Vegan here, bottom left is a very small but sometimes very loud minority.
Top left is kinda wrong because veganism is a moral position. You wouldn’t say „I personally don’t like killing people but I do respect your religious tradition of human sacrifice“ (being hyperbolic to hammer home the point).
Mostly, a vegan diet is even cheaper than an omnivorous diet and where that might not be the case there’s A.) something completely wrong with the agricultural economy and B.) most vegans would agree that these problems need to be solved.
(and correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t there some political quafaffel about egg prices being too high in the US? (half joke here))
@AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee I see the point you’re trying to make (and explained in your other comment) but this is an unfair misrepresentation of vegans. I’m sure this is your perception, but it seems your perception is warped and ill informed by said small but loud minority of vegans and also other, usually intentional misrepresentation of vegans by other media.
Edit for the boneheads that rip shit out of context and are just unable of reading a text:
The loud minority is people screaming around that people should rather starve before eating animals. Most vegans usually keep to themselves and if a discussion comes to the topic of veganism explain their point like the normal people they are.
Isn’t it a little weird to call vegans who say eating meat is murder a “loud minority”, and then explaining why you cannot be a vegan without saying that eating meat is murder (hyperbole or not)?
Is there something in your comment I’m missing, or is this supposed to be some self-aware joke?
“Are eggs meat?” - Yes, that’s what I’m saying, I’m not sure how it can be understood any other way.
Though, how can calling somebody a murderous cultist not be considered the least bit demeaning, whereas saying their family should starve is? As per “You wouldn’t say „… I do respect your religious tradition of human sacrifice“” having similar aggressive or demeaning meaning as “I don’t care if your family starves”.
Are eggs meat?" - Yes, that’s what I’m saying, I’m not sure how it can be understood any other way.
Then you’re just plain wrong. Is a woman’s unfertilized egg a baby?
Though, how can calling somebody a murderous cultist not be considered the least bit demeaning, whereas saying their family should starve is? As per “You wouldn’t say „… I do respect your religious tradition of human sacrifice“” having similar aggressive or demeaning meaning as “I don’t care if your family starves”.
You’re twisting my words like they’re players in a game with colored dots on a map.
I even stated that the sacrifice thing was a damn hyperbole. If you think.my comment is demeaning or aggressive, you didn’t read the whole fucking thing.
I guess I should thank you for demonstrating how I’m twisting your words by doing the same?
“Is a woman’s unfertilized egg a baby?” <- That’s a trap? Of course a woman’s unfertilized is not a baby, nor is a fertilized one until born, since that would usually be defined as “embryo” or “fetus” (if being all pedantic). Though, a woman’s unfertilized egg is an “animal product”, as is a slice of meat.
Now, I’ve chosen to use “meat” as a synonym, or over-category, for “animal products”. I realize that this generalization might be important for some, so let me apologize for this apparently vital oversight, I’ll try to cut it out in cardboard from now on.
Regarding your statement about morals, as I’ve stated before, the hyperbole would be meaningless if the creator (of the hyperbole) wouldn’t find any truth or parallel in it.
I’ve read your statement as “No vegan would ever say: You’re eating meat animal products, but that’s all OK!”, just a whole lot more demeaning and in perfect spirit of the original post.
And once again, to really cut it out and prevent these misunderstandings of mine, I read your statement as “Vegans will not morally lower themselves to omni standards (edit: /Ethics)”.
If this was not the intention behind your words, then I will gladly stand corrected.
Regarding your statement about morals, as I’ve stated before, the hyperbole would be meaningless if the creator (of the hyperbole) wouldn’t find any truth or parallel in it.
There is truth and parallel in it. I don’t make a difference between exploiting or killing humans and exploiting or killing animals (in fact, humans are animals, but that is another topic). So don’t do it (unless your life depends on it, but that is a rare circumstance and for exploitation there’s no excuse).
If this was not the intention behind your words, then I will gladly stand corrected.
The intention of my words was to express that bottom left guy is a misrepresentation of vegans in general because he depicts militant vegans who are a minority. Very few vegans would say you have to starve if your only way to survive was eating animals. And the top left guy is a misrepresentation because eggs (or any other animal parts) are not or should not be staple food.
To bring real life examples:
There are many pharmaceuticals that contain animal ingredients. But since that is necessary for living a healthy life vegans generally don’t ask anybody to not take them if they need to (except for a very few who are sometimes very loud).
On the other hand, animal agriculture is heavily subsidized in the EU and most vegans (at least that I know of) strongly oppose these subsidies and advocate to shift subsidies towards more sustainable forms of agriculture.
We are neither okay with incentives to eat animal products (incentives as in subsidies to make animals very cheap, cheaper than they are) nor do we want people to starve or not get the medication they need.
