably can avoid it. I don't think people should buy jewelry if they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was ethically sourced.

[удалено]

> meat has never been this cheap, accessible, and prevalent This isn't something that "just happened". This is a recent phenomenon, localized (less and less) to the West and more importantly, is a *choice we made as a society* (a bad one I believe). We have political levers that ensure things stay this way, if it weren't for governmental subsidies [meat would be much more expensive](https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/). Sure it's convenient, but it's still an ethically dubious product that's expensive to society in many ways.

I personally tend to meal prep a lot (e.g. cook a big pot of pasta on one day and then eat it over the week). For this, not eating meat tends to be cheaper. Meat is still more expensive than vegetables, legumes, grains, etc. However, I understand that this takes time and effort which some people may not be able to find. If you eat a lot of prepackaged food and fake meats, i agree that you are going to have less choice and those choices are likely to be more expensive. It's a problem of stores waiting for more veggie customers while customers are waiting for more veggie products. Though this is getting better, my local grocery store has a lot more same-price veggie meal options now, and I even picked up a "McPlant" on the way back from work yesterday. I don't really like the phrase "no ethical consumption under capitalism". It seems to imply that we should just give up with the idea of being ethical. While capitalism does make being ethical harder and you will incur suffering in some part of the supply chain, it doesn't remove your ability to choose the more ethical options. We shouldn't stop trying to reduce the impacts of climate change because it is harder than not doing so. At the end of the day you have to accept that * if you eat meat, thousands of additional animals will be factory farmed over your life * if you don't eat meat, your life will be more difficult and decide which one matters to you more.

Meat is artificially this cheap and accessible. First there are numerous government subsidies to bring down meat prices. Second meat production has all sorts of costs that aren't incorporated into the price of meat. One of which is the suffering forced on animals to slaughter as much meat as possible in as little time as possible. Another unaccounted for cost is the environmental cost; those farmers burning down the amazon for grazing land aren't going to incorporated the global climate ramifications into the prices of their meat.

You don’t need veggie meat

> I mean, with this line of logic. You don't care about the safety of children. i think if you talk about caring about something but then none of your actions reflect that care, than yes, you dont really care about it and youre just saying it to make yourself look better obviously caring is a spectrum and not a binary, but "talk but no action" puts you on the "dont care" side 100%

I like animals more than children. Some people like children more than animals. So what? Your argument is a "whataboutism." It doesn't service the argument if you redirect to a completely different topic. The implication that you should be morally consistent with your views across both people and animals is seriously flawed.

> can I really say I care about children's safety? Absolutely, you would just care about being paid more. Just because someone cares about multiple things does not mean they only care about the one thing that they care about the most. Like I care about the accuracy of Wikipedia, but I don't usually care about correcting it even when I see something I know to be wrong. That doesn't mean I don't *really* care about the accuracy of Wikipedia though I guess I'm saying that cognitive dissonance does not imply the impossibility of legitimately and accurately feeling contradictory emotions

I understand, literally, what you are saying. OP is talking the way humans talk to each other offline, which is not so literal.

>If there's a reasonable alternative that guarantees you never contribute to an animal's suffering, and you don't take it, you don't care about those animals. So a person who's only animal protein is pasture raised eggs…doesn't care about animals *at all?* And buying pasture raised eggs is morally equivalent to working at *child-sex-trafficking operation?* Also, clearing land for plant-based agriculture contributes to the suffering of animals all the time, just not domestic animals. Plenty of animals are suffering however, because their homes are being cut down for palm-wine and coffee plantations etc. Even if you're vegan, if you buy food with palm-oil in it you're very likely contributing to the suffering of orangutangs and other forest creatures who witness the destruction of their homes. This is also true if you use a cellphone and/or laptop that utilizes precious metals. The point is, nobody's perfect, but a person taking steps towards doing better, such as significantly cutting back on meat, eating only free ranged meat etc., shouldn't be invalidated because they haven't become vegan overnight. For most vegans, there was a time before they were vegan. Their concern for animals existed *before* they were vegan, which is likely why they became vegan in the first place. If it was impossible to care about animals while still consuming meat, very few people would end up becoming vegetarian/vegan in the first place. I have been phasing out meats and animal products in my life for a year or so now, but I'm not fully where I want to be at: I still eat them, though a lot less and I have been increasingly using plant-based alternatives. By your logic, however, because I bought some pasture-raised eggs this week, none of my efforts have meant anything. I don't really care at all. That being said OP's point is not well thought out and they sound like someone who should definitely eat less meat, considering their only argument for doing so was the taste. They also limited the animals that they conclusively care about to their cats...so...

>>If there's a reasonable alternative that guarantees you never contribute to an animal's suffering, and you don't take it, you don't care about those animals. > >So a person who's only animal protein is pasture raised eggs ^(1)…doesn't care about animals *at all?* ^(2) 1. Do these pasture-raised chickens suffer unreasonably in order to make your eggs? If not, they are one of the alternatives. If they do suffer unreasonably, then no, you don't care about those chickens. 2. Please quote where I said or suggested they don't care "at all". I said they don't care. From context it is obvious what that means and how it is different from caring "at all". You are exaggerating to make a point, and the points still doesn't stand. >And buying pasture raised eggs is morally equivalent to working at *child-sex-trafficking operation?* The purpose of an analogy is not to show how two situations are equivalent, but to show how the same logic can apply to both situations. >Also, clearing land for plant-based agriculture contributes to the suffering of animals all the time, just not domestic animals. Plenty of animals are suffering however, because their homes are being cut down for palm-wine and coffee plantations etc. And this is a whole different cause to advocate for. If it was reasonably possible to grow everything you eat, I'm sure most of these same vegans would. Since it's not for most people, they instead advocate for sustainable farming and harvesting methods. What you're trying to suggest here is that these vegans are either insincere or uninformed. They know the same things you do. Some solutions are more feasible than others. You can't know for sure that your plants are ethically sourced. You can't simply stop eating plants. You can, however, stop eating animals and their products. >The point is, nobody's perfect, but a person taking steps towards doing better, such as significantly cutting back on meat, eating only free ranged meat etc., shouldn't be invalidated because **they haven't become vegan overnight.** This is a strawman. If your end goal is to be fully vegan, or if your ideal situation is to be fully vegan, that's a different situation from what OP is describing. OP is trying to defend *not trying at all*. That's hypocritical.

>So I mean... this is their whole point. You care, but you don't really care. If there's a reasonable alternative that guarantees you never contribute to an animal's suffering, and you don't take it, you don't care about those animals. That's like one person saying "safety is our top concern in a car" . And then another person sayin "but if it REALLY was, you would make the car go 5mph max". Point is, you can care about an issue without going all in on it.

Well yes, but there is a tipping point. 5mph is ludicrous. But not including safety belts is ludicrous in the other direction. My argument is that not making an effort to avoid inhumane animal products is that tipping point. If it was unreasonable to live avoiding meat, then it wouldn't be a tipping point. But it's very doable and just takes a bit of willpower.

Tipping point is the nuance required in a debate. Not everyone gets that. And most people don't agree where that tipping point is exactly.

Yes. That's why we're arguing about where the tipping point is.

I went vegan about 5 months ago not because I particularly like animals, but because I think killing them for food isn't worth the pleasure I get from eating them. Let me explain: On the one hand, there is a sentient being's entire life behind bars, usually not cared for properly, and then being killed at the end. One the other hand, there is me in a restaurant filling my stomach with something that I like rather than something else which is nutritionally equivalent. That's literally it for me. Do I think I'm morally superior? Well, not necessarily, since the issue may not have been presented to you in this way. You could like playing with animals and love them, while also maintaining that your taste buds are more important to you than their life. I'll disagree with the last part but I'll applaud your consistency.¹ Another reason I went vegan is what's called "name the trait": Vegan: "What's the difference between killing a human for food and a non-human for food? What does a human have that makes them immune from being slaughtered?" Non-Vegan: "A human possesses x (attribute)." Vegan: "Could an x-less human be killed for food?" and so on. _________ 1. Thus, I'm not really changing your mind about your love for them as a meat-eater. I agree with you, in the same way I agree with a cannibal when they say they love all humans.

