Not vegan, but to play the vegan’s advocate—vegans are acutely aware of the level of cruelty in the factory farm system, as well as it’s affect on the environment and don’t want to partake in those systems of harm and taking without consent. To them, it’s not just a dietary choice but an ethical stance against suffering and exploitation. To someone who sees the life of a cow as just as sacred and important as a human’s, you can imagine why it would upset them to see you eating a steak. Just like you might be upset if you saw someone eating a dog or a fellow human. To them there’s no difference.
It’s similar to how evangelical Christians genuinely believe they’re trying to save people from eternal damnation when they get preachy. Just as annoying. The difference is that one is rooted in observable reality—documented animal suffering, environmental damage, and ethical concerns—while the other is a matter of ‘faith.’ and the latter is given a lot more leeway. So when vegans speak out, it’s not necessarily about policing your diet; it’s about trying to reduce harm in a world where harm is often hidden or normalized. And for what it’s worth I have known a lot of vegans and not one of them was ever preachy or judgemental, in fact most tend to keep it to themselves because vegans are so often the subject of ridicule, the butt of played out jokes, or made to host a session of 20 questions and feigned health concerns from people who eat nothing but processed meat and carbs.
I believe everyone should be able to do and live as they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s ability to do the same, and I can fully understand how to a vegan someone eating a steak would break that rule.
And I’m saying the vegan that tells others how to live their lives is as fictional as the god who damns non-believers to hell. Even the weird publicity stunts by PETA are just to raise awareness of the issue.
And the moral implications are totally relevant as they completely explain the reasoning of someone who would care if you ate a steak, the question your original comment asks.
I’m a different person, that was my first comment here.
The way I see it, the discussion was about permitting others to commit acts which one considers immoral.
In the case of a vegan that might mean allowing someone else to eat meat, but the ethical dilemma is the very same as allowing a cannibal to eat a child. Does one have any right to intervene in their daily habits and societal norms, just because you think it’s wrong? If yes, why shouldn’t the vegan do the same?
I will say that I can’t claim to be a vegan myself. I just found your logic flawed.
Youre entitled to your opinion, but the argument in itself is not a valid one. Not caring about what other people do has is called anarchy. How would you rate the same argument with other context?
“Lets care less about who others kill?” (that ones actually pretty similar now that im writing it^^)
“Lets care less about who others spit on?”
“Lets care less about when your neighbors blast their music at 130dB”
Imagine those in a context where there were no laws regulating those actions yet. Someone had to step up and start demanding we regulate behavior and establish rules for generally accepted behavior. Those rules are constantly changing and they should. We need to adjust to new information as we go on. Making animals suffer for our convenience is something many people consider immoral and sometimes people point out when other do immoral things.
What omnivores eat should actually matter to vegans because theyre responsible for stress and suffering, which many see as their moral obligation to oppose. Funny how its mostly the other way around.
Imagine people going around raging about how you dont beat your wife and kids or dont rape and kill children.
Also the environmental impacts. I don’t own a huge polluting coal powerplant that is actively contributing to fucking up the planet that I live on, and I’m still allowed to criticise them for it. Why should the meat industry be any different?
I dont understand your point. Everyone DOES have the freedom you are talking about and noone is debating that. Why are you pretending like thats not the case?
In some areas men are allowed to beat their wives. Youre still allowed to critisize them for it, and you should be allowed to.
Also, regarding your actual equivalency, everyone is allowed to critisize women for getting abortions. But you shouldnt be allowed to deny it. Thats the difference. Were talking about the same thing over and over, youre just not seeing it are you?
Realizing now the mistake one makes when trying to remain neutral in a discussion where vegans are involved.
“Realizing now the mistake one makes when trying to remain neutral in a discussion where abolitionists are involved” ~ someone in 1850s Kansas, trying to remain neutral in a discussion about slavery and complaining about those damn abolitionists who can’t see the nuance in owning people
>inb4 some room temperature IQ replies with “are you really equating eating meat with slavery?”
No, slavery is worse than animal agriculture. That doesn’t mean that animal agriculture isn’t wrong for the same reasons that slavery is. You’re driving a demand for unnecessary harm to be done to sentient beings for a product you don’t need to survive.
You say the cow cares? I say the cow never asked for your advocacy. And we both know you cannot prove it has.
I can prove pretty easily that cows can suffer. I can’t prove that any individual cow wanted to live any more than I can prove that any murder victim wanted to live, but it’s a safe fucking assumption that they did.
And it’s also safe to assume they are entirely clueless about the concept of meat consumption
And a child doesn’t know what sex is, but it turns out that the victim not being able to comprehend the crime being committed against them is not a justification for committing that crime. I know, you don’t think your logic can be expanded to cover things outside of dietary decisions, but it can whether you like it or not.
What someone wants to eat, provided it is legal- is only considered to be your business to you and you alone- not to them. So your opinions of their consumption of cheeseburgers is every bit as important to an omnivore as the opinions of Christian fundamentalists are to the LGBTQ.
Something being legal does not mean it’s okay, and my opinion of me consumption is a bit more meaningful than the opinions of Christian fundamentalists to the lgbt, on account that your perfectly legal dietary decisions actively cause harm in a way that being gay doesn’t.
deleted by creator
Not vegan, but to play the vegan’s advocate—vegans are acutely aware of the level of cruelty in the factory farm system, as well as it’s affect on the environment and don’t want to partake in those systems of harm and taking without consent. To them, it’s not just a dietary choice but an ethical stance against suffering and exploitation. To someone who sees the life of a cow as just as sacred and important as a human’s, you can imagine why it would upset them to see you eating a steak. Just like you might be upset if you saw someone eating a dog or a fellow human. To them there’s no difference.