Maybe that calling someone a murderous cultist is not the same as saying their family should rather starve?
this shouldn’t be ones reaction anyway regardless if you are in a “murderous cultist” or not. And maybe this post was just a hyperbole and caricature of hyper militant vegans?
That would have been the first statement: “Vegan here, bottom left is a very small but sometimes very loud minority.”
That second statement (about the religious killings) was specifically for why finding compromise is not possible for regular vegans. Even if it was a hyperbole, it would be meaningless if not sincere.
Putting shit together and reading stuff as a whole is not your strength, is it buddy? If I said „2+2=5 is wrong“ you’d be pissed off about „2+2=5“ and just ignore the „is wrong“ part.
And maybe this post was just a hyperbole and caricature of hyper militant vegans?
And my comment critizises this post for displaying hyper militant vegans as the norm. But everyone apparently just wants to get all railed up and shit.
But everyone apparently just wants to get all railed up and shit.
Its much more fun to be railed up and sweaty.
And yeah I totally agree with your initial comment and your scolding of OP; even though I am more like a flexitarian than a vegetarian, allthough I really try to shift my died toward it.
Also your comment score immediatly got two negatives… I guess the peeps are super railed up against you, which is sad.
I mean… If they didn’t believe veganism had a moral high ground they wouldn’t be doing it. That’s something and badgering people about how eating meat is literally murder is something else.
You wouldn’t say „I personally don’t like killing people but I do respect your religious tradition of human sacrifice“
In most cultures killing people is significantly worse than killing animals, so this comparison doesn’t really make sense.
The point I’m trying to make is that if vegans and non vegans worked together we could lower the amount of meat we eat and reduce the suffering of animals, even if it’s not the perfect goal of zero animal product consumption. And that’s something we should all want to work towards.
In most cultures killing people is significantly worse than killing animals, so this comparison doesn’t really make sense.
It makes sense from a vegan’s perspective because the whole reason we’re vegan is that in our opinion, animals do have (morally) or should have (legally) the same rights to live and not be abused and exploited as humans do.
And again, the point of my comment is not criticizing your point but criticizing the way you try to bring it across by misrepresenting a few hardcore militant vegans as being the norm. Most vegans meanwhile applaud people who want to cut their consumption of animal products and offer them help.
Vegan here, bottom left is a very small but sometimes very loud minority.
Top left is kinda wrong because veganism is a moral position. You wouldn’t say „I personally don’t like killing people but I do respect your religious tradition of human sacrifice“ (being hyperbolic to hammer home the point).
Mostly, a vegan diet is even cheaper than an omnivorous diet and where that might not be the case there’s A.) something completely wrong with the agricultural economy and B.) most vegans would agree that these problems need to be solved.
(and correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t there some political quafaffel about egg prices being too high in the US? (half joke here))
@AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee I see the point you’re trying to make (and explained in your other comment) but this is an unfair misrepresentation of vegans. I’m sure this is your perception, but it seems your perception is warped and ill informed by said small but loud minority of vegans and also other, usually intentional misrepresentation of vegans by other media.
Edit for the boneheads that rip shit out of context and are just unable of reading a text:
The loud minority is people screaming around that people should rather starve before eating animals. Most vegans usually keep to themselves and if a discussion comes to the topic of veganism explain their point like the normal people they are.
Isn’t it a little weird to call vegans who say eating meat is murder a “loud minority”, and then explaining why you cannot be a vegan without saying that eating meat is murder (hyperbole or not)?
Is there something in your comment I’m missing, or is this supposed to be some self-aware joke?
Tell me, do you misrepresent what bottom left guy says on purpose?
“I don’t care if your family starves, eating eggs is literally murder!” - How can this not be represented as “Eating meat is murder!”?
Are eggs meat? And don’t you think that part „I don’t care if your family starves“ might be fucking important context?
“Are eggs meat?” - Yes, that’s what I’m saying, I’m not sure how it can be understood any other way.
Though, how can calling somebody a murderous cultist not be considered the least bit demeaning, whereas saying their family should starve is? As per “You wouldn’t say „… I do respect your religious tradition of human sacrifice“” having similar aggressive or demeaning meaning as “I don’t care if your family starves”.
Then you’re just plain wrong. Is a woman’s unfertilized egg a baby?
You’re twisting my words like they’re players in a game with colored dots on a map.
I even stated that the sacrifice thing was a damn hyperbole. If you think.my comment is demeaning or aggressive, you didn’t read the whole fucking thing.
I guess I should thank you for demonstrating how I’m twisting your words by doing the same?
“Is a woman’s unfertilized egg a baby?” <- That’s a trap? Of course a woman’s unfertilized is not a baby, nor is a fertilized one until born, since that would usually be defined as “embryo” or “fetus” (if being all pedantic). Though, a woman’s unfertilized egg is an “animal product”, as is a slice of meat.