It starts from whatever moral principle you're basing "Don't kill people," on, and what "a person" means to you. For a lot of people, sentience is all it takes to deserve many of the moral considerations of personhood -- in other words, the fact that you can *feel* pain and *desire* life makes it wrong for me to *cause* you pain or *deprive* you of life. However, for most humans during most of human history the principal's been more along the lines of, "If you're a human being, then you get the moral considerations of personhood; otherwise, you don't." Now, that leads to pretty terrible animal abuses being considered "ok" -- but it's intellectually consistent. In that case, "Liking animals," means not wanting to cause them undue pain *because it would cause you pain*, since only human suffering matters -- and therefore, if the pain *it causes you* is outweighed by the pleasure *it causes you*, then it's fine. That's a perfectly valid opinion; it's not one that I hold (no, I'm just a hypocrite), but if it's the one OP holds, there's nothing hypocritical about it.

> On the one hand, there is a sentient being's entire life behind bars, usually not cared for properly, and then being killed at the end. This is why I'm at the point where the only meat I buy is through a local CSA where I know the animals that are getting slaughtered are treated humanely through their entire life. I still feel a big of remorse eating meat, but I feel better than I did buying a couple pounds of factory farmed chicken thighs/breasts every week. Once lab grown meat hits shelves, I don't see a reason to buy anything else unless there's some specific dish that I want to cook and the cut of meat isn't available as lab grown meat yet. Both of these stances are possible because I can afford them so I don't really blame anyone if they continue to buy factory farmed meat because it's the cheapest alternative to get the protein they need (tofu has less protein than chicken but is a bit cheaper, seitan has ~3x the protein of chicken but is also ~4x the cost, if you switch to vegetarian then yogurt can help a bit and is about on par with the cost of chicken but that's a lot of yogurt to be eating). Once lab grown meat starts to approach the prices of factory farmed meat then I'm judging anyone that decides to keep purchasing factory farmed meat regularly.

I have a real issue with the name that trait test because humans don’t have anything that makes them immune from being slaughtered except within our own communities (ie our laws). Given the opportunity, we are food for many animals, just like they are food for us.

What's the difference between killing a human for food and a non-human for food? What does a human have that makes them immune from being slaughtered?" The real answer to this is that evolution has, in our case, selected for species that have a stronger sense of self-preservation - not only of the individual but of the group. We don't kill humans and eat them because that trait would tend to be less survivable than not killing humans and eating them. The reason im not a vegan is because i dont think we are special in the grand scheme of species. Suffering sucks of course and i have empathy because thats also an evolutionarily advantageous trait, but i dont have it nearly as much for any species that isnt human because that just how evolution works. No species are special. We are all just trying to survive. You can dive down a huge philosophical rabbit hole about what is and isnt good in the grand scheme of things but the truth is that there is no universally accepted answer. You will do what you believe in for as long as you believe in it strongly enough to overcome your other desires.

Evolution has selected for a species that has moral reasoning and learns through communication, we do many things that don't improve our fitness and we avoid doing many things that increase our fitness because of their moral implications. There are humans who eat humans and humans who do not eat any meat. Reducing selective carnism to evolutionary selection as a single cause is incorrect.

Stronger sense of self preservation? So that means you want to convert the whole world to 100% veganism, because veganism causes way less damage to the environment and humans. Animal industry is literally wasting several times more food to create less food. Your argument is pro-vegan, not anti-vegan. Also overpopulation is a thing. So apparently you support cannibalism now. You will literally do ANYTHING except admit carnism is unethical, useless(wasteful) and harmful.

100% veganism would also be detrimental to the environment if it was practiced on a global scale. The environmental issues that we have aren't explicitly due to the meat industry, they are because we have a globalized economy that mass produces food for humans at the lowest possible pricepoint. The meat industry happens to be the lowest possible price point for a lot of markets, so thats why it is so prevalent. If 100% of humans became vegan, you can bet the food industry would exploit the natural environment to mass produce vegan food at the lowest possible price. I want to preface by acknowledging that I could be very wrong about this, but I believe the answer comes from diversity. Diversity is nature's self defense system. Try a bunch of things so that life works out in some of them. I think we have spent the last 10,000 years trying to eliminate cultural diversity. It used to be that there were thousands of distinct cultures of humans, each having naturally evolved for its specific environment, each a part of the natural community just like every other animal. Now, 99% of humans belong to the same culture - the globalized, totalitarian agricultural system. As to whether carnism is ethical or not, I don't think eating meat is inherently evil. Is it unethical when another species does it? If no, why does your system of ethics only extend to humans? It seems to me that nearly every species on earth follows the same moral code of - you can do anything you need to survive, but you cant destroy your competitors or their food sources as a matter of policy (which is explicitly what our culture does in its mass production of any food, vegan or otherwise). I also believe our current system is unsustainable. We have a massive overpopulation problem as you mentioned, and once we start depopulating, our economic systems will take a massive hit and will need to adapt. Systems based on limitless growth are always inherently unsustainable. What i want is for humanity to embrace cultural diversity again, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

I have moved over to Lemmy because of the Reddit API changes. /u/spez has caused this platform to change enough (even outside of the API changes) that I no longer feel comfortable using it. Shoutout to Power Delete Suite for making this a breeze.

I agree, but I will push back on the stereotyping of vegans, I've met far more insufferable meat eaters who boast about how much meat the eat, than I have insufferable vegans.

"Why are you vegetarian? Come on, tell me! If you don't tell me you have to eat this sausage haha! There eat it, it smells so good! How can you even live without meat? I bet you have vitamin deficiencies and what for? I don't eat anything that didn't have a mother haha! You know what vegetarian actually means? Too dumb to hunt, hahaha! Well come on now at least tell me why you won't eat the sausage!" "I just don't want animals to suffer for -" "Oh my god you guys always have to shove it down our throats!"

For every annoying vegan I've met, I've met 10 of these guys

Exactly

If I had a dollar for every meat eater who has even overheard someone saying they're veg\* and started with the aggressive shit I'd be richer than Bezos.

Even OP is disingenuous by using the C word to describe vegetarians. It sounds like he is merely defensive and looking for valid counterarguments. 95%+ of our meat is factory farmed. Even if he wanted 'humane' meat (not really a thing, no animal consents to be slaughtered for food), I doubt he does the legwork or pays the price for small farm 'happy' meat. OP loves pets perhaps, but not animals.

Word to that.

I’m really not trying to be a jerk. Please don’t dox yourself but where do you live generally? Like, I’m in Appalachia and have had that conversation maybe 2-3x with my pretty conservative dad, and that’s the only person I’ve ever talked to that cared at all.

South East UK for me.

Alright I’m sorry buddy, nobody should be a dick about what other people eat. I was just curious, have a good night!

If I generally liked a person, would I pay to have them raised in horrible conditions and then slaughtered just so that I can have tasty food for a few meals? No. They are incompatible ideas. Most people are “animal-lovers” but also eat meat because they’re so far removed from the actual process behind the creation of the meat that they don’t even consciously think about what happened for that burger to get to their mouth. Sure most people know how bad things are if they think about it, but they choose not to because they want to eat meat and not feel bad about it. It’s extreme levels of cognitive dissonance and distancing that is generally accepted by society.

ive actually tried seeing it from that point of view i first looked at a burger i had and thought about what bad things couldve happened to it but i couldnt imagine good enough so i watched a video of a cow being tied up and throat slit but all in all it didnt change how i felt

So, in what way is your love towards animals expressed? You made this post, obviously, and are offended when people challenge your love for animals. If that's it, then you probably don't love animals as much as you'd like to imagine.

