Talk:Veganism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Needs more on freeganism

Freeganism^{(Wikipedia link)} goes beyond just "don't buy dead animals". It's more of an anti-consumerism pro-humanitarianism movement than a set of dietary rules. It goes beyond Veganism, also caring about the environment and treatment of workers. Also, according to that WP article, most Freegans don't eat or use animal products. Those who do are sometimes called "meagans" (meat+freegan). --Chupi 02:24, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Dumpster diving as a philosophy? I'm there, living it, but not eating it! ^{[more detail please]} ħuman 03:37, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Beekeeping vital?

I'm not going to take it out, but does anyone have a source on the idea of beekeeping being vital to agriculture? I've been looking and I can't find anything. Sake Fueled (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you been following the colony collapse disorder issue for the last few years? There are quite a few self- or wind-pollinated crops, but quite a lot more that still require bees to do the pollination. CCD is a problem because a lot of these crops require beekeepers with itinerant hives, which are the ones that are the worst affected by the problem, and feral bee populations simply aren't reliable enough to pollinate enough crops to feed everybody. (Then again, I'd have thought this was elementary school-level science that shouldn't need documentation because it's blindingly obvious.) EVDebs (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have observed immense variability in the local bees playing in some of my trees and shrubs over the years. If my cherry flowers early - which is predictable based on weather - they aren't around. Professional beekeepers are in high demand at flowering time for orchards, and many other crops. ħuman 02:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought...

...veganism was only about diet, just like vegetarianism, only that veganism did not allow any animals or animal products to be eaten. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be both an entire lifestyle or just a diet depending on how dedicated you are. Sam ^Tally-ho! 00:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ace^Moderator 00:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Meat Gives You Cancer/Is the reason why we aren't healthy.

There is an enormous amount of material devoted to how a diet that includes meat gives people cancer, and that humans aren't 'supposed' to eat meat. Much of it professes that the Western Diet is killing millions, playing off of fears of drugs, obesity, and cancer, and often (incorrectly) concludes returning to a 'whole-food plant-based diet' (another way to say veganism that doesn't contain Green Panic) as the solution. This diet is incorrectly associated with Asian countries, playing the 'we are stupid white man and the wisdom of ancient eastern peasants is exotic and therefore better than us' card. I recently had the displeasure of seeing a documentary called Forks over Knives, which was basically MADE of this tripe, supported by the findings of two scientists that make it look more legit. However, the documentary misrepresents their work on a pretty shocking level, yet I hear people repeating ideas just like it all the time. For a good debunking of such tripe, here's a very thorough and reputable blog that does it. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 17:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm, tripe. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Refs

Can anyone fix reference #4? I can't see what's screwing up the formatting. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. There was a hard line-break in the text. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Milk and cancer

Apparently, drinking milk can increase your risk of developing prostate cancer. Can anyone confirm this?--Krej^talk 03:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Mayo Clinic is a pretty reputable source, and the claim you mention is already clarified and put in perspective in the article. The relevant text states that "In studies, men who ate the most dairy products — such as milk, cheese and yogurt — each day had the highest risk of prostate cancer." Remember that correlation does not imply causation, and the article goes on to state that "study results have been mixed, and the risk associated with dairy products is thought to be small." There you go. Also note that there are many potential risk factors associated with all cancers, including prostate cancer. The article you cite is just giving a list of general recommendations and is very open and honest about the strength of each claim and the proportion of each potential risk. Based on the presentation of the evidence and facts in the article, I'd say anyone trying to use the dairy claim or similar claims relating to prostate cancer (or really any cancer, as none of the reputable sources I've found have assigned diet anything beyond a complementary role in cancer prevention, instead giving general advice such as eating more fruits and vegetables) as a fear tactic to push some special diet or scare you out of consuming a particular food is either misinformed or a charlatan. The One They Call Mars (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No animals were harmed?

Plenty of animals would continue to be harmed indefinitely, even following an overnight worldwide vegan switch-over. Habitat destruction, pollution (fertilizer runoff, for starters), pest control (whether with chemicals, traps, domestic animals [like our favorite invasive species -kitties] or firearms), farm implements shredding everything from arthropods to baby deer, etc.. Veganism totally rules if you're a livestock species, but it doesn't do you much good if you're not. That's not to say it's not a better choice than blindly eating tons of whatever, but to say no animals were harmed is way false. No livestock was harmed? Sure.

Shane8005 (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that producing food from animals also generally require a lot more land than producing plant food such that the number of wild animals being harmed by growing crops is also minimized by a vegan diet. Kamizushi (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that livestock animals eat tons of stuff not suited for human consumption (chaff, hay, straw, silage, grass, scraps, byproducts of food-processing), or that people don't really want to eat even if they can digest it (sprouted grains and legumes), or that they don't buy because it doesn't look or taste particularly nice (because they're spoilt and not desperately hungry, at least in countries where veganism is fashionable, which are suspiciously all wealthy). Basically acting as trash-dumps and converting low-quality into high-quality food (at least from the human point of view). In short: Livestock doesn't eat the same things you do. That's a central point vegetarians and vegans consistently ignore or gloss over, if they are aware of it at all; generally, they don't really know as much about farming, biology, animals' needs, nutrition and human health as they believe they do. You should really talk to real farmers (like our friend below) – they have no reason to waste good food and arbitrarily torture the animals they keep, for exactly those cold hard economic motives (wasting precious resources is expensive) which vegans believe make them do exactly that. (To anticipate a possible objection: Yes, livestock animals are fed highly nutritious fodder – such as grains or potatoes, and even animal-derived fodder – suitable for humans too, as pellets to speed up growth, but not exclusively that kind of fodder all their life; again, that would just not be economic. And by the way, "organic" farms don't necessarily engage in superior practices.) --91.7.22.170 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thought I jump in here - I'll put my bias out front as I'm a Canadian livestock farmer and obviously have a interest on one side of this topic, but important to note many of the farmers I' know have wrestled with these ethical issues and still end up raising animals. The ethical lines are not as clear as some think. Land use is a good example. Livestock are often grazed on marginal land while better quality land is reserved for crops. My farm demonstrates this. Of the 600 acres we farm, 400 are used for grazing sheep and 200 are used for crops. The crop land is mostly class 1 and class 2 agricultural land while the 400 grazing acres are class 4 to class 6. By just looking at these raw values, I have twice as much land in livestock as crops; however, the poorer quality land would never sustain any crop product and really can only produce food by allow some sort of ruminant to harvest forages. However, to get enough forage off marginal land, you need to graze a lot of it and as a result, acreage devoted to livestock tends to get pushed up and when compared directly to crop land, will always look larger. You would need to compare crop use vers livestock use on identical classes of agricultural land to get any meaningful values and even then it would be hard to create a fair comparison – for example, a really wet year might drown out my crops but would favor grass growth, thus creating a bias towards the livestock, while in other years the opposite would be true.

Unfortunately, the information well has been so poisoned by questionable data on both sides of this issue that even with a lot of first-hand experience, I find it hard to figure exactly where to draw the ethical lines. ^{— Unsigned, by: Loliver / talk / contribs} 18:24 (UTC) 2014 Feb 2

Criticisms

There is a real disconnect between the tone of "claims", and the tone of "criticism". In claims, there is a tone of authority that this diet "for sure" lowers all these things like cholesterol. We aren't saying "the claim is that they do", but really saying they do. Then in criticism, we jump into this wishy washy "well... it might have some benefit". I know little to nothing about the bennies and risks of veganism, but we aught to figure out if we think it's good, bad, or don't have an opinion. cause right now, we have all three in one article.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the use of the word 'all' in the current version of this section. I suggest cutting both instances of the word, since it requires a rather extreme amount of confidence to use. Nullahnung (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is a year old but I agree and went ahead and did it. I also added that they "can" have "some" health benefits, because a poorly balanced vegan diet doesn't seem likely to produce overall health benefits.--The General ^{talk to me} 02:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Social superiority

Q: How can you tell if someone is a vegan?
A: Don't worry, they'll tell you!
^{— Unsigned, by: 220.233.112.168 / talk} 01:58, 15 June 2015‎

Haven't heard that one before. ;) (I guess you found the vegan. :P) TofuTyphoon (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Social superiority? I am vegan, because i think i am not superior in any way. Why is it fine, to stand for the rights of womans and kids, while it leads to such comments, when someone do the very same with other species? Because humans feel attacked, when others make them aware about their own behavior. It is the same with each field, in which humans stand for fairness and equality: Other humans think, its natural, normal and necessary to kill, exploit and quash others. Since they grow up with this believe and because they fear, there is no other way. I think this rational wiki is fair and - öhm - rational enough to focus on serious work, which is in my humble opinion free from provocative comments towards social justice movements. Thanks in advance ShalokShalom (talk)