Now, I’ve chosen to use “meat” as a synonym, or over-category, for “animal products”. I realize that this generalization might be important for some, so let me apologize for this apparently vital oversight, I’ll try to cut it out in cardboard from now on.
Regarding your statement about morals, as I’ve stated before, the hyperbole would be meaningless if the creator (of the hyperbole) wouldn’t find any truth or parallel in it.
I’ve read your statement as “No vegan would ever say: You’re eating
meatanimal products, but that’s all OK!”, just a whole lot more demeaning and in perfect spirit of the original post.And once again, to really cut it out and prevent these misunderstandings of mine, I read your statement as “Vegans will not morally lower themselves to omni standards (edit: /Ethics)”.
If this was not the intention behind your words, then I will gladly stand corrected.
There is truth and parallel in it. I don’t make a difference between exploiting or killing humans and exploiting or killing animals (in fact, humans are animals, but that is another topic). So don’t do it (unless your life depends on it, but that is a rare circumstance and for exploitation there’s no excuse).
The intention of my words was to express that bottom left guy is a misrepresentation of vegans in general because he depicts militant vegans who are a minority. Very few vegans would say you have to starve if your only way to survive was eating animals. And the top left guy is a misrepresentation because eggs (or any other animal parts) are not or should not be staple food.
To bring real life examples:
There are many pharmaceuticals that contain animal ingredients. But since that is necessary for living a healthy life vegans generally don’t ask anybody to not take them if they need to (except for a very few who are sometimes very loud).
On the other hand, animal agriculture is heavily subsidized in the EU and most vegans (at least that I know of) strongly oppose these subsidies and advocate to shift subsidies towards more sustainable forms of agriculture.
We are neither okay with incentives to eat animal products (incentives as in subsidies to make animals very cheap, cheaper than they are) nor do we want people to starve or not get the medication they need.
where does that meat come from? From the Meat Plant or from a cut of an animal that was killed to provide that cut of meat?
That egg, if fertilized, could have been a chicken. so one could argue that the chicken was killed prematurely.
My point exactly! I don’t see where the discrepancy lies.
Maybe that calling someone a murderous cultist is not the same as saying their family should rather starve?
this shouldn’t be ones reaction anyway regardless if you are in a “murderous cultist” or not. And maybe this post was just a hyperbole and caricature of hyper militant vegans?
That would have been the first statement: “Vegan here, bottom left is a very small but sometimes very loud minority.”
That second statement (about the religious killings) was specifically for why finding compromise is not possible for regular vegans. Even if it was a hyperbole, it would be meaningless if not sincere.
Uh, did you skipped the negation? That a regular vegan wouldn’t go full on condemning you for religious Human Sacrifice by eating meat?
Putting shit together and reading stuff as a whole is not your strength, is it buddy? If I said „2+2=5 is wrong“ you’d be pissed off about „2+2=5“ and just ignore the „is wrong“ part.
And my comment critizises this post for displaying hyper militant vegans as the norm. But everyone apparently just wants to get all railed up and shit.
Its much more fun to be railed up and sweaty.
And yeah I totally agree with your initial comment and your scolding of OP; even though I am more like a flexitarian than a vegetarian, allthough I really try to shift my died toward it.
Also your comment score immediatly got two negatives… I guess the peeps are super railed up against you, which is sad.
You don’t see irony here?
You’re just said in essence that vegans have a moral high ground in comparison to meat eaters. That’s precisely what bottom left represents.
I mean… If they didn’t believe veganism had a moral high ground they wouldn’t be doing it. That’s something and badgering people about how eating meat is literally murder is something else.
People don’t like being told they don’t have the high ground.
Me? I love a good wallow.
No, that is not at all everything that bottom left guy says.
I don’t want to have the same discussion twice simultaneously, so: https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/16162457
In most cultures killing people is significantly worse than killing animals, so this comparison doesn’t really make sense.
The point I’m trying to make is that if vegans and non vegans worked together we could lower the amount of meat we eat and reduce the suffering of animals, even if it’s not the perfect goal of zero animal product consumption. And that’s something we should all want to work towards.
It makes sense from a vegan’s perspective because the whole reason we’re vegan is that in our opinion, animals do have (morally) or should have (legally) the same rights to live and not be abused and exploited as humans do.
And again, the point of my comment is not criticizing your point but criticizing the way you try to bring it across by misrepresenting a few hardcore militant vegans as being the norm. Most vegans meanwhile applaud people who want to cut their consumption of animal products and offer them help.
Removed by mod
How do you know someone eats meat?
They won’t shut the fuck up about how mad at vegans they are.