It’s similar to how evangelical Christians genuinely believe they’re trying to save people from eternal damnation when they get preachy. Just as annoying. The difference is that one is rooted in observable reality—documented animal suffering, environmental damage, and ethical concerns—while the other is a matter of ‘faith.’ and the latter is given a lot more leeway. So when vegans speak out, it’s not necessarily about policing your diet; it’s about trying to reduce harm in a world where harm is often hidden or normalized. And for what it’s worth I have known a lot of vegans and not one of them was ever preachy or judgemental, in fact most tend to keep it to themselves because vegans are so often the subject of ridicule, the butt of played out jokes, or made to host a session of 20 questions and feigned health concerns from people who eat nothing but processed meat and carbs.
I believe everyone should be able to do and live as they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s ability to do the same, and I can fully understand how to a vegan someone eating a steak would break that rule.
deleted by creator
And I’m saying the vegan that tells others how to live their lives is as fictional as the god who damns non-believers to hell. Even the weird publicity stunts by PETA are just to raise awareness of the issue.
And the moral implications are totally relevant as they completely explain the reasoning of someone who would care if you ate a steak, the question your original comment asks.
deleted by creator
Would you make the same comment if somebody else was eating a human child? If not, why?
“Just leave people alone to do their thing.” “Let’s care less about what others eat.”
Do you see how this very same logic could be used to excuse pretty much any diet or action?
deleted by creator
I’m a different person, that was my first comment here.
The way I see it, the discussion was about permitting others to commit acts which one considers immoral.
In the case of a vegan that might mean allowing someone else to eat meat, but the ethical dilemma is the very same as allowing a cannibal to eat a child. Does one have any right to intervene in their daily habits and societal norms, just because you think it’s wrong? If yes, why shouldn’t the vegan do the same?
I will say that I can’t claim to be a vegan myself. I just found your logic flawed.
deleted by creator
Youre entitled to your opinion, but the argument in itself is not a valid one. Not caring about what other people do has is called anarchy. How would you rate the same argument with other context?
“Lets care less about who others kill?” (that ones actually pretty similar now that im writing it^^)
“Lets care less about who others spit on?”
“Lets care less about when your neighbors blast their music at 130dB”
Imagine those in a context where there were no laws regulating those actions yet. Someone had to step up and start demanding we regulate behavior and establish rules for generally accepted behavior. Those rules are constantly changing and they should. We need to adjust to new information as we go on. Making animals suffer for our convenience is something many people consider immoral and sometimes people point out when other do immoral things.
deleted by creator
Where is the false equivalency? I dont think you know what that term means.
deleted by creator
What if I like eating human meat?
What omnivores eat should actually matter to vegans because theyre responsible for stress and suffering, which many see as their moral obligation to oppose. Funny how its mostly the other way around.
Imagine people going around raging about how you dont beat your wife and kids or dont rape and kill children.
Also the environmental impacts. I don’t own a huge polluting coal powerplant that is actively contributing to fucking up the planet that I live on, and I’m still allowed to criticise them for it. Why should the meat industry be any different?
deleted by creator
I dont understand your point. Everyone DOES have the freedom you are talking about and noone is debating that. Why are you pretending like thats not the case?
In some areas men are allowed to beat their wives. Youre still allowed to critisize them for it, and you should be allowed to.
Also, regarding your actual equivalency, everyone is allowed to critisize women for getting abortions. But you shouldnt be allowed to deny it. Thats the difference. Were talking about the same thing over and over, youre just not seeing it are you?
deleted by creator
Explain please how it is not exactly the same.
deleted by creator
Thought so. Sorry for demanding you do something youre not capable of.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
u made the equivalency first.
deleted by creator
The cow
“Realizing now the mistake one makes when trying to remain neutral in a discussion where abolitionists are involved” ~ someone in 1850s Kansas, trying to remain neutral in a discussion about slavery and complaining about those damn abolitionists who can’t see the nuance in owning people
>inb4 some room temperature IQ replies with “are you really equating eating meat with slavery?”
No, slavery is worse than animal agriculture. That doesn’t mean that animal agriculture isn’t wrong for the same reasons that slavery is. You’re driving a demand for unnecessary harm to be done to sentient beings for a product you don’t need to survive.
deleted by creator
I can prove pretty easily that cows can suffer. I can’t prove that any individual cow wanted to live any more than I can prove that any murder victim wanted to live, but it’s a safe fucking assumption that they did.
And a child doesn’t know what sex is, but it turns out that the victim not being able to comprehend the crime being committed against them is not a justification for committing that crime. I know, you don’t think your logic can be expanded to cover things outside of dietary decisions, but it can whether you like it or not.
Something being legal does not mean it’s okay, and my opinion of me consumption is a bit more meaningful than the opinions of Christian fundamentalists to the lgbt, on account that your perfectly legal dietary decisions actively cause harm in a way that being gay doesn’t.
it’s not. we don’t have proof that cows understand personal mortality. we therefore have no reason to believe they want to live or not to die.
eating cheeseburgers doesn’t cause harm
deleted by creator