Question

Some people claim that we aren't really omnivores or that to think of us as omnivores is somehow a misunderstanding. How much truth is there to this claim? Burkean (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As a non-expert armed with a search engine, it seems there is very little merit to this claim. However, even if it *would* be true, it doesn't really matter as far as the veg*ism cause is concerned IMHO, and is a good example of "appeal to nature". Humans obviously *are* capable of eating meat, and what our ancestors ate doesn't really say much about the health (or lack of it) of the "modern" diet. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's reassuring. I just can't do the only veggies/fruit/grain thing. Burkean (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Emerald. I was trying to be a responsible human being, make the right choices, and get the most out of life. There's no point in eating your way into an early death. I guess it's about striking the right balance between permitting as many foods as you healthily can, and restricting those which you need to. I don't really see how I've said anything here which you would feel the need to criticize. Burkean (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My sources are mostly in german, i think this graphic show it clear: http://funkyimg.com/view/2nEuu Here is to add, that there is a difference between the (hunting) behavior and the anatomical-physiological facts. Hunts can be the result from a lot of different reasons and if we would be born hunters, would be the keeping of pets a difficult challenge.. ;) Of course does this say a lot about the the impact on our health, since our bodys are specifically optimized to a fruitarian nutrition since millions of years. The huge amount of pro-vegan studys underline this. As the graphic shows, is our body far away from omnivorous mammals and while some might think, that apes eat a lot of meat, makes it up less than two percent of their overall diet in the case of chimpanzees, according to Jane Goodall, which is well known as the world leading scientist in this issue. Bonobos, who are genetically so near to us as no other species, are frugivores, their meat intake is even lower as that one from chimpanzees and roots - which counts for apes in general - mostly in emotional drain, which includes famines and social disbalance. In 1979, Professor Alan Walker, a Johns Hopkins University paleoanthropologist, reported that preliminary studies of unmarked tooth enamel in early hominoids suggested that pre-human ancestors apparently had a diet of mostly fruit. I can translate a copious inspection about this topic, when somebody is really interested. Also the myth of meat as an essential nutrition source for the development of our brain is debunked: Dinosaurs like (the precursors of) Crocodilians live since at least 200 Million years only from meat and their brains are quite small, while there are a lot of intelligent, vegan living animals with a great brain-body weight ratio, like Elephants, while i like to mention, that recent studys with ants and bees show, that the complexity of brains are an more important factor to tell something about intellectual capability of an animal, as the size is. I already respect that in my declarations. Current science think that the development and usage of tools, as well as social interaction, including the development and usage of verbal language count as the key components for huge potential of human intelligence. I hope this is clear, otherwise, just ask. :) ShalokShalom (talk)

There is a rebbutal to that graph found here and I am also working on an article about it.Also chimps are voracious hunters and bonbos are omnivorus although they don't eat a lot of monkeys like chimps do. We are not comparable to dinosaurs as we are omnivorous unlike Dinos who were carnivorous. Comradegreen (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion section

“”Even though this article only touch the nutritional argument, if we add other arguments (eg. personhood/animal right, socio-economical consequences on the human animal) and the absence of a proper rebuttal (because we all have deficiencies and excess from a nutritional viewpoint, especially the omnivore who add toxic compounds and no benefit with is diet), veganism seems rationnaly superior until proven otherwise. So if one understand the secular basis of ethics one should and will be vegan.

Ignoring the grammar and spelling, this is a talk page level edit and/or blog response to the main page. Not only is it deeply logically fallacious, but it also raises suggestions what should be added or why certain arguments haven't been explored in the article yet (once again I believe this to be debate material first and foremost). I'll suggest a deletion but instead of mentioning it on the main page I'll wait until someone has made qualitative changes and edits to the points raised or lists them right here. Otherwise I won't hesitate to revert. Sincerely, a skeptical vegan. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 11:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I already reverted it because it belongs on the talk page. Also, the user in question has already been warned multiple times not to make crappy edits. We'll see if he plays ball, or if he gets himself vandal binned instead. Either way, problem solved. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why it is "deeply fallacious". You seem to not know what argument from ignorance is (see [proof is presented]). And yes there are some suggestions about what should be added, because some arguments should probably be more detailed like animal right even if it has its own article. As for my "crappy edit" (I am not a native English speaker) I have been ""warned"" one time (maybe two) and other said they were fine enough, but I am happy you join in (an improvement of the article with a proper English from someone else is fine). Maybe the article is good enough (he is, now less ambiguous)...or should it be elaborate on some point to make the case stronger (or weaker)? like animal right, socio-economical consequences etc... Sincerely--Arall (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I know what the fallacy is that's why I pointed it out - you presented no proof in your edit (you can read it again above if you forgot the content) and you didn't respond to my second objection. Sure you can find studies which proof that a considerate vegan diet is healthier than an inconsiderate omnivore one. Did I name one of those studies or list a reference to them in my previous sentence? No, I didn't present a single concrete proof beyond making a vague authoritative claim and therefore would never add it to the article. Do you now see where the problem lies with your edit? Trust me, I have been there before defending veganism from a no-evidence-backed point of view in the real world. Nobody will take you seriously in these instances, which is correct just like we shouldn't take others seriously who behave similarly.

The suggestions should have been raised on the talk page. I agree that the article could explore more arguments (and counter-arguments). But these should be elaborately and fairly presented with references in a non-fallacious way and not as a hastily hacked together paragraph.

As for the bad English accusations: I think nobody would object to it if your edits were good and other members would correct them if they agreed with the content. As a native speaker myself who is kinda outta practice due to the lack of English speakers in my area, my edits usually have few errors which get corrected later when others spot them. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 16:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

ok. (and don't worry in the real world, as I did in is this article, I like to scientifically backed my point of view)--Arall (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@NameThatNobodyTakes

@Arall I'm not a native speaker, either (I'm Swedish, born and raised). That being said, you aren't wrong to just want to help (that's good!). And indeed, the article is in use of improvement. But NameThatNobodyTakes explains perfectly how the help has to look if it's going to be of any use (which I define as: going to be allowed to stay). We're not deaf to the benefits of veganism, and several good editors — such as NameThatNobodyTakes — are vegan themselves. As you will see, he's not exactly being persecuted for this. But that being said, like any diet, veganism isn't a panacea. It requires planning to be a vegan without health risk (as with any diet), and every claim needs to be backed up by solid science if we're to respect it here (as with any diet). We can't descend into "vegan woo" (said in comparison to "cannabis woo" - an herb we otherwise support, just with a fierce resistance to the simplifications and the pseudoscience). And as is evident on this talkpage — please don't take this the wrong way — you have to make sure your article contributions are grammatically sound. We have no need for additions that depend on the idea that other people spellcheck and/or rewrite them to make them intelligible. Thank you in advance. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you state your non-native level of English. "That being said, you aren't wrong to just want to help (that's good!)." oooh thank you. "we are not deaf to vegan" ok in the case of you assumed some intents on my part don't worry, I see that the scientifically backed points that I add in the article wasn't rejected (so I see RW is not deaf and even if they were rejected I would not assumed deafness). "he is not persecuted" whew!. Yes like any diet (the omnivore diet include) it require planning to be healthy (for some more than other though). You insist many times on my grammar so yeah I get the idea (I knew even before that I should be as "grammaticaly sound" as possible), thank you. I don't see many way to see it so I also hope I didn't get it the wrong way. I deeply apologize with all my heart for my ignorance in English. Thank you for your benevolent guidance--Arall (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I will maybe add a little in this article and I can play the devil advocate if needed, but it would be better if someone with a proper rebuttal actually believe what he said. But before this we can make RW view less ambiguous and put something like my conclusion and REPEAT the scientific sources that I (and other) already gave with the premisses/arguments in this article (it may also motivate informed detractors to participate). so something like this :

“”Even though this article mostly touch the nutritional argument, if we add the other arguments briefly presented because they have their own article (eg. personhood/animal right, socio-economical consequences on the human animal) and the absence of a proper rebuttal (because we all have deficiencies and excess from a nutritional viewpoint, especially the omnivore who add toxic compounds and no benefit with is diet.), veganism seems rationnaly superior until proven otherwise. So if one want to act ethically one should and will be vegan.

It is a first modification, but it might be quicker if you give your own conclusion as a basis because you don't like mine for whatever reason (the English, the formulation, the content etc) we can also let this article as it is (ambiguous or not) and wait for more content. waiting for your suggestions, sincerly--Arall (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Arall's sources

Why don't you just list a few your best sources here (within reason; don't dump 10,000+ symbols of text please) and we can take a look a them? Without using <ref> tags please; just give us the titles and links in bullet form or something. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you ask, sources for what? the veganism article has already many sources. I already gave some sources and I can make the effort to give you more if you have a specific claim and if needed (the sources in the article would not be enough to settle the issue because of a significant critic)--Arall (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You just used a <references> tag above to insert three sources, did you not? My point is, your english is not clear enough to have your additions stick in the article. That being said, provide us with direct links to particular sources you may want investigated and/or added, if you have any like that, and we could look at them. That's all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

the balise "references" was already edit before you post your topic (you can see the fossil record). Some of my additions "stick" already in this article, but this one may not be clear enough however it doesn't have to be my formulation. Why you still ask for sources I do not understand, the sources in the vegan article already settle the issue of veganism being rationnaly superior, we just have to acknowledge it by concluding what follow from the claims (already backed by science) that was written by people on this RW article. But ok I understand, it seem fine enough so I will wait for more content (or think of some content to add myself) before making RW view less ambiguous (even though the pro-vegan arguments are made and the criticism fails).--Arall (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I took some time out to check all references and yes indeed two of the sources you listed were already in the article.

