this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
552 points (76.0% liked)
Memes
45752 readers
885 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
JW's would say the exact same thing to vegans. YOU think the issue is real, but all the rest of us see is you throwing around junk science and fabricated propaganda. Ultimately, you think you can force your morals on us because you think you're better than us... and think we have no right to do the same to you. That's where the "smug" part comes in. You know we've thought about the ethics. You know we might even be more educated in right-and-wrong than you are. But you don't care what our conclusions were as long as they differ from yours. You're infallible on that topic, are you?
You don't think what you're doing is harming people? Or is it that you don't care because your ethics are more valuable than others are? Proslytization hurts people. Which means preachy vegans hurt people.
You're pushing people AWAY from veganism. I've been on a constant mission to improve my footprint, but every time I end up in an argument with a vegan I end up so exhausted by their zealous crap that I start questioning whether it's worth all the effort I put into MY part of the environment. It literally just makes me want to go out of my way and eat a steak, but that's not much better (but it is a little better) than what preachy vegans do.
junk science and fabricated propaganda... how? Besides the scientific consensus on the benefits of plant based diets on the environment, veganism is an ethical stance to stop unnecessary harm towards sentient beings. The only science we need is to prove that plant based diets do that, and they do. No I don't accept your conclusion until you stop violating the rights of others.
Hmmm killing vs proselytization, which is worse? We are asking you to stop physically harming others then you call it abuse, its silly.
Also I'm definitely not pushing people away from veganism, I've been at this for a long time and the truth is you weren't going to change your mind. I'm just providing opposition to your points for everyone who reads this thread.
Different discussion, and feel free to read my MANY other comments on this thread if you're interested in my take on that. I said that's how we see the vegan side. If you want to cover whether that opinion is accurate, my answer here is going to be RTFM in the other comments, sorry.
That "scientific consensus" has tons of asterisks. The consensus is that reducing global meat intake would have an environmental impact in a vacuum. And I agree with that. And as long as it's not too many people "doing their part" by going vegan, go ahead. And as long as you don't think that's the ONLY thing you should be doing.
And no, veganism is not "an ethical stance to stop unnecessary harm towards sentient beings", it's just not eating animal products. And here's how I can show that. If someone handed you a shotgun and said "this deer has to die; feel free to eat it. If you don't kill it, 5 more animals will starve to death" what would you do? Trolley problem. If your stance is actually stopping unnecessary harm, you kill the deer and you feast. You kill the deer because it saves lives, and you feast because at least the death served a purpose directly.
If you don't do those things, you're not doing what you can to "stop unnecessary harm towards sentient beings". But if you DO do those things, you're not a vegan. Words have meanings, and vegan doesn't mean "stop unnecessary harm", it means "won't eat animal products at all costs".
I disagree. I think too much veganism, especially preachy veganism, costs more lives and causes more suffering. I see what overpopulation does every day, and I've seen many times how many animals die on a farm.
No, I wasn't going to change my mind because I'm educated on this matter and have been dealing with smug vegans for a decade now. Unlike a lot of dupes you might talk to, I have a background in philosophy and ethics, as well as at least some knowledge about agriculture and how farming actually works. But my wife toyed with veganism until she got annoyed by someone not very much unlike you. It led her to stop. She un-quit red meat, which was a huge win to me.
But think about this. Anyone on the fence who reads this comment chain is going to see the preachy vegans overreaching with what arguments they have and come to the not-quite-true conclusion that NONE of what you're saying is accurate. Which is funny because we SHOULD still be trying to improve our overall relationship with food.
Actually, quite the opposite. This all started because you insisted vegans aren't smug. Readers can come to their own conclusions. At this point, I'm convinced any non-vegan reader will agree that you came across similar to a JW.
I'm not even going to argue science with you at this point because you are so far off of what even nonvegans who care about the environment usually agree on and you clearly have an issue believing or understanding research.
Your trolly problem point is a nothing sandwich. Vegans get a win win in that refusal to eat animal products results in overall harm reduction in our real world. So it doesn't matter whether or not they are rights-based or utilitarian vegans.
You can deny evidence and think what you want but now you are really just arguing for your sake instead of being honest with yourself.
If you are so into philosophy you would probably know your anecdote about your wife means nothing to me.
Also YOU see preachy vegans, stop assuming what others see. I've seen more people go vegan and its better evidence for this than your wife anecdote.
Again, JWs preach something no one sees. Animal agriculture is a real thing and its a false equivalence, Mr. Philosophy
Just from how you worded this, I think that's probably smart.
I see. I'm sorry you feel that way about ethics.
And I bet you can formally prove that in some ethical framework instead of make the claim despite me having knowledge it's false
Nothing matters but you winning against the non-believers?
Reptent, sinner, and turn to our lord and savior Bob. You know he's the true god. You've always known. Just be "honest with yourself" and stop denying the evidence of his coming......... Do you not see how utterly mindlessly inane that sounds? You're now trying to convince me that NOT ONLY is everything I know to be true a lie, but that deep down inside I KNOW that everything I know to be true is a lie.
A this point, you might as well try to make me an antivaxer or flat-earther. But I guess using common sense is out the window because, as you admit, I already have enough knowledge not to be convinced by rhetoric.
No. I knew that from the point where you got offended by being called smug, and then started replying with things like.... Well, this smug insulting hateful post of yours I just replied to.
I'm gonna hit that little "Block" button now, quite comfortable in the fact that I have succeeded in my goal of showing how wrong veganism is.
I felt that way about your irrelevant trolley problem, not ethics. The point of the win win is that it doesn't matter why they do something if the outcome is the same... Yes? I want people to stop exploiting animals... False equivalence to religion again. What a winner 🏆, you declared it a success 👏.