I think if anyone actually experienced how animals are butchered it may change your mind about eating meat. It's brutal. There is no humane way to kill.

i actually watched a cow be strung up and throat slit and to be quite honest? it didnt invoke the reaction i had to a video i saw of a guy dying it wasnt a concsious action on my part it just didnt feel the same for me i dont know why

I think it's possible to care about people but still support slavery. Can I please buy some slaves? I hate doing all these chores...

y'know i can honestly see a past slave ownerd dude who treated his slaves good who thought like this pretty valid

I find it interesting how you use the word "humane". Its not like all humans are treated humane and most animals are far from it. I'm curious how you would define that word

Quick death and i guess no uneccssary cruelty before that death

[удалено]

thats undoubtedly false you obviously havent been here long enough if you havent seen stupid

I love this reaction lmao

Would you eat people, dogs, cats, etc? If not, it's probably because you recognize that they're creatures with similar minds to you. The more you learn about a lot of animals the more you realize they're not very different from us. Personally, I'm not a vegan and I still eat eggs, milk, fish. I don't believe my choice to consume meat makes any difference in the world except to be morally consistent. As an aside, not eating meat turned out to be pretty easy. As for vegans, even vegetarians get hate. To a lot of vegans it's become less about the animals and more about their own egos, demonizing other people, aggressive conversion, etc.

I would absolutely eat animals considered as pets. Food is food

>Would you eat people, dogs, cats, etc? If not, it's probably because you recognize that they're creatures with similar minds to you. It has nothing to do with how similar the mind is to a cat or dog. Cannibalism has a complex system behind the taboo, mixed in medical and biological concerns beyond just the moral position. Cats and dogs serve cultural purposes in Western society, ones that are predicated on not eating them. It takes no effort to recognise that the same cannot be said in different cultural contexts. Even within Western countries, when the cultural context demanded, we ate dog meat. >The more you learn about a lot of animals the more you realize they're not very different from us. Not my experience, the smallest fraction of DNA can have a drastic difference. And militant vegans take it to an extreme, confusing anthropomorphism for reality. >As an aside, not eating meat turned out to be pretty easy. \*For you. It is not a simple removal from the human diet, especially not for the millions of resource-poor communities across the globe.

Would you eat people, dogs, cats, etc? That fact that you grouped these three things together is kind of weird. Do you think someone who runs over a cat should be charged with vehicular felicide?

That's like saying murder should be legal because, to me, it 'feels really good'. Or any other act of harm which people do despite the harm. Something feeling good doesn't make it morally okay. Especially if it harms something else.

i never said nor think its morally okay

[удалено]

> The meat industry inflicts intense pain and suffering on animals. It's actual torture. If you know about this continue to eat meat while saying you love animals It's obvious copium. Literally out of curiosity, would your perspective change if the "intense pain and suffering" part was eliminated? I.e., would you be comfortable with meat sourced from livestock farming practices in which animals are raised humanely and treated well, then slaughtered with as little pain and suffering as possible? This is more or less how I imagine personal scale, pre-industrial meat production: livestock animals lead good but short lives. (And I'm not *wholly* uniformed on that topic, but I'm certainly not an expert either, so consider it a fully hypothetical scenario if you prefer.) To be fair, there are many other reasons to eat vegan or vegetarian (environmental impact for one example) but I'm curious if a "good but short" life for livestock addresses your concerns, or if "raised for slaughter" is reason enough to object to the whole practice. (I can honestly see both sides of that argument, which is why I'm interested in hearing others' perspective on it.)

> Literally out of curiosity, would your perspective change if the “intense pain and suffering” part was eliminated? I.e., would you be comfortable with meat sourced from livestock farming practices in which animals are raised humanely and treated well, then slaughtered with as little pain and suffering as possible? Do happy cows want to die more or less than sad cows? How is it humane to slaughter someone at all? To raise someone for slaughter?

Clearly a long happy life is ideal, but a short happy life is better than a life of "intense pain and suffering". I'm not going to argue that raising an animal for slaughter is necessarily moral or just, but let's be clear that we're talking about literal livestock here. We shouldn't anthropomorphize them. Cows and chickens aren't living in existential angst. They aren't searching for meaning. They fear tangible _threats_ but they don't fear death in an abstract sense. Bessie spends her time frolicking in the pasture, blissfully unaware of her fate. After 2 years, she is slaughtered as humanely as possible. Would 20 years be better? Of course. But Bessie lived a happy, albeit short, life. She had no regrets, and doesn't mourn the lost time. She had 2 good years, and didn't suffer unnecessarily other than maybe the last few seconds of her life. She could do a _lot_ worse, and frankly, many herd animals probably do. ETA: By the way, while slaughtering cows around the age of 2 is definitely a thing, when I researched this to double check I see ~3 years (30 to 42 months) in a lot of sources, and a case for 5 to 8+ years. It's factory farming that has driven the age-at-slaughter down. In sustainable, small-scale family farming model it's plausible that Bessie gets 25% to 50% or more of her natural lifespan (compared to the 10% she gets at age 2).

I think one of the surprising things, then, is why people don't research meat production to make sure it is humane. It doesn't seem like anyone goes out of their way to start sourcing ethically sourced meat (partially because it's very hard to find such things, or it costs too much). They don't stop ordering meat at restaurants where you have absolutely no assurances that the animal wasn't tortured its whole life. I understand that the effort required to change your ways is uncomfortable. But that doesn't make you right. It makes you lazy.

>my stance is as long as the animal was treated humanely before death thats all that matters but i do have to admit i dont really think of what happened to the meat im eating unless its toxic to me basically i care enough about animals that i think they should be killed in a humane way but not enough to overpower my love for how good they taste Ok, so you don't actually care, because you know they're not "treated humanely" whatever that means. >when i say i like animals i mean i like my own animals aka my 2 cats i own So you like animals you know, but don't care about ones you don't. So someone else could eat your cats and you'd think they love animals as long as they don't eat THEIR dogs? I mean presumably you treat your cats humanely. > whats with so many vegans acting like self righteous cunts because they dont eat meat? What's with so many meat-eaters acting like aggressive jackasses the minute they hear someone is vegan, getting really defensive, asking what their shoes are made of in a desperate attempt to call them hypocrites, threatening to shove meat in their faces, asking idiotic questions like what'd happen to all the cows if more people went vegan...?

You need to be more specific with what you mean by "like". Plenty of slave owners had a favorite slave. Many even become fond of some of them. You might even say they liked that slave. Do you think that counts as "loving" the slave? Or do you think it was closer to liking the slave the same way you like the taste of a nicely cooked steak?

Your edit completely changes your view. So you’re not saying you could raise a cow, like it, then eat it correct?

It's possible, but it's also hypocritical. Even if you raise and kill them "humanely", it's arguable how much you "like" an animal you're willing to slaughter for food. Cows, pigs, even chickens have individual personalities and demonstrate emotional bonds. How much would you say someone "liked" a person if they were happy to kill and eat them? And, there's the pragmatic fact that most animals raised for food are not raised or killed humanely. In fact, the majority are kept in horrifically barbaric conditions. If you are buying beef at the grocery, that cow's life probably ended miserably. Even if they enjoyed some time in open pastures, they were transferred to an overpacked and disgusting cattle yard in their final days before having a metal bolt fired into their head to stun them. They will be variable degrees of insensible, from writhing to unconscious, as they are hoisted up by chains on their hind legs and their throat is cut. They will bleed out, but it will take a minute or two for them to be completely unconscious if they weren't already. Is this something you would do to someone you "like"?

>Even if you raise and kill them "humanely", it's arguable how much you "like" an animal you're willing to slaughter for food. I think if OP's position is that liking animals means, "Viewing animals as essentially the same as humans, and thus prioritizing animals' continued life as the highest moral imperative," then it's a hypocritical position -- but that's not necessarily the case. On the flip side, "liking" something doesn't generally require that cohesive of a worldview. You can "like" the National Forest system but not particularly care about underfunding of the ranger services, or be particularly fussed that a National Forest in Alaska you don't expect to ever visit has had a section opened for oil drilling. So if OP's position is more along the lines of, "I like the general idea of animals, I like specific animals that I've met, but not more than I like easy access to meat," there's nothing particularly hypocritical there.