The source which was new (the second, link to article here if anyone wants to check) says that an inconsiderate vegan diet has a 30% higher fracture rate and concludes that vegans should therefore be aware in intaking calcium-rich sources (the reference was just added by me, thanks for the valuable article!). We should be careful, or better yet totally abstain from calling a diet "rationally superior" when you're awfully likely to run into issues if you don't take the time to become acquainted with nutrition, especially when we supply sources which mention the dangers! Therefore I'm kinda confused why you believe your second source consolidated your point when in fact it does the opposite.

As for the article itself, the first two sections paint a largely positive picture of the diet and even say that no matter which diet you have, you must take precautions in getting a sufficient amount of vitamins and minerals. The text is backed by studies from the previous two decades. Sure the article could go into more detail about environmental and ethical concerns but when it comes to diet the article does a great job and even supports your stance.

I really get the impression that your issue here is that you're simply appalled at the fact that the article has a criticisms section at all and therefore you believe it is important to have the last word on the matter (which means a "conclusion" section needs to be added at the end). Your main concern seems pushing your agenda instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. Our readers are hopefully smart enough to draw their own conclusion (and to mention it again, the article is already pro-vegan!). It's true that RW has a POV but this POV should be empiricist above all else, especially when it comes to health matters as we don't want to be responsible for people fucking themselves up if we spout a casual (or in the case of the removed paragraph, blatantly biased) recommendation.

But if you're still adament to basically insert "Veganism iz teh Azoth!!!1!" we can't help you here, I'm sorry and editors here, me included, will revert it everytime we should spot something of the sort. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 18:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

the second sources wasn't new, I with, other sources, added to the article (so when you say you add it you repeat the references which is also good).

" We should be careful, or better yet totally abstain from calling a diet "rationally superior" when you're awfully likely to run into issues if you don't take the time to become acquainted with nutrition, especially when we supply sources which mention the dangers! Therefore I'm kinda confused why you believe your second source consolidated your point when in fact it does the opposite."

Yes this source consolidate my point in the article, which was: some vegan has deficiencies (what you call "inconsiderate diet") one of them is calcium but those deficiencies are shared with the omnivore diet (except B12) and the latter diet is even worse (when inconsiderate=usual deficiencies) because it has 5 more deficiencies. And vegan can remediate these deficiencies (if they eat the right vegan stuff) like omnivore, so the criticism to veganism fail because it is a critic that is broader than veganism and concern how to eat correctly (especially if you are inconsiderate omnivore).

I am sorry If I give you this impression of being appaled by the article having a criticisms section, in fact it is quite the contrary I find it quite weak hence my proposition of playing the devil advocate (but I prefer that someone else do it). And I am also Happy that people brought the issue of vegan death and deficiencies (I hope everybody knows this stuff) even though these reasons isn't enough to not be vegan (and there is reason to be vegan: antispecism, socio-economical...).

as written above my view is also "empiricist"( hence my scientificly backed claims in the article, that, maybe you right, don't repeat enough). I understand your critic and I will follow your worry and wait for more content or add it myself (scientifically backed as I already did) as I explain in my last post. Sincerly--Arall (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as we can all agree on the simple fact that dietary- and nutritional science isn't black and white. Both meat and vegetables provide relatively exclusive health benefits, not all of which are perfectly simple to compensate for with supplements. You could be a poor-health vegan or a good-health meat eater, just as you could likewise be a good-health vegan or a poor-health meat eater. This isn't a comment on how those percentages lie; it's a broader statement about how it's possible to have a bad diet no matter what you do, and — annoyingly — it's possible for some people to have quite excellent health even while playing the odds on what they risk health-wise. You can't ever override an individual example with statistics. And just the same, an individual example cannot ever be treated as statistically useful. So there's aspects to all of this that we may well keep in mind. There are tons of dietary aspects to consider in nutrition. Just to name a literal drop in the ocean here, even among the stuff explicitly backed by evidence-based medicine. Food for thought (speaking of diets). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We agree, though some studies (I post one in the article) shows that how the less you ate meat/fish (even ""quality"" one) the healthier it is. I am not sure that we can say that they both have exclusive health benefits (but "relatively" health benefits maybe if you think of the EPA/DHA intakes in vegans that don't eat non-sentient animals like oysters or don't think of algae because it is not really spread in their countries culture). But you right a meat-eater can still be in a good health (or smoking a little and be healthy). But maybe a non-nutritional rebuttal wouldn't fail (I don't think so but maybe :) ) --Arall (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of the borderline Gish Gallop of "sources" (apparently not an uncommon tactic from absolutist vegans) given either do not support the claims made in the "diet" section, fail to account for additional variables (for example, comparison of whole-foods vegetarianism to the SAD), or are inconclusive. The remainder are the claims of well-known woo-peddlers such as Caldwell Esselstyn (and thus, can probably be safely discarded). The page, nonetheless, has become just short of a glowing endorsement of veganism—despite it still being (appropriately) classified as "food woo," and despite the vegetarian page still being appropriately skeptical. 47.208.65.188 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Song For Vegans

What can you expect
From filthy little vegans?
Their whole entire race is like a curse!
Their food's a hellish threat
They're only good when dead
They're vermin, as I said
And worse
They're savages! Savages!
Barely even human
Savages! Savages!
Drive them from our shore!
They're not like you and me
Which means they must be evil
We must sound the drums of war!
They're savages! Savages!
Dirty shrieking devils!
Now we sound the drums of war!
^{— Unsigned, by: 96.244.93.114 / talk / contribs}

How dare somebody else not like something I like? Bicycle^wheel 10:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Meta-dislike: the dislike of someone elses' supposedly invalid dislike (the argument being that said dislike stems 'merely' from the petty dislike of someone else's original dislike — in this case, of animal products). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Are humans natural herbivores, or vegans?

^{— Unsigned, by: Kyle / talk / contribs}
No, humans are not "natural herbivores." The word "natural" is largely meaningless; but, from a physiological standpoint, we're omnivores—no matter what you might have heard from the PCRM.

"Vegan" is...well, some of them will rage if I call it a diet, so I will instead refer to it as an ideological stance centered mainly around diet. At any rate: while the primary tenet of veganism is a strict vegetarian diet, going vegan doesn't magically transform you into a physiological herbivore. 47.208.65.188 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit war

I entirely agree that many vegans are sanctimonious pricks. They strike me as a mirror image of the anti-abortion cult. The point ought to be made somewhere in the article. Incidents of vegan bullying and terrorism are relevant. OTOH, simple name calling may not be enough. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Vegan and animal rights racism

Is it or isn't it racist to liken pigs and chickens to Holocaust victims or slaves? I think it's obviously so.

Further examples could be mustered; the persecution by animal rightsers of Native Americans exercising treaty rights, or the persecution of Santeros to save chickens and the like. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how it's racist. It doesn't suggest people of certain races are inferior, nor is it discrimination or prejudice against other races. CowHouse (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

They are literally equating those people to animals, suggesting that they are inferior. There is also the extreme bad taste involved. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

They don't think animals are inferior to people. In fact, they have a word for that. CowHouse (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we know the drill. Someone calls the animal-rights crowd on the carpet for comparing marginalized people to animals; they argue that people only feel insulted by dehumanization because they're "speciesist."

In other words: they've already got it neatly rationalized. So it may be more effective to frame what they're doing as trivializing bigotry by equating it with the existence of predatory animals. 47.208.65.188 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

YouTube shooter

So how should this article address her? Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön I'm not sure how we should, given that as far as I'm aware she was a disturbed individual who also happened to be a vegan and a Muslim, among other things. If she went down her path of distruction due to beliefs related to veganism it might be relevant to this article, or if it was caused by beliefs related to her faith it might be relevant to the article on Islam. I'm not sure there's more to the incident than that, though if I'm mistaken I would welcome the pertinent information. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Opening para of "Diet" section

Is not rational, quoting the vegan proponents themselves and a dodgy study in PLoS ONE as support for "increasing" evidence, while dismissing H Hall in Science-Based Medicine as "a blogger". This is turning things on their head: the claim that veganism can "reverse" heart disease is a bit out there along with a load of other over-hyped health benefits of veganism.[1] 82.27.181.119 (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• It was apparently allowed to slide because the editor "provided sources." The trouble is that his "sources" were just this side of being a PCRM Gish-gallop. 47.208.65.188 (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The entire "Vegan and animal rights jackassery" section

Is it really necessary to have a section dedicated entirely to someone's irrational, emotional outburst and personal vendetta? It seems that the whole section has one author, who clearly has an axe to grind and cherries to pick, but nothing worth of note to say. --31.11.140.15 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The first part is boring and unfunny, though the rest is more on-topic and more interesting. Are vegans any more boring and sanctimonious than 90% of obsessive special interest groups from raw-foodists to Brexiteers? And is it fair to compare them to anti-abortionists, when I'm not aware that vegans have actually killed any butchers? --Gospatric (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