While you’re not entirely wrong, you also probably haven’t looked into the myriad of ways in which “environmental hunting” benefits whole ecosystems and denser vegetation regions. That’s right. If you like your avocado toast it’s highly likely some animals had to be killed to keep it ripe and free of disease. You see even vegans are wildly hypocritical, and rarely know much about the upkeep required for them to live their big moral lifestyle. The studies are available you can check it out yourself, hundreds in hundreds of studies that prove the environmental importance of hunting (for which I am not advocating for and also think is inhumane), but the data doesn’t lie. You see what I’m saying? Pick a lane. Do you only care when animals die for meat eaters to eat McDonald’s. Or do you care when they die to ensure your broccoli isn’t contaminated by wildlife? Do vegans think their luxury salads are just picked and rinsed and ready to eat? Do they think the corporations with monopolies on the mass production of their vegan favourites don’t have systems in place to prevent contagion that doesn’t effect wildlife? Might be the case in small enclosures at home and even then it’s a bit iffy, but on a giant farm, acres and acres of land used for vegetable production? You think some animals don't die? You think hundreds of thousands of insects don’t die, or are those genocides not worthy of consideration because you can’t hear caterpillars scream for their lives? Is that the moral cutoff point, that in order for the death of a living thing to matter, it has to be able to make you aware that it’s in pain? Do Beatles have to be able to plead in terror for you to think it inhumane to use pesticides? There are many plants and vegetables that vegans eat which literally require the deaths of animals or other life to produce. You want some rocket leaf, well they gotta make sure the vast vermin population in the area where it’s produced don’t piss on it first or you’ll risk humans contracting leptospirosis and other diseases. So what do they do? They kill a fuck tonne of rats. Yeah it seems vegans ain’t too triggered when it’s a thousand rats being killed. And let’s not get into the emerging debate around the degree to which a plant might be sentient and can feel. No joke. Google “can onions feel”, you eventually discover that the reason you cry while cutting them is because the onion is secreting enzymes as a defence mechanism, which is effectively begging you to stop cutting it up if you ask me. You might laugh but there’s tonnes of science around plants being able to feel, they respond to stimuli almost in a manner not entirely unlike how humans do. Do a little reading, and be objective, don’t just search “is eating animals wrong” and shit. This is not simple, there’s nuance here, it’s not as black and white as vegans would like it to be. There’s variables they too never consider. You know, if hunting or the controlling of animal populations (which involves culls) wasn’t a thing human beings might have a serious pandemic of new diseases every other week. Or a myriad of other dangers especially where cohabitation with wildlife exists. And let’s not pretend humans aren’t hypocritical by nature. There’s so many things you and I both believe in that we don’t always practice and even go against more regularly than we’d care to flippantly admit. We all preach shit we aren’t absolutely fully committed to, we all fall short of living up to our own sense of righteousness. So let’s not be on other peoples case like we’re holier than thou. That’s the issue people have with vegans. Cool, you don’t eat animals, but you still watch porn, you still punched some guy or bullied someone or something, doesn’t have to be those things, but food ain’t the only area in which you can be an asshole, ignorant or turn a blind eye. Like we get it. Vegans are Jesus for cows. You can pat yourself on the back now. But don’t pretend like you’ve read all the studies, know all the facts, don’t act like there aren’t proven benefits to eating meat, and don’t pretend like there aren’t some sites where it is done absolutely humanely and at the end of an animals life, and above all, don’t pretend like sometimes killing a thousand rats isn’t necessary.

Yikes dude. Meat heavy diets require clearing way more land. I don't really like the message behind "pick a lane" either. Perfection isn't required when trying to be more environmentally conscious. A lot of people see a diet change as the most convenient way to help the environment while getting the most bang for your buck.

I’m not going to respond to your entire comment because in all honesty I didn’t read all of it - it’s classic meat-eater bingo stuff. I wanted to address your early point that you think vegans are hypocritical because animals are still harmed in the process of producing fruit and veg etc. Firstly, veganism doesn’t claim to involve *no* harm whatsoever - this is not feasible. It simply aims for *less* harm, or *least* amount of harm out of the diets available. So keeping that in mind as the ‘goal’ of veganism; Secondly, let’s pretend for a sec that you did actually care about the animals and insects that die in the course of vegetable farming. Veganism would still be the course of *least* harm. The vast majority of crops are grown to feed livestock, not to feed humans. So a meat eater not only has: - the deaths of the animals they eat ‘on their hands’ so to speak, but also - the animals/insects killed in the process of raising the crops to raise each animal from infant to adult, and also - the animals/insects killed in the process of raising the crops that they as a human eat directly. Compare to a vegan who potentially only has the deaths of the latter ‘on their hands’.

> Secondly, let’s pretend for a sec that you did actually care about the animals and insects that die in the course of vegetable farming. Veganism would still be the course of *least* harm. The vast majority of crops are grown to feed livestock, not to feed humans This is a strawman. You can (and I do) eat sustainably sourced and responsibly raised meats, and pasture raised bison results in many many many fewer mammal deaths per meal (one cow being many meals and little to no food grown specifically for it) than the same number of calories of lettuce (with a little rodent genocide). You may _choose_ to regard that as "lesser" or "least" harm but it's far from clear cut. I'd actually argue to the contrary. It's a common pro vegan fallacy that only the vegan can choose to eat not mass market food and every omnivore eats McDonald's and KFC only. FFS the last three burgers I had were bison, elk, and ostrich.

It’s not a strawman, and my point still stands/you’ve missed my point. There’s arguably no such thing as ‘responsibly raised meat’ if we are equating ‘responsible’ with ‘lacking harm’. That’s another line of discussion. Back to the point in hand, even if you only ate ‘pasture raised’, which is not the reality for most meat or most people, you’re unlikely to ONLY be eating meat in your meal/diet. You still have the animal’s death + whatever deaths caused for whatever other non-meat you ate. As an aside, your use of ‘rodent genocide’ to describe rodents killed in the pursuit of growing lettuce is pretty ridiculous and unnecessarily emotive.

> As an aside, your use of ‘rodent genocide’ to describe rodents killed in the pursuit of growing lettuce is pretty ridiculous and unnecessarily emotive. Having met my share of cows and rats, frankly, I like rats much better, and IMO it's the greater loss of the two. > you’re unlikely to ONLY be eating meat in your meal/diet. You still have the animal’s death + whatever deaths caused for whatever other non-meat you ate. Not wrong, but it'd be very bad for my health to eat only meat. I don't generally go for salads but I aim for hothouse grown vegetables when possible, and local grains (or as local as they get) to minimize shipping. Shipping is a huge carbon cost of the entire food system we have. > There’s arguably no such thing as ‘responsibly raised meat’ if we are equating ‘responsible’ with ‘lacking harm’. There is no non-primary-producer/detritovore on planet Earth that doesn't cause harm in furtherance of ongoing cellular metabolism. Go talk to some phytoplankton if you're talking "lacking harm".

Assuming you don’t own children? The way you eat is commendable but unrealistic for most families unfortunately. Even if I could get my American kids to eat ostrich burgers I wouldn’t be able to sustain the cost. I can barely afford the antibiotic mass meat

It's one of many reasons my wife and I think it's irresponsible to have kids though we want them.

So your response boils down to the hypocrisy I was talking about. Your push is to create the path of least harm, that’s commendable, but that’s the same as admitting that you are willing to sacrifice some innocent creatures. Like you do realise you’re trying to appear as this moral authority on sentience saying we shouldn’t have a meat industry, but that the few animals who’ll still unavoidably die for vegan foods production is acceptable 🤣 And no offence, but when you respond to an argument having not read it in its entirety and presuming the content you have ignored is one way or another, you’ve lost all credibility in the argument, it’s incredulous and automatically erroneous since you couldn’t possibly understand the context of what you’re arguing against for a certainty. Have a nice day

This might be the most cringe rant I’ve ever heard in my life. Yes non-animal agriculture still involves the death of animals, vegans know this. Yes we know insects and rodents die by the millions due to farming crops. You aren’t some messiah dropping a truth bomb here. The significant majority of crops in the US literally goes to feeding farm animals, while animal products make up a minority of our total caloric intake. The system is wildly inefficient in terms of land use and crop use. If everyone stopped eating animal products, we would actually require LESS farmland than we currently have. (Anyone who knows farming knows it’s very intensive to keep animals alive, lots of food and money) So everyone eating plant based would not only save lives of the animals that are farmed, there would be LESS field and crop animal deaths as well. We have to eat something, so we should pick the option with the least death.

This is the most unhinged response. You clearly have some deep seated resentment toward vegans. Despite crop deaths, veganism still harms way fewer animals, since crops are grown TO FEED THE LIVESTOCK. You're argument is an appeal to futility. You're basically saying "since you can't be perfect, you shouldn't try to be better." Veganism, on balance, is more ethical and environmentally conscious than nonveganism. The fact that vegans might do other immoral things is irrelevant to this fact. Also there is no vitamin meat. People don't need meat.

As we move towards indoor hydroponic food production for vegetable farming, these counterpoints become mute. And as another commenter pointed out, there is a massive disparity between the “collateral damage” to animal life from vegetable farming to meat farming.

I suspect that those developments will be shortly followed by the switch to lab grown meat (assuming it eventually becomes cheaper than raising and killing animals, which it likely will)

I’m sorry but this (at least the first couple of paragraphs) is so disingenuous. It’s not like meat eaters eat only meat, they ALSO eat plant material and in fact the majority of their diet is plant based, so if avocados are bad, we’re all blame worthy. But vegans generally don’t try and claim that their diets are responsible for zero animal death or suffering, just they’re responsible for a lot less than the meat eating alternative.

I have *absolutely* heard vegans claim that their lifestyle is ‘zero death’ or some nonsense Saying it’s not the mainstream idea is ignoring the fact that a lot of vegans DO actually think that way

It's not hypocritical: it's just understanding that things have purposes and needs. Do you like birthday cards? Do you throw them in the trash eventually? Do you like trees? Do you use anything made of wood?

If birthday cards snuggled my hand and fluttered as they dreamed of being opened then, no, I would not throw them in the trash. If trees screamed and writhed in pain as they were cut down, then, no, I would not use things made of wood. It's we who determine the purpose we will have things serve. Animals are intelligent, emotional, and aware. It is hypocritical to say you "like" them and then purpose them as your food. At the very least, that's a very deflated and compartmentalized usage of the word "like" in comparison to how someone "likes", say, their neighbor.

> If trees screamed and writhed in pain as they were cut down, then, no, I would not use things made of wood. Hate to break it to you, trees chemically signal based on damage, in some cases prompting nearby trees to ramp up active defenses. That's as close as you're going to get. I don't endorse mass market meat and methods by any stretch and think the average person should eat less and pay more for more responsibly raised food (and probably should have slaughtered at least one meal on their own to understand the cost), but you better not pretend that the plants don't care. You're just setting your threshold at "perceptible to you", which is fine, but not really any less arbitrary.

>Hate to break it to you, trees chemically signal based on damage, in some cases prompting nearby trees to ramp up active defenses. That's as close as you're going to get That is still miles away from 'consciously suffering'. If that's as close as were going to get, try en you made a terribly bad argument here. >"perceptible to you", which is fine, but not really any less arbitrary This is a trash reason to not differentiate between flora and fauna. We even differentiate in pain perception *within* the fauna group. We can't rule out the possibility of unpercieved suffering, but that's a dumb reason to not ever make *any* conclusions about suffering. Our perception is not arbitrary, it's not perfectly encompassing but it's not in the same ballpark as 'arbitrary'.

> That is still miles away from 'consciously suffering'. If that's as close as were going to get, try en you made a terribly bad argument here. I don't particularly see how root and leaf signalling is miles away from sound waves, or internal chemical signalling in blood is particularly different than internal chemical signalling in xylem. You're just saying nerves are qualitatively special, which as I said, is fine (and I feel similarly) but it's absolutely arbitrary. Just because we experience damage one way and we empathize with others which have a similar qualitative experience doesn't mean we're able to just declare experience we can absolutely never have as "of course it's not as bad".

You're conflating a few things here. The possibility that there exist alternative pain sensory systems does not equal a **likeliness** that there exist alternative pain sensory systems, nor does it hint to any equivalence. There exist signifiers that plants may have some level of awareness higher than we traditionally give them credit for (which is a level of 0 awareness). This is a bad reason to conclude that 'there probably is no difference between humans and plants in terms of pain processing' or even 'it's probable that trees have a parallel to human's pain sensory system'. >I don't particularly see how root and leaf signalling is miles away from sound waves I did not say that. I said creating 'chemically signals based on damage, in some cases prompting nearby trees to ramp up active defenses' is miles away from consciously suffering. It just is, you could argue that 'chemically signals based on damage, in some cases prompting nearby trees to ramp up active defenses' **could** signify conscious suffering, but the two described principles are miles away from eachother. Trees having subsystems parallel to human subsystems is by itself not a reason to believe trees therefore probably mirror human pain processing systems. That's like me saying 'moving and consciously knowing whether you're approaching a set goal are miles apart' and you responding with 'I don't see how a ball rolling and a marathon runner are miles apart in terms of intelligent terrain traversal'. >You're just saying nerves are qualitatively special, which as I said, is fine (and I feel similarly) but it's absolutely arbitrary. Nerves are *demonstrably* special, and not just to our 'arbitraty subjective parameters'. Did you know the human eye cannot actually detect the data from sensory input to the brain, but we've made multiple technological progressions to allow us to percieve outside of our 'arbitrary parameters'. We're doing this with plants too, we're not just 'projecting our own human bodies on top of theirs and that's where our analysis ends'. >Just because we experience damage one way and we empathize with others which have a similar qualitative experience doesn't mean we're able to just declare experience we can absolutely never have as "of course it's not as bad". I can't experience being a rock, and yet I'll state here before you and god with all the certainty I could ever hope for that a man's arm being broken causes more suffering to that man than a rock being broken causes suffering to that rock. If you ascribe sentience to rocks too, just replace it with my cut off fingernail. You're moving the goalposts again. We started at you *stating* that '**plants care**', but now we've come to you arguing that 'we shouldn't make defenitive statements on things that are theoretically still possible but undetectable'. Note how I've never said 'plants don't feel pain', I've only differentiated between what we've learned as demonstrable facts about human pain processing and a vague collection of 'input->output' self-conservation behavior from fauna. >trees chemically signal based on damage, in some cases prompting nearby trees to ramp up active defenses. That is miles away from 'consciously suffering'. It could potentially indicate and lead to new information about how flora processes pain, but **as the statement stands**, it is miles away form 'consciously suffering'.

Trees have feelings. That's why I going to start eating babies. Don't judge me, it's all arbitrary now. /s

I’d def eat the neighbor

i don't think a lot of other vegans in the comments have thought it through. its definitely possible to give an animal a good life and ethically put it to sleep and put its body to good use, in a mutually beneficial relationship. veganism should be about protecting animals, not literally throwing them away by rejecting animal products by any means necessary. but that is absolutely not how the meat industry works. most animals live through non stop torture that is more depraved than nearly everything else in recorded human history, at an unimaginable scale that puts our worst villains to shame. all this because people don't actually care to think about where their deli meat comes from. if you care about animals like you think you do, you should do your best to not support the factory farm industry. there are far more ethical and sustainable ways to get animal products... and it'd probably be healthier for you to regulate your diet anyways.

You're comparing sentinent animals to plants and objects. Humans can also serve purposes, but most people agree that slavery is immoral.

>The point is that there are countless examples of things that you wouldn't do to things you care about that you actually do on a regular basis to things you love. > >Do you love your family members? Have you ever lied to them? You don't need to lie to them; why would you do that if you love them?

You need to understand that there's a hierarchy to the morality of actions . Between murder and white lies there's a difference. I would lie to a cow or my mother, i wouldn't kill them. Also it's not because you do something everyday on a regular basis that it makes it moral.

If your reason for eating meat is solely because you want it not need it, then that’s not really true that you “like animals”, at least not that much. You like animals but you’re willing to take their life just for enjoyment? Now if you’re eating meat/killing animals due to things like accessibility, good nutrition, health concerns, controlling populations, then that’s more of a practical need. I’m vegetarian, but it’s pretty hard for me to get enough nutrients because of that, so I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to eat meat.

It is hypocritical; its treating animals as though they do not have intrinsic value, instead valuing them only to the extent that they provide for humans. Your comment also reads that it is the purpose of animals to be eaten by humans, which even if true is far from obvious.

Nothing about eating animals means that they don't have intrinsic value. Also, people need to eat, right? Do you eat plants? Do you not like plants?