They have adopted the tactics of attempted gross-out and blockading businesses. Like the anti-abortion cult, they have directed maudlin sentimentality at utterly inappropriate targets, then seem astounded and shocked when it turns out that nobody else cares. They seem mighty similar to me. FWIW, the sentence about vegan sanctimony was not added by me; I only moved it and attempted to substantiate it with examples. - Smerdis of Tlön, ɚ̥ɵʷê̬̏e̥̽̊˞ə̃̈ʼ . 20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"They have adopted the tactics of attempted gross-out and blockading businesses". Do you honestly think this represents all vegans? Let me put it another way. Think of all the extreme feminists. Like the ones that say "Video games appeal to the male fantasy" or that "Hugh Mungus" is "sexual harrasment". Do these mean that there should be a emotial outburst in the rationalwiki article for femenist saying how narcassistic feminists are? No. And there isn't. Instead, it says "Feminism, just like any other philosophy, has its vocal fanatics too." The Criticism of that section still stands. It is someone's emotional outburst and should be removed. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2.30.85.105 / talk}

NameTheTrait

To any carnist at RationalWiki: what makes it okay to kill animals for food but not humans? I'd love to see you guys lay out your problems with the argument in an article. Or better yet, here. ^{— Unsigned, by: Zygote / talk / contribs} y

Mostly because there is no such thing as 'speciesism', which is a stupid and made-up word for a stupid and made-up idea. Anyone expecting us to take 'speciesism' seriously needs a more intimate acquaintance with bedbugs. Chickens, pigs, and cows are not the equals of human beings. Only human beings, and no other animals, have rights. Likewise, there are no 'carnists', only morally aggressive crackpots. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 13:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You are making yourself look extremely stupid by avoiding the point (Red herring). Name the trait does not require that animals have the same moral value as humans, it simply asks what trait in an animal justifies the killing and torture of animals for food. Just as women being weaker physically doesn't justify discriminating against them, animals being less intelligent/social/[insert any trait here] doesn't justify killing and torturing them. Here is a video by CosmicSkeptic on the issue - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1vW9iSpLLk . Please approach this issue with an open mind, maybe then you will change.^{— Unsigned, by: 2.30.85.105 / talk / contribs}

To be blunt, if it were not for the resulting illnesses eating human meat would be a perfectly valid option, if a bit vulgar. Further, while I respect ComicSkeptic's opinions (I'm one of his subscribers) he isn't infallible, none of us are. Lastly, invoking his video the way you just did is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy, thus sending you back to square one. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, your last post has been removed. I removed it because you edited my comment, something I strongly disagree with and view as unethical, not to mention just plain petty. You are of course free to add your comments back, but without editing mine in the process. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not realize that what I did was that bad. I just thought that the word "belief" suited better, so I changed it, but in hindsight, I shouldn't have. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2.30.85.105 / talk}

On your talk page you say "This user believes that everyone is equal, regardless of race, religion or gender. ". Yet you think eating humans is perfectly okay if they don't cause diseases? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2.30.85.105 / talk}

Of course. When we die, our bodies become meat. That meat is eaten eventually, by animals (occasionally including other humans), by plants, or by microbes. And to be clear, I only operate under a practical belief that others are equal. From a more realistic standpoint, no, we are not all equal. Further, Ethical Veganism is unfortunately ideologically inconsistent and places great emphasis on animals (usually ones that are visually appealing to humans) but excluding the more fringe elements does not oppose the consumption of plants (which are living things, just not ones that most humans empathize with) and the slaying of microbes (most humans are indifferent to microscopic life, if they even think of it at all.) To be truly ideologically consistent, and to avoid nullifying their own ideals, Ethical Vegans would have to consume only synthetic nutrients, and drink only untreated water. Even these however, would still not live up to such lofty (and ridiculously high) standards, as the human body slays microscopic organisms via the digestive system and the immune system. To put it in short, Ethical Veganism ultimately relies on the flawed premise of Absolute Morality an archaic and impractical framework. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Of course. When we die, our bodies become meat. That meat is eaten eventually". No. That's not how it works. To obtain meat, you have to physically KILL the being otherwise it is inedible since it has died of a disease (yes, dying of old age is dying of a disease). This requires murder, so by eating human meat you are justifying murder.

"I only operate under a practical belief that others are equal. From a more realistic standpoint, no, we are not all equal. ". Yes. The reason racism/sexism is incorrect is the realization that these differences in race and sex does not mean discrimination of that race or sex is justifiable.

", Ethical Veganism is unfortunately ideologically inconsistent and places great emphasis on animals (usually ones that are visually appealing to humans) but excluding the more fringe elements does not oppose the consumption of plants (which are living things, just not ones that most humans empathize with) and the slaying of microbes (most humans are indifferent to microscopic life, if they even think of it at all.)" No. 1) Vegan diets kills less animals so it is ethically superior. Your argument a "Nirvana fallacy". It's like me saying that "Greenland is cold, lets move to Spain, its warmer" and you saying "Oh, it gets cold in Spain might as well stay in Greenland" - that argument simply doesn't work. You haven't give 2) There is a much bigger difference between insects and farm animals than there is between farm animals and humans. Farm animals has complex nervous systems, which allows them to suffer, but insects are barely sentient and definitely not self-aware, consisting of a very basic nervous system - they simply cannot suffer to the same extent. It's not an emotional aurgument based on "how cute they look", it's based off their capacity to suffer, and farm animals have one much higher than insects. Also, bacteria & don't have a nervous system at all and so literally cannot suffer. In our current factory farming industry, animals are tortured so they can be killed efficiently.

Let me add some numbers. 200 million animals are killed a day (~74 billion a year). This means we kill more animals in 1.5 years than humans have ever existed. See the scale of this operation? Yes, animals are morally worth less that humans, but the whole scale of the operation is why this is one of the biggest problems we have today. So lets assume that 1000 animals tortured and killed is just as bad as 1 human killed. 640 million humans have died in war. 740 billion animals are killed in 10 year (discluding marine life.) 740 billion / 1000 = 740 million. In 10 years, what the meat industry has done is already worse than war throughout all of history. AND that is assuming that an animal is worth 1/1000 of a human! Which is not true! This is why it is such a huge issue - and why people compare it to the holocaust & other such horrible events. Because it is that bad.

The way this rationalwiki page is so anti-vegan is bad. It completely misses the point of ethical veganism, and then goes on to complain about how "some vegans" are horrible people (as if that is not true of literally every ideology)

And I have not even covered the environmental effects. 15% of global greenhouse emissions are due to meat. That's more than Every form of transportation. Yet the folks over at rationalwiki think that discussing "how vegans are narcissistic pricks" is more important than it's devastating environmental effect. Rationalwiki goes on and on about how global warming denialism is stupid, then makes fun of people that are changing their lifestyle to reduce these emmisions. How ironic. 2.30.85.105 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Why the hell should we avoid killing domestic animals? It isn't like they're endangered. Comparing women and minorities to dumb animals is both unconvincing, and an indication of the sheltered and 'privileged' backgrounds that allow people to get all bothered by butchering practices. It's just weakness. I don't put any stock in vegan 'documentaries' and 'statistics' because I'm quite familiar with the same sort of shock imagery and twaddle put forth by the anti-abortion cult; and animal-rights horseshit is almost the same, they just picked an even more ridiculous thing to sentimentalize. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Respond to the argument instead of saying "why the hell should we kill domestic animals" and "your argument is unconvincing and privileged." Statistics and hard evidence was presented which you conveniently decided to avoid and then decided to attack the "privileged" background of the person. Strawman.

"vegan 'documentaries' and 'statistics'" . Of course. Because the United Nations Food And Agriculture statistics is vegan propoganda. 2.25.78.66 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Exceptions given in the Benefits section

The section says that vegan food requires less water than non-vegan (apart from almond milk) and has lower emissions than non-vegan (apart from avocados). Recent studies (most significantly https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b0b53649-5e93-4415-bf07-6b0b1227172f ) find that these exceptions are not valid. Even the worst almond milk still requires less water than the best dairy milk, and even the worst avocados still result in lower emissions than even the best animal products. Almonds and avocados do come out as relatively 'bad' vegan foods, but they're still better than any of the animal foods. ^{— Unsigned, by: 90.204.150.22 / talk}

Holocaust comparisons

I think it's perfectly fair to liken the animal holocaust to the Jewish holocaust. Sure, humans are morally superior to animals, but the level of suffering at play is similar enough to where it's fair to assert that trillions of animals being killed every year is far, far worse than 6 million Jews being killed in 4 years.