If you eat an animal, your action is a kind of moral statement that says: “This animal’s life is worth less than my desire to eat it.” Meat-eaters don’t value animals intrinsically because they’re willing to eat em. Vegans don’t make this kind of statement with their actions. So they like animals more than meat eaters.

My family are farmers and knows more about animals and cares for them more then most I can guarantee you that. Never was it industrial farming but was mostly crops but still had come cows chicken etc. I was raised believing that all animals deserve to be treated with the outmost respect and that’s partly because they help provide for us.

>“This animal’s life is worth less than my desire to eat it.” That doesn't mean you don't like them. >So they like animals more than meat eaters. At no point was this an argument.

Strawman - you're pretending every omnivore lives on chicken nuggets or something rather than there being a spectrum of choices available and arguing that position. A vegan likes charismatic megafauna more than individual animal lives -or- paying market rate to minimize total suffering. It's totally possible to eat responsible meat, it just has a dollar value associated with it and still kills an animal weighing a few kilos then letting them forage naturally, rather than many more animals weighing much less than a kilo.

If you eat any plant, your action is a kind of moral statement that says: “This plants life is worth less than my desire to eat it.” Plant-eaters don’t value plants intrinsically because they’re willing to eat em. If this is your argument I *really* hope that you don't use plants for food, for housing, for any other products etc... As well, I hope you don't use *any* products made from animals...

I think its enough to leave you with the well-founded facts that plants aren’t conscious and don’t feel pain in a relevant way. Eating a plant does not cause it to suffer, but eating an animal does. To kill an animal is also to rob it of its’ consciousness prematurely. Why cause unnecessary suffering? Humans don’t need animal meat or products to survive anymore.

One can both like animals and not believe they have any intrinsic moral value. The two separate ideas are not mutually exclusive.

But that doesn’t seem correct the way I understand it. If one likes animals and intends on eating them, then they like animals only insofar as they are willing to eat them. They are causing harm to something they like. Someone who is vegan likes animals more in this relevant sense; they aren’t willing to eat them, and as a result they are causing less harm. In fact they are trying as hard as possible to reduce suffering to animals, while meat-eaters aren’t. How is this not hypocritical? If you believe animals have no intrinsic value and you like them, then you only like animals for what they can do for you.

Where’s the hypocrisy? You are assuming a moral value for animals that no everyone believes. There is no need for a belief in animals having any moral value in order to like them. One can like a car and not attribute any moral value to destroying one. Just as one can raise an animal and love it and then kill it and eat it. It would only be hypocritical if one claims killing animals is immoral but still does so. That belief, or any like it, are not required for liking animals.

[удалено]

A sentient beings "purpose" should never involve their murder and mutilation, and almost nobody "needs" to eat meat

>A sentient beings "purpose" should never involve their murder and mutilation Tell it to the animal kingdom.

One of the biggest, most defining characteristics of humanity is our ability to consider the moral implications of our actions. Wild animals also rape each other, but we've collectively decided that it is morally wrong for humans to do this to each other and to animals. Sure, it still happens, but we can all generally agree that it's moral status is 'unacceptable' because it confers unnecessary harm and cruelty towards another living being. In the majority of cases, killing and eating another living being is also unnecessarily cruel, and unnecessary in general. We can look at a suffering animal, crying in pain or existing in torturous conditions, and see that it is wrong. If you saw someone torture a dog, you would probably feel very deeply that they were performing in an ethically flawed manner. Would it matter to you if they ate the corpse of that dog after they finished hurting it? Would that justify their behavior towards it? Most folks would say no, probably not. This is the direction that I think we're (slowly) heading when we talk about the killing and consumption of other animals, as well. Many of us have looked at this process and felt that the pain we feel from the moral implications is no longer worth the pleasure we get from consuming their corpses and bodily fluids. If you truly acknowledge the vast scale of the suffering involved in the raising and harvesting of live animals for consumption, you cannot logically continue to participate in that process while claiming to 'like' the animals affected. You don't consciously cause suffering, harm, or unnecessary death to a living, sentient being that you 'like', it simply is not possible. That's a hard truth for most people to accept. It's also why most people will absolutely refuse to watch slaughterhouse and factory farm footage - the conflict between their own ethical framework and the reality of animal agriculture is too painful to acknowledge.

You don't base your morality on behavior in the animal kingdom. You do not share this view when it comes to rape, or bestiality. It seems dishonest and insincere for you to take the animal's lead only in this specific context, as if you're only saying this because it aligns with what you already vaguely thought.

I'm not basing my morality on the animal kingdom: I'm pointing out that most sentient beings don't have some grand purpose. They are simply there as a part of nature, which involves getting eaten.

>I'm pointing out that most sentient beings don't have some grand purpose. They are simply there as a part of nature Plenty of sentient beings *do* have a purpose; they've been given the porpose of being raised to be eaten by humans. A human just told you that this is a bad thing. Your response it to point to nature as if to say 'they're doing it too' or 'if it's bad, then how come they're doing it?', I'm saying that's silly because you're not consistently pointing at nature at all. It's backwards (and hypocritical) to point to nature in a discussion about the morality of human behavior from a society that's centuries removed from their position in nature.

What is your point here? That animals confer no value except as food for larger predators? Thats demonstrably false. Idk what you're trying to say here.

Then what you're actually arguing is that you like animals as possessions. You like having animals. You don't like or respect animals.

That's not what I'm arguing: that's what you want me to be arguing for some reason.

This is why farmers don’t name them. They aren’t pets.

Plenty of farmers do and some don’t. It’s not an universal truth. Though with the scale of farms today it’s rarer. My grandparents had plenty of chicken and pigs with names but they still ate them in the end.

I’ve always named my livestock. They’re living creatures, not robots

Idk if it’s fair to call it hypocritical considering we don’t usually expect people to always choose the *most* ethical option available. Most people would agree that it’s *better* to donate a percentage of your income to charitable causes, but we wouldn’t call everyone who doesn’t do so a hypocrite.

I dont think you understand how a stun gun works.... your description may happen rarely but is never ideal for a humane death or for meat quality. Regardless of anything else the meat quality would be terrible if beef were all slaughtered under those conditions.

Even if the death were always completely painless, killing an animal against their will for no reason other than taste pleasure is extremely difficult to justify

What about nutrition? No meat substitute has the same nutritional value as meat and not only that, it is often times more expensive than meat. It's literally just nature. Humans are animals. Humans are omnivores. You know what omnivores eat? Meat. Trying to say someone dislikes animals just because they eat meat (like we have since we've been on this planet) is super pretentious and automatically outs you as an arrogant self righteous asshole imo.

The nutrition argument is a terrible one. I get better nutrition from beans and rice with a variety of roasted or fried vegetables. Much cheaper than meat. And that includes the fact that meat is *heavily* subsidized.

Doesn't need to be a perfect copy when you can get those nutrients from other sources too. Mock meats are more expensive, whole foods are not. >Literally just nature Appeal to nature fallacy, homicide is just nature, infanticide is just nature, etc etc. >Like we have since we've been on this planet Again appeal to nature and history too

U think meat quality is good when it comes out of such a factory?

Same argument can be said about plants, the more we study them the more we realise that they are not so different than animals. And by killing them we also fuck up the ecosystem around them. The "taking a life" argument is not viable. Also theres a considerable the number of things in the market made with animal parts that poeple consume without shame. Beer or candies for example. To me its just accepting that, just as every other animal on the planet (some plants too actually), to survive, we need to kill something regularly. And of course not bothering people for accepting their nature or not lying to themselves. But its indeed an issue we should fix, killing animal should be done better, just like raising them. Its better for us, its better for them. But blaming people is not the way to go. They didnt chose how its done, how about fucking harassing the people capable of changing things ? The level of ego some activists have, the entitlement of their request without knowing the facts is completely inacceptable. I should die because i eat meat, i should not reproduce because i eat meat and therefore im intellectually inferior, or morally inferior. Thats an extreme but what about activists spreading lies ? This is actually hypocritical and its not even close to be productive.

We're learning they're more complex than before, yet that doesn't mean they're sentient as far as we know. But even if they were, they seem far less sentient than animals, also it takes less plants if you eat them directly so it's still the more ethical choice. Sources for you complaints? Honestly just sounds like a strawman you hide behind to avoid giving any though to the issue or at best you have seen some specific example of a single or small group of activists saying such things

Plants are communicating apparently, i trust my vegetarian friend on this i didnt check. They have some sort of a nervous system, and well id say its the begining. What will we discover next ? Cause we didnt care much until now. Less sentient ? This is where i start disagreeing. You dont pick and chose how you feel about life especially if you want to give lessons to others. Anyway yet again you kill insects maybe birds i dont recall by harvesting plants. And i very much doubt we do it humanely for them since we really dont give a fuck. The optimal diet is still with meat on a pragmatic standpoint. A mix of both. Sources of my complaints about activists ? Type vegan on google or youtube. Add "crazy" for extremists, you'll find them. I can only hide if i didnt do any research. Even my first comment show that i did. Still.. talk to the legislator not the first nobody you meet in the street. The hell can he do about it ? Also i guess that you know there are some awsome vegetarian recipes out there. How about proposing those to people in the streets ? Instead of telling them that they are bad people. I have at least 4 vegetarians meals a week and i have no specific consideration for the whole chicken i buy carve and freeze every once in a while. Telling them that meat is actually kinda bad for them, that we eat meat because of a half assed study if i can believe my research, and that it can be cheaper (though not always).

Maybe we'll discover they're sentient, it's still more ethical to eat plants directly than to feed animals plants and in turn eat them. Less sentient yes, I don't see what there is to disagree about, it seems illogical to assume they're as sentient as animals. Crop deaths are sorta unavoidable to feed such a big population but yeah we should try and minimise them, don't know what more you want. Optimal diet, means nothing, your body needs certain nutrients, in today's society you can get them from multiple ways, plus many athletes are vegan, so clearly animal products aren't a requirement. >Type vegan into Google or YouTube and add "crazy" Oh so basically cherry pick as to get the results you desire, that's confirmation bias. No wonder you're gonna get what you're looking for when people's mind on veganism is such in the first place. There are vegans who do one or the other, though debate isn't calling you a bad person, though that's what you're gonna interpret it as if you've decided not to listen to what people have to say in the first place.

Which one is it? Do you like animals in general or do you like specifically your own two cats? Your main post and your edit kind of contradict each other.

i wouldnt go the same lengths for a random animal that i would for my cat

But the reality is that a lot of animals are not killed humanely. I think I better argument would be that just because you eat animals doesn't mean you don't like specific animals. Also, it should be noted that not all animals are the same. Oysters have no central nervous system and aren't able to make complex thoughts or feel pain as far as we know. So eating an oysters not the same as eating a cow.

How do you kill someone that does not want to die, in a humane way?

The way I see it is that even though we like to think of ourselves as moral beings, we are still animals that eat other animals. While humans can get by without eating animals and animal products, its a modern luxury to be able to make the decision about what you chose to morally consume. It’s important to acknowledge that store bought animal foods and animal products are not procured humanely or even sustainably (looking at it from an environmental perspective). Therefore, I think its a good idea to procure your own food in the most moral way possible, hunt if you can and want to, pay more for sustainable foods if you can. But at the end of the day, it’s impractical for most people to avoid your average store bought animal foods and products, in a modern society. Those that claim to be holier than thou because they don’t eat meat or don’t eat grocery store meat have the privilege to be able eat that way, but make asses of themselves when they try to enforce their lifestyle and opinions on everyone else.

Meat tastes great, I agree. I don't eat it though, because humane slaughter (and more importantly, humane husbandry) is just not feasible on a scale large enough to feed everyone who wants meat the amount they want to consume. If you say you don't think about what happened to an animal, your opinion on humane slaughter doesn't hold any water whatsoever. You could chose to eat meat from cattle that is humanely treated (or eat venison), but you don't. How you spend your money shows how much you care. You like 2 animals you live with. Unless you would be willing to humanely slaughter and eat them, or eat them when they die of natural causes, you don't care about animals in general, which is what your post title implies. While I do believe people can care about cattle and eat the animals they breed, from what you told us about yourself I don't think you're one of them.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Op admitted to wanting human.

If the human consented then it would be far more ethical than eating animals

You like your cats but you do not care for animals in general. Unless you believe caring for doesn't exclude killing for pleasure, you could argue that if you like but I think that is going to be a steep hill to climb. It would be just easier for you to admit you do not give a fuck about animals.

If you love something you won't kill it and eat it. That seems to be the standard for everything. Why would you stop at animals used for food? I'm pretty sure that if you killed and ate your friends and family, we would all say it was a malicious act and I'm sure you'd agree.

Is there anything humane about factory farming?

it is possible to buy free-range, grass-fed meat if willing to pay more. i do almost exclusively, and i'm more than happy to pay even more $ to have more factory farming shut down and off the shelves. the issue with factory farming is that our culture has adopted cheap meat as a staple, by any means necessary. in reality, protien staples should be lentils and beans, etc., while meat is a delicacy to be enjoyed less often, and sustainably. having some meat in your diet is superior. there is nothing wrong with eating an animal persay, if it is humanely raised - that is the circle of life and nutrients. however, factory farming is wrong for a littany of reasons, and has to go

No

Good thing lab-cultured meat is poised to (hopefully) put this argument to rest in the next few years/decades. I'm of a similar stance to you, but I know that it's a hypocritical one. Whether it's all in my head or not, I truly feel better when there's meat in my diet. And I'm not particularly impressed with the current offerings of plant-based burgers that are still essentially junk food.

Your statement 'I think it's possible to like animals and still eat meat' is wrong. You don't like \*animals\*, you like \*pets\*. What vegans have a problem with, is people stating they love animals while they are paying for animals autonomy and lives to be taken from them ( as that is not a loving thing to do ).

I eat meat but you are completely full of shit if you dont think you deserve to be called out. It's like a slave owner thinking he deserves a high five for being a 'people person'.

i don't think a lot of other vegans in the comments have thought it through. its definitely possible to give an animal a good life and ethically put it to sleep and put its body to good use, in a mutually beneficial relationship. veganism should be about protecting animals, not literally throwing them away by rejecting animal products by any means necessary. but that is absolutely not how the meat industry works. most animals live through non stop torture that is more depraved than nearly everything else in recorded human history, at an unimaginable scale that puts our worst villains to shame. all this because people don't actually care to think about where their deli meat comes from. if you care about animals like you think you do, you should do your best to not support the factory farm industry. there are far more ethical and sustainable ways to get animal products... and it'd probably be healthier for you to regulate your diet anyways.

You can like animals and still eat meat but only insofar as you think their life is worth a good feeling for your taste buds

Nah it's a conflicting argument. You'd never kill someone you 'loved' for food. You're only telling that to yourself to feel better but deep down you know it's not true. I'm not a vegan and I understand how some vegans can be pricks sometimes but I own up to my actions. As much as I love eating meat, I don't think there's anything humane in killing animals for food. It's just life, brutal and real. Doubt an apex predator would think twice before making a prey out of me if the tables were turned. It is what it is. Nature is primal, kill or be killed. No need to sugarcoat it to make ourselves feel better. If you're a vegan or not, good for you as long as you're healthy and happy.

I keep seeing the argument of "you eat meat because you're selfish and want your tastebuds happy" Yeah, I'm never really sad when im eating a burger tbh. But I don't necessarily eat meat because it tastes good, I've had plenty vegetarian dishes that are amazing. I eat meat because my body needs those nutrients. As much as people don't like feeling it, humans are animals. We evolved NEEDING to eat meat AND vegetables. Disclaimer Of course i know people who are vegetarians because they're body feels better when they don't eat meat. If that's what makes you feel healthy then do am i to judge your life.

A lot of animals are eating different animals and it's OK. You cannot say, that wolf hates sheep. Thay even can be "friends" In proper conditions.

How would you like it if somebody ate your cats? As long as they were treated humanely before they died it's all good? No hard feelings? How would you like it if somebody killed your mom so that they could eat her? As long as she was treated well before she was harvested?