And yes, I'm calling the mass slaughter of animals a holocaust because it's one by definition. Fetus (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you an idiot? The meat industry, ethically problematic as it may or may not be, kills animals, SO PEOPLE CAN EAT THEM. The Holocaust, by contrast, WAS POINTLESS SLAUGHTER WHOLLY AND SOLELY BECAUSE A BUNCH OF MORONS AND APATHETIC DIPSHITS WHO WERE SOCIALLY 5 YEAR OLDS THOUGHT THAT THEIR VICTIMS WERE EVIL. AT NO POINT DID THE NAZIS CONSUME THEIR VICTIMS' FLESH FOR SUSTENANCE. OK? OK!! This is called False Equivalence and is a Logical Fallacy. Your argument has been heard, found wanting by insanely vast margin, and has been dismissed. Goodbye. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Genocide is an attempt to wipe out an ethnic group. Farming animals is the opposite - it strives to maximise the number of farmed animals. You could argue that farmed species, which get medical care, protection from predators and a quicker, cleaner death than they ever would in the wild, have benefited greatly from their treatment by us. Avida Dollars^{her again} 21:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's comparable in its caprice I suppose. But you could make the same argument when I take an antibiotic and genocide the innocent bacteria living in my body. All ethics needs to be grounded in a definition of right and wrong. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Veganism is a moral statement, and there exist people who don't think that humans are inherently any more valuable than regular animals. I'll withhold judgement on that other than to say that the meat industry as it exists today is scum and needs to be abolished and/or heavily reformed. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be decided that animal slaughter is not worse than the holocaust because the holocaust was pointless and animal slaughter is not. That was not the Original Person's argument. Trillions of animals have been factory farmed, while 11 million dead in the holocaust. I don't know about you, but trillions > 6 million. Since both are unnecessary, and animal slaughter happens at a MUCH bigger scale, you can compare them. The fact that Jews were not consumed is irrelevant. You say that the holocaust was pointless and that is why it is worse than animal slaughter, but today for most people eating factory farming animal products is also basically pointless. The main reason a lot of people eat meat is because it "tastes nice" or it is "socially acceptable", not because of health. Simply look at America's obesity crisis and you can see the only reason meat is enjoyed so much is because of taste. So yes, it is pointless, just like the holocaust, but at a MUCH BIGGER SCALE than the holocaust.

Edit: Sorry for the poor formatting, but don't just remove people'e argument's because they are 'stupid' and 'missing the point.' You still have not given me a reason as to why I should believe that animal slaughter is nowhere near as bad as the holocaust, even though the slaughter of animals has caused more unnecessary suffering (since more of it happens). Next time please format posts like these properly instead of removed them because you disagree. 2.25.78.66 (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Read the other comments. Further, you're wrong. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The argument that "they get a better life that in the wild" isn't valid because the animals would not have existed if they weren't bred, and therefore the suffering wouldn't have taken place. Furthermore, it's probably to case that the majority of animals are factory farmed, and even if they aren't they will be usually taken inside at some point (for example during winter or when a disease is spreading). The point that we kill bacteria at a much higher rate isn't valid because bacteria have no nervous system: they cannot experience suffering like animals can. However, even if the suffering of each animals was a million times less than each human in the holocaust (and animals do have the capacity to suffer because they have a nervous system), factory farming would still be worse because of the scale it operates at (10s of billions of animals each year.)

I understand that the holocaust had a worse intention, since eating animals is something we have been doing for millennia (but have become problematic in the last sixty years or so because of factory farming). However, the point I (and I think the original person) is trying to make is that the amount of suffering caused by factory farming/meat industry outweights the suffering caused in other horrific human suffering events (such as the holocaust).

"Further, you're wrong." And I would like to know why. I understand why you are frustrated currently - what you feel now is what I would feel if an anti-vaxxer tried to argue with me that they are being oppressed in the same way African Americans were in the 1960s. But the difference is that the amount of suffering experienced in factory farming is higher than the holocaust due to sheer scale, whereas the amount of suffering experienced by African Americans was much larger than anti-vaxxers today (considering that anti-vaxxers are literally allowed to do anything, just not keep their child away from vaccinations.) Of course the suffering of each individual in the holocaust was MUCH worse than each animal in factory farms, but it is the SCALE of factory farming (like I said) that makes it so bad.

I'm annoyed by shitty comparisons that were originally invented more for shock value than any actual substance. And by shitty arguments to defend them, rather than just acknowledge that the original comparison is shit. And as I've pointed out elsewhere, by your own logic, industrial scale crop farming is immoral. My solution, neither comparison is valid. That is, I don't believe industrial crop farming to be immoral, and I acknowledge (again...) the shit that a major consumerist, capitalist, industry does to be of moral and ethical dubiousness. The comparison is still shit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"The argument that "they get a better life that in the wild" isn't valid because the animals would not have existed if they weren't bred, and therefore the suffering wouldn't have taken place." Um... Yes they would have. seriously, yes they would have. Have you done any research on early human civilizations? They took existing creatures and domesticated them. Your argument sounds like you think they were conjured with magic to be slain, which is wrong. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The domesticated breeds would exist, but animals themselves would exist in much lower numbers due to logistic difficulties associated with less-immoral farming of animals. Many of the animals in Avida's argument (which is idiotic in the context of factory farming) would not exist and not suffer. I know you're very angry because someone is attacking your holo cow, but think for a moment before you miss a point so heavily. --31.11.139.43 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong information

In 2015, Sean and Maria Hosannah of Canada were sentenced to 30 months in jail for the 2011 death of their daughter who died from "chronic malnutrition from a vegan diet devoid of Vitamin D, B12" and sufficient protein.

The child actually died from rickets - https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/04/10/parents-jailed-in-manslaughter-death-of-2-year-old-girl.html Ajuran (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Your header is misleading. I went ahead and reviewed the source for the article's claim. Guess what happens when you ignore your doctor and don't give someone with rickets enough vitamin D and protein? Hint, they die. The child died of neglect due to the parents failing to provide proper care, something the source you cited states in "An autopsy concluded that Matinah, who never crawled or walked, died on Feb. 25, 2011, from complications of asthma and malnutrition." ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Cats and veganism

Veganism is not a problem if the cats are also allowed to hunt/fish (which latter they can do). Anna Livia (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

People who don't want to feed cats properly because the widdle animals had to die to feed them, probably aren't going to be OK with their cats doing the killing themselves. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Also brings in the issue of cats as an invasive species due to hunting of native small fauna, which the environmental-minded vegans aren't going to be fond of. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't let your fucking housecats kill native birds, many of which have struggling populations. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep those nasty walking blood-thirsty hairballs indoors at all times, actually. And don't feed outdoor cats no matter how sorry you feel for them. Your neighbors, birds, lizards, squirrels, and other small critters will thank you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. And if you see a stray, go full Melmacian on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Pets are not vegan, you should not let your cat kill the local wildlife. Cats can do fine on a vegan diet with synthetic taurine but we shouldn't be breeding them anyway. "Taurine is supplemented in IAMS dry and canned cat foods to ensure that we provide optimal levels of this essential nutrient" https://www.iams.com/pet-health/cat-special-concerns/the-importance-of-taurine-in-cat-food In cats, the dietary requirements for protein, arginine, taurine, methionine and cystine, arachidonic acid, niacin, pyridoxine, vitamin A and vitamin D are greater than for omnivores due to metabolic differences [2,3,4,5,6]. This evolutionary background has served as a basis for several myths about cat nutrition" For example, sometimes the fact that cats are strict carnivores is interpreted as meaning that cats can only obtain their nutritional requirements through consuming animal tissue. This is incorrect from a nutritional perspective as animals, including cats, need nutrients and not specific ingredients https://www.mdpi.com/2306-7381/4/4/55/htm ^{— Unsigned, by: Jwaters123 / talk / contribs}

Is this ironic?

I'm sorry, but what the actual hell? This wiki seems very rational to me, but this one page is just complete garbage. Do you consider the extent of avoidable suffering caused by the meat industry? Or do you just want to focus on a few vegans whose methodology you disagree with, so therefore the whole movement is bad? Or am I just too stupid to get this joke of an article? --Brmbrmcar (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Brmbrmcar Congratulations! You are the one millionth person to write a generic complaint about the irrationality of an article. Have a drink on the house! _{Or come up with a more specfic and detailed argument that doesn't sound like literally half the nitwits who watched idiots like Shapiro and learned how to parrot words... Your choice.} ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie On one hand, you have vegans who act irrationally, or to put it more bluntly, like pricks, as has been shown by the article. On the other, is the actual suffering caused by the meat industry, which in my opinion is far far greater than anything these shitty vegans will do. Now, you can disagree there, but the article literally avoids any discussion of it! ANd by your response, it seems like you're unwilling to consider this element, which is the main idea of veganism, to any non-fallacious claim. I'll attempt to make a rational rebuttal when you make an actual argument. --Brmbrmcar (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Brmbrmcar So you're just going to throw around some half-decent claims but then spoil it by asserting what is and is not rational. Got it, you may leave now. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not actually trying to debate you, I'm just pointing out that when you assert what is and is not rational, as if just saying "rational" magics your argument into correctness, you sort of nuke yourself in the crotch. I can start listing every manner of dumbfuck who has asserted rationality as the basis of their claims, seeming to terminally lack the ability to comprehend rationalism as a philosophical concept. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I will say that RW has a rather unfortunate name that encourages this use of the word "rational". It's been a recurring problem on talk pages of this wiki. Fixing the name is not something I would recommend, still, but it's useful to keep in mind what it does. I also think RWs tendency to highlight crankery in whatever subject it touches often gives the impression that every subject is full of negativity, and this is occasionally, but not often, counter balanced by a disclaimer that it's not all negative. That doesn't mean the articles are technically nutpicking, but the impression can be similar. This also is not easy to fix, as attempting to counter balance negativity in articles can easily lead to balance fallacy or tone argument. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the name of the wiki would have changed my argument; if this were a more right wing site or something else stupid, I wouldn't have made the comment. But due to how much I think the other pages on different discussions are well justified, this article seemed to be a contrast to it. But yes, I did always myself think that 'RationalWiki' was a bad name, seeing as everyone can claim to be rational. --Brmbrmcar (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Brmbrmcar Okie dokie. Time to start listing every group that has claimed that they're rational and that being skeptical of their shitty arguments is irrational. Because they too dropped the word rational every five minutes and were terminally unable to just make their case and let their arguments and evidence speak for itself. Nazis, Tankies, TERFs, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Targeted Individuals, neo reactionaries, Creationists, Biblical Literalists, quantum woo cranks, electric universe cranks, cold fusion cranks, homeopaths, Trump supporters, Q-Anon conspiracy theorists, Racialists, Anti-vaxxers, and more that I've probably forgotten. Would you like me to start listing the crank publications too? They too got hung up on the name rather than making coherent arguments and not asserting what is and is not rational. Or are you going to write an argument against the parts of this article that you contest, check it for logical fallacies, and make sure it's readable and coherent? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Well thanks for confirming my exact point. But yes, I did explain what I dislike about the article, and moreover I can and will say that other articles are even worse, such as the Vegetarianism article, stating that 'They're generally to be avoided if you want interesting conversation but still more bearable than vegans.'. This is the kind of attitude I oppose and that's part of my argument. I've said more here, I weon't repeat myself. But of course, you're unwilling to listen. Like literally, I fucking said I didn't give a shit about the name when I made my argument. Total strawman. My point was EXACTLY that those people can and will claim rationality too. --Brmbrmcar (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody asked for this, and I was the one who brought up the name, not the person you're replying to. Also I didn't bring up the name in order for us to get hung up on it, I just pointed out that it encourages the behaviour that you are railing against (namely said dropping of the word 'rational'). And no, I don't want the name to be changed, so let's forget about it. Please understand. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@82.36.198.177 My apologies. I generally see people getting hung up on the name (if had a US dollar someone said the exact quote of "so much for RATIONAL Wiki" or "more like Irrational wiki"...) when they start waving the word rational around like a frigging magic talisman. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there even used to be a template people used to respond to this, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Template:RATIONALWiki : "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

I suppose I should be glad it's fallen out of frequent use as it wasn't particularly productive, but it does make a good suggestion about drinking. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one issue I see here is that a debate over animal suffering in factory farming, while definitely a debate of importance, largely falls outside the mission of this Wiki. Whereas vegan crankery is in scope. Having said that, I don't get the impression in the article that it says that all vegans are bad (rather, it contrasts more sensible vegans to some on the cranky side). But if you can highlight examples you feel are too negatively balanced, that would be helpful. Soundwave106 (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 If animal suffering really is out of the mission of this wiki, stick to it. There are also articles exclusively about animal rights here, surely they'd be out of scope too? Secondly, given the nature of veganism being almost universally hated, it would make sense in my opinion to very clearly point out the distinction between cranky vegans and rational ones (which isn't done well enough in this article from what I see) as the article is simply called 'veganism' and I'd be very surprised if the majority of vegans are like this. And finally, why should it be outside the mission of the wiki? Iäm not going to pretend to be an expert about this wiki, but I don't see why it would be, and honestly it seems to me as if it is being avoided for being too controversial amongst almost any audience, which is more reason to include it in my opinion. --Brmbrmcar (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Animal rights, factory farming, and veganism doesn't really fit in the subjects of pseudoscience / anti-science, crank ideology, authoritarianism related, or fundamentalism related. Those are the mission subjects on the cover page. Veganism only steps into crank ideology when people start over-applying it and behave in a cultish manner, or ignore certain scientific principles. I don't see it as universally hated personally. There are many authors at this wiki, and not all of the articles on this wiki fit neatly into these categories. The wiki also covers the inverse subjects sometimes too (for instance, an article on what science says about animal suffering wouldn't be out of place). But there will be a bias to over-cover the cranks as a result. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 Not authoritarian? Viewing other sentient beings as less important to control them isn't authoritarian? At the very least, any defence of these would and is very pseudoscientific and would fit in the mission subjects. --Brmbrmcar (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, "authoritarianism" is typically applied to human to human power structures only. Humans are apex predators -- this doesn't count, in the same way that a lion isn't being "authoritarian" when it eats a gazelle or a snake isn't being "authoritarian" when it swallows a frog. If you're going to call every person who consumes meat (as well as people who have pets etc.) "authoritarian", well, I can see not only why you hate this page, but also why you think veganism is so hated. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure that they see veganism as hated here because the tone of the article is nothing like say, Feminism, Global warming, Abortion or even Christianity. If someone tried to remake the feminism article to read like the list of picked nuts on veganism page - which certainly is doable, as there are cases of feminist being nuts and doing real harm, having misguided and objectively wrong beliefs - they'd certainly get reverted. Same for picking misguided protectors of climate or choice. Then there are moronic quips, like the one in first paragraph of vegetarianism article. --31.11.143.40 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 I meant the meat industry, not necessarily people who eat meat or keep pets. I could have been clearer, but in some senses I feel like you are deliberately strawmanning. Either way, Iäm not going to get into a semantics argument about what authoritarianism applies to or not, although I still see absolutely no reason why it can't apply to non-humans too. My point is that it is still very arbitrary to me that animal suffering is excluded.--Brmbrmcar (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"I could have been clearer, but in some senses I feel like you are deliberately strawmanning. How is taking what you wrote, which you admit was unclear and misleading as to your intent, and then taking it at face value and extrapolating from it strawmanning? Is Soundwave strawmamning your thoughts? Is that even a reasonable standard to hold given our lack of telepathy? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|GrammarCommie} Because from the context, it was possible to construct the true meaning, but I'd understand if you couldn't because of my lack of clarity. But to then assume that I've took an extreme position, which there is very little contextual evidence for me doing, is much less understandable. It may be a genuine interpretation, and maybe I should assume it is, and I think I should apologise for not doing so, but I never made a solid accusation of it; 'feel'. --Brmbrmcar (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Brmbrmcar I agree. Every now and again, RationalWiki likes to take a stance which makes zero logical sense. For example, how the current rate of progress isn't faster than before, how the mere support of an English spelling reform is crankery, or how torturing animals for personal pleasure is acceptable. This is one of those nonsensical pages. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Vegan parental negligence

@The Blade of the Northern Lights You rather seem to have missed the point. "Humans can only get B12 from meat", as an ethical justification, is a completely separate argument to saying "lions eat meat too". Omnivores who simultaneously assert that "it's OK to eat meat because lions do it" and "it's not OK for vegan parents to kill their children even though lions do it" are involved in a contradiction. By the way, it is completely false that humans can only get B₁₂ from meat. B₁₂ is present in all animal products, not just meat, so ovo-lacto-vegetarians need not worry about deficiency. As for vegans, adequate sources of B₁₂ are available in the form of supplements and fortified foods. And if you feel uncomfortable with that because it's "unnatural", you don't have any business taking painkillers. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

— Oxyaena ^Harass 18:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights How is it trolling? When I am debunking a specific argument against veganism/in defense of omnivorism, it doesn't make any sense to remove it with the rationale "but what about this argument for omnivorism?". 81.103.37.86 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights I can't help but suspect that labelling someone a troll is either a psychological defense mechanism for someone who's unable to defend their position, or an evasive tactic for someone who's too lazy to.

Let me clarify. I'd assumed, or rather hoped, you wouldn't need this to be clearly spelled out for you, but you apparently do. I'm obviously not saying it's OK for vegan parents to kill their children – that would undermine my point. What I'm saying is that IF you endorse the "lions eat meat so it's acceptable for us to as well" argument AND you condemn vegan parents for killing their children, that shows that you don't apply the "what wild animals do it's acceptable for us to do as well" principle with any consistency, but only for the ad hoc purpose of justifying meat-eating. You are therefore in a state of moral hypocrisy. Do you not understand that, or are you just too stubborn to admit it? 81.103.37.86 (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I can't disagree. The "It happens in nature" argument taken to an unreasonable extreme would enable all sorts of inhuman and terrible things like killing the children of a woman you want to have sex with. But in the end, if I perform a moral calculus of the world, based on almost any ethical system I've read, I can't actually weight an animal's life as equal to a human's, nor can I find the philosophical and empirical argument that animals, like people have a fundamental desire for true self determination. And a cruel fact of reality is that my life depends on something's death. Thus if I'm further tasked with the job of finding a sincere reason to put a fish above a strawberry, ethically, I find it unconvicing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Veganism, as an ethical position, doesn't depend on the principle that all sentient lives are of equal value. An ethical defense of omnivorism, conversely, does require that human lives are above those of animals. But in the overwhelming majority of cases of humans eating meat, neither their health nor their life depends on it. So under normal circumstances omnivorism depends on the stronger claim that mere human pleasure has higher value than the life of an animal.

It really should be trivially obvious that members of a civilised species like humans have much higher moral standards than wild animals like lions, yet one of the most common excuses for meat-eating is "lions do it too". What does that tell you about the ethics of eating meat? If meat eating is really defensible, why do we have to so dramatically lower our moral standards in order to make room for it?