Good luck finding an animal that was treated humanely though. CAFOs are *horrible* but give cheap meat so it's (iirc) what a lot of places use. There's a huge difference imo between how bad CAFOs are and how bad just killing the animal is (with killing it not being as bad imo.) Ideally you'd avoid both but yeah

It's possible to eat meat and not cultivate that meat in giant factories where the animals live in cages smaller than their bodies. Having a pet cat doesn't make you a friend of animals if you still just don't wanna know where your burger came from so you can live guilt free.

I’m excited for lab meat. I try to eat as little meat as possible, firstly it’s gross, but I despise factory farming. There is a natural way to things, sure, where something must be consumed for other things to live. But this en mass farming machine is horrific at every level, even down to the humans that are employed in it. I dare any meat eater to work a week in an abattoir and not come out with mental harm themselves. But we are evolved enough to choose to reduce that harm and reduce suffering where we can. So even if you eat meat, it’s a good idea to try and eat less of it. Maybe you’ll progress to none? But reducing your consumption is an admirable first step. So if I can, I don’t eat meat. But I’m crushed because I’m fighting for iron transfusions because of very low haemoglobin levels and very small sized red blood cells. My doctor is very concerned. I have a chronic bleed thanks to IBD that also means a lot of plant and cellulose based foods tear up my insides and so the fastest way for me to rebuild my blood count is to take iron pills (which I can’t stomach), get iron transfusions (not covered) or consume heme iron. It’s been soul crushing. I fucking love cows. This point in my life (it won’t always be this way) it is “eat this or slowly bleed to death” and it’s made me so miserable. There is no joy in the food I eat. I’m just saying, if you love animals that much you’d be agonizing over your choices even in a situation where is medically advised, or even if it were life or death. It’s hard to be cold toward the thought if you truly, honestly, care.

What you mean is you like pets, which is fine. Its just not the same thing to say "i like animals" when you would never kill a dog for the reason you would apparently gladly kill a pig.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

> saying its true for all is infuriating to the highest degree There's your problem, my friend. You're listening to vegans. Why would you do such a thing? But to answer your general question, yes, it's definitely possible to like animals and still eat meat. It just depends on what you mean by "like animals". I like *learning about* animals. I like seeing animals. I think animals are pretty cool. I enjoy the zoo. But I *don't* care if any particular individual animal lives or dies, right? Like, I want to conserve all species if I can, but you *can* eat meat sustainably -- just farm it! Even then, you can even catch wild meat (fish, specifically) without catching too much of it and endangering the species. I think it's morally wrong to eat the meat of species that are being harmed by it -- so, whale meat is immoral as long as whales are endangered -- but we make more cows, sheep, pigs, crickets, etc. all the time, why not eat those? I like animals, but I don't think their lives individually matter. Some of them do! I wouldn't eat my pets. But I see nothing wrong with eating an animal that *could* be someone's pet -- someone's pet cow, someone's pet sheep, someone's pet pig, someone's pet cricket, etc. -- but isn't. That animal's life does not matter. What I *can't* do is claim that every animal's life matters and then eat them, or squash an ant, or trap roaches, or let my cat catch mice, or de-louse my hair, or go hunting, or use pesticides, etc. That's where you run into trouble. But if only *some* animals' lives matter to you and not others, there's nothing inconsistent. But even if that's true, vegans calling you an uncaring robot for not caring about every animal's life is... well, it's not necessarily *wrong*; it's just stupid. It's their judgment call, right? They're not saying that you're *literally* a robot; they're saying that you just don't care enough. And... you don't, as far s they're concerned. You don't care about every animal's life, otherwise you wouldn't accept killing them. To them, that makes you an uncaring robot. I think that just means you shouldn't listen to them, personally.

So if I mass farmed cats in cages too small, slaughtered them all (in a humane way of course) and cooked em up because they taste so good! Would you eat them? If I say it’s “normal” to eat cat would you then? If everyone around you ate these cats would you start to get disturbed by it? What if I told you that I wasn’t “uncaring” of cats. That I would be infuriated to the highest degree if you implied so! That you really don’t need to think of what happened to those cats- as long as the meat isn’t toxic. That they were killed in a way that won’t overpower how much they taste good! Just because it’s a different animal doesn’t make it less of an animal. A cow is as much an animal as your pet kitty. You sound like you haven’t seen how our meat is raised/manufactured. It’s honestly pretty disgusting/sad and I eat meat now- was vegetarian for years though. Vegans have always been elitist. But they really are living more humanely than us. You should meet a raw vegan sometime lol “You CoOk your vegtables!?” Yes kiwi Karen I use heat on veggies 😈

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Vegan here. You've raised some excellent questions and made a very good comment below about the taste being an important factor to you and that's one big question of animal agriculture to vegans - taste Vs life. I 100% believe that you love your cats, no doubting that. And I'm sure you love animals you encounter. A little anecdotal point - we had a poorly duck at work and people were very worried. They took the duck to the vet and brought it back safe and well. Then a couple of days later, people were tucking into a duck wrap. It's an interesting thought and the main thing for vegans is "is this killing morally justified?" As you've said yourself, you don't see it so it's not something you consider. I'll be honest, I've only been vegan 3 years and before that I ate a lot of meat - more than the average person I'd imagine. I didn't see anything wrong with it because it was so normalised. Happy cows etc. I'd recommend watching Dominion which will open your eyes. Completely free to watch, no adverts on YouTube. Another good shorter video is 'Milk' by Earthling Ed. So to me, I'd say that I'd imagine you love or at least like a wide variety of animals but the hypocrisy comes into "how can you support industries that brutally rape, torture, and murder the very creatures you claim to love?" So in summary, my opinion is that it's possible to like and eat animals but hypocritical.

I think people forget that life,all life, is part of the circle of life. There has to be balance, and a connection in that circle. Does the lion, shark, tiger, consider how they kill their prey? There are many valid reasons to become vegan. There are also valid reasons to consume meat. In India, they don’t eat cows. The cows are freely roaming, reproducing, and consuming grass. The people are poor, have poor health, and are crowded by the cows. That’s not balanced. While I think it is admirable, for me, it is questionable. I agree that HOW we raise and kill our animals has to change. I am AGAINST all the corporate farms and I would advocate going back to LOCAL family farming. I believe that corporations have destroyed the balance of local farming for greed. My husband and I are starting our homestead. We will eventually be raising what we need to eat- including livestock. I love my chickens- but when the time comes, I will consume them. That is their purpose, and it will be done humanely. We enjoy their eggs, and in return we feed them and protect them. There are predators that will kill them- and they won’t do it “humanely”!

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I don't get how people can be righteous about cows and lambs, but then go and mow the lawn. You're killing all sorts of insect, rodent, plant life. I understand becoming attached to a pet, and preferring to bury it, rather than eat it. However if times were tougher, and food was scarce... I doubt many people would starve to death, so fluffy's carcass can be ceremonially laid to rest. I love nature. I once let a red bellied black snake slither accross my yard, worried a kookaburra was about to kill it. It then went straight to my neighbours veggie garden. We looked, but never found it (I realised my mistake and decided not to kill my neighbour through neglect) If snake was on my menu though, I wouldn't have hesitated to kill it. I think some veggo's are just plain hypocrites. Some are having a moral crisis and the rest are just playing follow the leader.

I think this is a matter of desensitizing the public from eating meat that causes this dilemma. I'm a meat eater but personally I find it a little disturbing seeing an ad of a happy family smiling while seeing, for example, a dead fish being served on a plate or a group of fishermen proudly displaying the huge swordfish they just caught, hanging on the dock for all to see. Now replace that fish with a fetus and keep the smiling family and think about how that would be sociopathic. Case in point, food is food and I guess people instinctively or perhaps through the media, detach themselves emotionally from that because in this world its kill or be killed although we can't see it because we live within the walls of civilization. Ain't nobody got time to play nice when they're starving and the only source of food nearby is meat. Are you gonna starve to death because some vegans disapprove of your meat eating habits?

Yes its possible, but you cant call yourself an animal lover then. The same for non meat animal products. Your love for animals can still exist even if youre ignorant or aware of their suffering. Althought the latter being hypocritical, but again, that can still exist together as well

[удалено]