As Jeremy Bentham noted, when considering whether organisms should figure in moral judgments, the question is not "can they talk?" or "can they reason?" but "can they suffer?". So if a fish has any ability to suffer, however primitive it might be, it follows that it should be assigned higher value than a strawberry. And the science is pretty clear that fish are just as sophisticated in their ability to feel pain and fear as land animals. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Your post seems to acknowledge an important truth. Animals very simply do not inhabit a moral universe. They are creatures of their own internal programming. No moral judgment can be placed when one animal kills another.

You seem to be the one putting humans on a pedestal. Poeple are. indeed, just another animal. We are also creatures of our internal programming. We didn't acquire binocular vision for nuthin'. Our eyes are not set up to give us maximum field of vision so we can see whatever's sneaking up on us. Our eyes, by contrast, are set up to see what's in front of us, and make a good guess how far away it is. We are also born predators. And domesticated animals in some sense volunteered for domestication and all it entails. From the Darwinian sense, hitching a ride with a species as dominant as humans is a great deal. Winners at domestication leave a vast progeny, hundreds of times more than they'd enjoy without human assistance. This is all Darwin cares about.

So the question isn't "can they talk?" or "can they reason?" nor "can they suffer?" The question is should we care? To me the animal rights cult reminds me of nothing if not a bobo version of the anti-abortion cult. They share the common fanatical features of deceit, aggressive trespass, and other violence. Something inside breaks when you sentimentalize something inappropriate and start bawling over your lost darlings in public, and then you discover nobody cares. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 07:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Animals very simply do not inhabit a moral universe. They are creatures of their own internal programming. No moral judgment can be placed when one animal kills another. [...] Poeple are. indeed, just another animal. We are also creatures of our internal programming.

So you don't believe in free will or moral responsibility? I believe this is one of the main things distinguishing us from animals. But the fact that animals do not possess similar moral agency is no reason not to include them in our circle of moral consideration. Any utilitarian principle will entail that animals do have moral value as they have the capacity to experience pain and pleasure.

We are also born predators In what sense? If a child harms animals it is considered a sign that they are mentally disturbed and may go on to harm other humans as well. Yet this is exactly the kind of behaviour that comes naturally to predators in the wild. Many meat-eaters could probably not bring themselves to kill the animals they eat if they were tasked with doing so, or even to witness the event. Why would seeing the process of how meat arrives on your plate discourage you from eating it, if you think it's what you are naturally supposed to do?

Winners at domestication leave a vast progeny, hundreds of times more than they'd enjoy without human assistance. This is all Darwin cares about. The majority of animals reared for slaughter live on factory farms. Economically it makes the most sense to have the most animals in the smallest space, which means dozens or hundreds of animals are crammed together with little room to move. Many of them never even see the sky. All they see is the other animals around them. From an animal's perspective, why is that situation preferable than if their numbers were far fewer in the absence of human-inflicted exploitation? Which is better, having one child and treating them with love and care, or having a dozen children and subjecting them to neglect and abuse?

So the question isn't "can they talk?" or "can they reason?" nor "can they suffer?" The question is should we care? The Golden Rule of ethics is "don't do unto others what you wouldn't want them to do to you". There is no implicit "because doing so may provoke them to respond in kind". Just as the reason a truly ethical person avoids wrongdoing isn't to avoid the punishment it will likely incur, the reason they follow the Golden Rule isn't just for the sake of enlightened self-interest. If they did, they would discard the rule when those their actions affect are unable to retaliate. So the Golden Rule doesn't just apply between equals; rather, it demands that you inquire as to how you would want to be treated were you in the other's situation and they in yours. The version of Darwinism you are apparently promoting implies that if we can do something, there is no reason why we shouldn't. In other words, Might Makes Right. Of course animals are unlikely to rise up against us or to seek revenge for our exploitation of them, but that fact provides no moral pretext for perpetuating such exploitation.

To me the animal rights cult reminds me of nothing if not a bobo version of the anti-abortion cult. They share the common fanatical features of deceit, aggressive trespass, and other violence. "Cult" is a rather vague and poorly defined term. Many views that are now orthodox were once only held or promoted by a tiny minority, and were considered radical and extreme simply for being minority positions. But to provide as impartial an understanding of the term "cult" as possible, consider the following thought experiment. Imagine you've just arrived on Earth from another planet. You discover that some of the inhabitants just eat what naturally grows, whereas others drink the breast milk of another species, and eat the waste product of the menstrual cycle of another. Which behaviour would you feel more inclined to label as being cult-like? Humans artifically inseminate, genetically modify, mutilate and slaughter animals on an industrial scale. And that really prohibits any attempt to compare human dietary practices to a lion eating a zebra. It couldn't be further removed from what you see in the natural world.

It's true that some vegans engage in silly stunts, but that is to draw attention to themselves. You know what they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity. I don't think it justifies you labelling the movement as a cult. If you apply any of our normal moral standards in this debate, veganism invariably comes out as the most fair and rationale position, and carnism as the more radical and extreme one. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, why should I care if a chicken ever sees the sun? I very simply do not have a problem with factory farming. If we are supposed to care about animal body emisssions as a climate threat, a claim I am very dubious of given the people who make it and their history of deceit and bullying, containment is job 1. Moving the operations indoors is the obvious first step.

More importantly, when people's rights and choices are under attack from fanatics, no concession can be made. That's just appeasement, and its only effect is to leave you in a weaker position when confronted with the next round of demands.

In the current environment, even animal welfare is off the table. It is important to emphasiz the fact that animals are property and that their owners can do as they please with their property. Caring about an animal's fee-fees is a concession we can't make at ths time. This whole rack of nonsense is for sheltered city dwellers who have been shielded from the facts of life. Everybody ought to have the experience of raising an animal to market size and then killing it with their own hands, plucking or skinning it and dressing it for the table. I pity a generation to sheltered and squeamish to even clean a fish. Animals don't observe the Golden Rule, and ae simply outside its scope. Animals cannot be the objects of any moral duties. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, why should I care if a chicken ever sees the sun?

You are apparently either a moral nihilist or have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of ethics. If someone tells you to do your moral duty and you respond "but why should I? what's in it for me?" you have completely misapprehended the goal of ethics. It's not about what's best just for you. All suffering has negative moral value.

a claim I am very dubious of given the people who make it and their history of deceit and bullying

It's not just vegans making this claim. It is a well established scientific fact. Methane is many times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. The majority of deforestation is to clear land for agriculture. Animal agriculture contributes more to climate change than the entire global transportation system. Climate change is of course strangling the global food supply and contributing to armed conflict, habitat destruction and ecological collapse. But if you're determined to bury your head in the sand when faced with all of this because you like the taste of cheese too much, no-one can stop you.

There are actually far more vegans than you've anticipated. It's just that most aren't at all vocal about it. So of course you'll associate the entire movement with the minority who are. It just seems like you're desperately scrabbling for an excuse by trying to draw attention away from your own choices and onto the behavior of certain vegans you find objectionable. But consider this. They are challenging the morality of your lifestyle choices. This only makes you feel uncomfortable because you are unable to defend those choices. You could take that as a sign that you need to change. But I guess it's much easier to act as if it's the vegans that are the problem.

when people's rights and choices are under attack from fanatics, no concession can be made

Your job here is to establish that purchasing and consuming animal products is morally defensible. Then and only then can you assert that you therefore have a right to do it. Trying to reframe yourself as the victim here is ludricous, and is just a psychological defense mechanism to avoid having to confront the uncomfortable truth about where your food comes from.

In the current environment, even animal welfare is off the table

You mean this whole business with coronavirus? The pandemic that only started due to factory farming? It's clear that humanity's exploitation of animals isn't just other-destructive but self-destructive. If humans are really so stubborn that even a global pandemic won't persuade them to change their ways, then I guess they're just too stupid for their own good.

It is important to emphasiz the fact that animals are property and that their owners can do as they please with their property.

Yes, legally they are property. But just because they are doesn't mean they should be. Otherwise you could defend human slavery in the same way. Had you been born 200 years earlier, would you have been an apologist for slavery, or an abolitionist?

Animals don't observe the Golden Rule, and ae simply outside its scope.

That doesn't follow. Infants and certain people with intellectual disabilities are just as unable to follow the Golden Rule. Does that mean they are outside its scope? Like I said, moral value is determined by the ability to suffer and experience pleasure, not by the ability to reason.

Animals cannot be the objects of any moral duties

Why? Imagine you saw someone abusing a dog in public. Would you intervene, or at least call the police? Or would you just shrug and walk on by? If the latter, then you're a psychopath. But if the former, then you're a hypocrite (for anyone who's not a vegan).

I think you should try admitting to yourself that it all comes back to your stomach. People are so dependent on meat they are desperate for its consumption to be morally justified, which is why they apply moral standards they never would in any other setting ("lions though", "desert island though", "bred for slaughter though" etc.). This is similar to the way drug addicts will say anything to justify their behavior to others and to themselves, and try and convince themselves that they're actually engaging in moral reasoning, when in fact it's all just motivated reasoning. For example, if I were to assert without any context "the actions of wild animals are a good basis for human morality", everyone would recognise that assertion for the absurdity that it is. But the taste of meat apparently renders its absurdity invisible to us. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't have to justify anything, morally or otherwise. I'm not the one who's decided that the way the genus Homo has lived since it hunted on the African plains is somehow immoral, and that seeks to browbeat the entire human race into conformity with a newly invented 'morality'.

And for nearly forty years we've endured one cult of deceitful bullies blockading and invading facilities, using false confidences and similar trickery to make propaganda, and falsifying images when they can't, all because of some misplaced sentimentality. While I breathe I will do what I can to prevent the rise of another moralistic cult that acts the same way.

And when people compare actual human slaves to pigs and chickens, the only response that deserves is the back of the hand. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'll put it out there that, given our evolutionary history, contrary to popular belief it's really not so hard to kill an animal. Pull the trigger, lower the ax, or spear it good, and you're done, and if it's that or death from starvation there's no hesitation. I'm not in the business of telling vegetarians/vegans they can't live that way themselves, although pernicious anemia is one hell of a way to go, but that's their decision and I have no problem with mine. There are plenty of species that are invasive, and eating them makes it easier to cull them (wild boar sausage is a personal favorite of mine), so the idea it's always bad to kill animals because of the environment doesn't pass the laugh test. And there are plenty of human-centric reasons to stop a random person abusing a dog; that tends to make dogs more aggressive and significantly increases the risk of said dog injuring or killing another person, so intervening is in my own interest. Standard farm animals are the same, they taste better when properly taken care of so I have a vested interest in them being reasonably well treated (and where I live such meat is readily available, it does make a difference). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to justify anything, morally or otherwise

Just making sure, you are a law-abiding citizen, correct? Do you generally get on with your friends, colleagues, and others in your acquaintance? Please tell me the only reason you obey the law isn't to avoid punishment, or that the only reason you aren't always abusive to people is because you don't want them to treat you similarly in return. If you only live in accordance with the most basic moral norms contingently for the sake of your own self-interest, you need to check your morality. Your comment here just amounts to an admission that you are unable to defend your choices, so you instead just assert without reason or argumentation that you don't have to. It's just an evasive manoeuvre, or to put it less eloquently, a cop-out.

I'm not the one who's decided that the way the genus Homo has lived since it hunted on the African plains is somehow immoral, and that seeks to browbeat the entire human race into conformity with a newly invented 'morality'

There is nothing "newly invented" about it. The philosophical thread underlying veganism goes back to ancient India. Compassion for all sentient life and thinking that cruelty is wrong are not novel principles. But that's really all there is to ethical veganism. It's just that for the majority of humans throughout history eating meat was a survival necessity – past tense. It's true that we've been eating meat for thousands of years, but longevity does not imply morality. We've also only been factory farming and eating processed meat for a few decades, which is destroying our health, the environment, and causing immense suffering to billions of animals – so now seems like a pretty good time to stop.

And when people compare actual human slaves to pigs and chickens, the only response that deserves is the back of the hand

There was no attempt to morally compare human slavery to animal exploitation. All I said was that the same logic you used to try and defend one could also be used to defend the other. Try asking yourself why you care so much about humans and so little about animals. As I've argued, there's no valid difference between the two that would justify treating the latter with such radically different moral standards. It's interesting that you think a moral comparison between human and animal slavery is unwarranted, but a similar comparison between early primitive humans hunting to survive and you buying steak at the supermarket is totally valid. It is just as ridiculous as trying to justify omnivorism in the developed world by citing the actions of wild animals.

And for nearly forty years we've endured one cult of deceitful bullies blockading and invading facilities, using false confidences and similar trickery to make propaganda, and falsifying images when they can't, all because of some misplaced sentimentality. While I breathe I will do what I can to prevent the rise of another moralistic cult that acts the same way.

<sigh> I already explained why I felt your use of the term "cult" is improper here. Yet still you persist. Just try and abstract yourself from the culture in which you were raised and you'll see that there's nothing extreme or radical about trying to minimise the harm you cause to other living beings. If you disagree with the way that some of them are spreading their message, then I understand why you feel some resistance. But you have effectively admitted you are unable to argue in any way against that message, and ultimately the only reason you are so opposed to it is because it threatens the freedom you currently enjoy to pursue your own selfish pleasures. So please stop trying to portray yourself as some sort of moral hero who is only trying to protect his and others rights against dangerous new ideas. You only need to read up the thread to understand why that narrative won't fly when presented to anyone with half a brain. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights

contrary to popular belief it's really not so hard to kill an animal. Pull the trigger, lower the ax, or spear it good, and you're done

Have you ever killed an animal yourself? If you have, did it not struggle to get away? Even if you're using something as efficient as a captive bolt gun, most animals are intelligent enough to know what's coming and won't stay still unless physically restrained. If we're naturally designed to eat meat, why do we need to use tools to kill the animals we eat? Natural predators, after all, use only their natural weaponry – tooth and claw.

and if it's that or death from starvation there's no hesitation

But in your case it isn't, so you can't appeal to that as justification. There is a reason why the meat industry tries to conceal the truth about how animals are raised and slaughtered, and why slaughterhouse workers have some of the highest rates of depression, PTSD, substance abuse and suicide of any profession. There is a conflict between the animalistic urges we feel, such as the urge to consume animal flesh, and our innate compassion and sense of right and wrong which aim to restrain those urges.

I'm not in the business of telling vegetarians/vegans they can't live that way themselves, although pernicious anemia is one hell of a way to go, but that's their decision and I have no problem with mine

I've often seen omnivores try to employ this tactic, i.e. "I respect your decision not to abuse animals, so why can't you respect my decision to abuse animals?" (I'm paraphrasing). You need to demonstrate that your position is morally justified. Then you can claim that vegans are at fault for failing to respect it. And I think I'd rather die of pernicious anemia than coronorary heart disease, cancer, stroke, type 2 diabetes or any of the other myriad health problems associated with meat consumption.

There are plenty of species that are invasive, and eating them makes it easier to cull them (wild boar sausage is a personal favorite of mine), so the idea it's always bad to kill animals because of the environment doesn't pass the laugh test

Bit of a strawman there. I don't see anyone claiming that meat eating is always harmful to the environment. In the majority of actual cases, however, it is, due to the scale and manner in which we raise livestock. In any case that is only one argument for veganism. So just because eating meat may have no negative consequences for the environment in specific cases is no license to engage in its consumption generally, or in any other scenario, even if you ignore the ethical objections based on the suffering it causes to the animals themselves.

And there are plenty of human-centric reasons to stop a random person abusing a dog; that tends to make dogs more aggressive and significantly increases the risk of said dog injuring or killing another person, so intervening is in my own interest

But your own self-interest isn't a good basis for your personal morality. Is the only reason you don't commit crime because you don't want to go to jail? This is a dangerous foundation for any ethical system, as it is easy to think of cases where refraining from preventing unnecessary and unjust cruelty, or even engaging in such cruelty yourself, to animals or otherwise, would have no negative repercussions for you or for humans in general. If the intention of the abuser was to kill the dog, for example, and there were no other witnesses.

Standard farm animals are the same, they taste better when properly taken care of so I have a vested interest in them being reasonably well treated

That isn't generally true. Of course there will be better quality meat available from an animal who has been well-fed, but animals are often not allowed to exercise for the same reason. Pigs, for example, often spend their whole lives in farrowing crates so narrow they can't even turn around. If your neighbour were keeping a dog in similar conditions, you should call the police and have them arrested. And like before, your own egoism is not a good basis for ethics, whose goal is the common collective good, not that of any individual or even any particular species.

By the way, Wikipedia defines a "concern troll" as "a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold". What specifically have I said that leads you to doubt that I genuinely adhere to the principle of ethical veganism? Please don't write such nonsense as "humans can only get B12 from meat" and then accuse me of being a troll. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Way to go, BoN. Keep at it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I find it disturbing to see the arbitrary psychological detachment omnivores apply on animal (acting like it's fine to treat them like a dusty game console and treating them well is purely so the house is kept clean or if you mistreat animals it will make you hurt other humans and that's why mistreating other animals is bad) to justify killing or mistreating them. Other animals aren't all that "different" from humans, we constantly underestimate what they are. I am an omnivore. I've seen my share of cute chicken videos where chickens are acting extremely affectionate to their owners. I have a pet cockatiel and thrown peanuts at American crows. Even the bug dismemberment is hard to watch. I know that eating meat is difficult moral question to me. I hope humanity moves toward lab-grown meat since a lot of my favorite foods use meat. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I don't go out of my way to kill animals, but I've done so before (when people use the cruelly named "humane mouse traps" I make them watch me use a hammer to finish it) and I don't find it difficult at all. And do tell me what other natural source of B12 exists, until modern tinkering that wasn't possible; not hard to see why people are still inclined towards eating what hundreds of thousands of years selected for. If you want to do it that way, it's fine, no one has yet explained why I should follow your (generic your) standards. Have fun talking to yourselves from here on out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Factory farming is good. Industrial meat production ensures an adequate supply of cheap food for people. Choosing between ending the suffering of non sentient beings or continuing to ensure the ability for common people to get protein intake affordably is no choice for me at all. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Also I like to eat borgar. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini The scientific consensus is that animals are sentient, the difference between humans and other animals is one of degree, not kind. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Availability of meat is correlated with how rich a nation is. Meat isn't the most affordable commodity but I do think meat has a lot of nutrients going for it that would take a ton of vegetables to make up for. But most people here can afford to cut down on meat. Also, the nonhuman animals are certainly sentient. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)