#anti-vegan arguments
Text
People love to call veganism ‘privileged,’ while conveniently ignoring the fact that the only reason animal products are even close to being accessible for the average consumer is because they’re factory farmed, slaughtered and packed by grossly underpaid labourers working in dangerous conditions, and then massively subsidised by all of our taxes.
476 notes
·
View notes
Text
#Anti-vegan arguments:
But some people can’t go vegan!!
But can you? And does this change the morality of veganism? Not everyone is in the position to only buy fair trade, does that mean that fair trade is immoral?
55 notes
·
View notes
Text
I will always believe in the intent and philosophy of veganism, but that doesn’t mean I won’t listen to valid critiques and actively develop a more refined opinion set around my beliefs. but good fucking god does the collective IQ of tumblr drop to the size of a raisin the second veganism is mentioned. at least develop your own opinions instead of reiterating the same five that circulate this site
#vegan#veganism#why does just the word cause such vitriol#oh it’s because people make up crazy vegans in their heads to be mad at#it’s just so weird to me#the basic idea is Let’s harm less beings#and somehow anti vegans twist it into the most far fetched straw men arguments#I’m so open to talking but don’t come at me already angry at something I didn’t say
192 notes
·
View notes
Text
I am once again asking Tumblr users to stop posting and reblogging anti-vegan posts that misrepresent vegan arguments and that also spread misinformation. In spreading misinformation, you are participating in science denialism. Animal ag is a /huge/ contributor to climate change
#Bro#I am so tired#I’m not even vegan I’m vegetarian#The animal ag industry does not need you to constantly prop it up#The government is pouring millions of dollars into that already#Mutuals and followers I love you but please be more critical of these ‘gotcha’ anti-vegan posts#Many of them have — as I said — misinformation or misrepresentation of vegan philosophy and arguments
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
The daily struggle to not reply to particularly idiotic takes from people who don't know what they're talking about, but who, if I did say anything, would probably be defended by 90% of Tumblr.
#my rants#okay yes this is about a very silly anti-vegan post i saw#i'm fine if people want to point out potential issues they see after all healthy discussion and debate is an important part of any movement#but when people just spew the first piece of random bullshit that came into their mind or whatever the most recent bit of propaganda is#it's just insanely irritating#being told “it's kind of silly to argue that ”it's in out nature to eat meat“ since A. it's not actually necessary and-#-B. we do plenty of things that aren't “in our nature”" (what the fuck does that phrase even mean)#is not a racist argument how do you even GET there from that response#christ people if you want to debate or discuss something maybe fucking actually understand basic things about existence first?#me: “i will not bring up veganism on tumblr it can only lead to bad things”#also me: *this*#i tried okay it's just incredibly frustrating#i didn't interact with them though lookit me i have some level of self control
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Being a vegan leftist means thinking this every single day 🫠
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
unfollowing people for reblogging weird bad faith antivegan takes
#like yes some of them are crazy#theres crazy people in every group#but acting like vegans being anti egg is ridiculous bc tHeREs No ChIcKeN iNsIdE is the argument and not the horrors of factory farming...#criticize how vegan food is produced absolutely but if u also have to diminish the other sides points just to hashtag own them#u arent making the statement u think u are#i know vegan hate is a meme but like a lot of them are actually normal fucking people and the aggression i see on here is getting weird.
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
so i was going to make a post about how people need to learn what a comparison actually is, but when i looked up the definition and dug more into what exactly a comparison is, i realise that i actually needed to learn
because what i realise is that most people get it wrong, on both sides
A lot of people, myself included, conflate comparison into meaning "between these two(or more) things, one is worse/better"
Either through accusation or defending. Meaning one party accuses someone of saying A is worse than B through comparison, and the other defending saying that its not a comparison but finding similarities.
Both are actually technically right. Because the definition of comparison is to find similarities and/or differences only. It is not about figuring out which is worse or better
Which this is probably obvious for some ppl but ive seen it in the vegan community in defending and in the anti vegan or non vegan community for accusations
It all depends on intent and how something is said
theres a big difference between saying "There are similarities between A and B" and "A and B are the samr" or "A is just as bad as B"
Especially when it comes to social issues of oppression.
Because all oppression is comparable, but that doesnt mean its all the same or one is worse.
Even when there is a comparison that shows which oppression is more prevalent, its not about it being "worse", which is so vague. Its about understanding history, understanding society and how it works, and many other things
Basically, when someone compares animal agriculture to slavery or the holocaust by saying "its no different" "its the same" "AnAg is worse" etc, that is a hard comparison and is wrong, and those hard or even casual (finding similarities) comparisons should be kept for those who have history with the holocaust and slavery.
But it is NOT the same to draw comparisons, as in highlighting similarities, between oppressions, even if that applies to animals
I understand the kneejerk reaction due to the history of marginalized people being equated or compared to animals.
But you HAVE to use your comprehension skills.
There are vegans, actual vegans who go by the Vegan Society definition, who make hard comparisons and they are wrong and bad.
But when someone is talking about the harmful mindset of viewing someone who is a sentient being as lesser, and how in history and even in fictional stories how that leads to oppression like...its just not the same
No oppression is comparable in every way. Because each oppression is different.
trans oppression is different within the trans community depending on race or gender or looks or weight or abledness or even attractiveness. but there is still a common mindset which connects the trans community. And trans oppression is different from gay oppression but theres still a similar oppressive mindset that makes up the whole Queer community
and you can draw those comparisons, find those similar mindsets in all oppression
and you cant draw a line because someone is different from you, be them human or non human
and that is all these comparisons are. they ARE comparisons, id like to call them soft comparisons to differentiate them from hard comparisons like mentioned before
but there is nothing wrong with having a conversation about the oppressive mindset that affects everyone who is human and non human animals.
Learn to take a breath before replying, and figure out which kind of comparison youre dealing with. and when in doubt? just ask.
#im so sick of this shit#ive seen literally someone take something that was incredibly clear in their words#and just totally purposely misunderstood#its like saying 'i like apples ' and them saying 'so you hate oranges?'#that is a hard comparison i just made. i am saying both are equally comparable#because it really is. vegans have to be so fucking clear just to make sure no one warps what we say and misunderstands#and then somehow do it anyway#but its the same type of mindset that conservatives have. another hard comparison. bc its literally the same shit#the same arguments the same typing the same act#not all ofc a lot ofnthis comes from anti vegans not non vegans but still#just ask questions man. just be curious. and ask yourself why youre so angry about this topic#and whatever you come up with ask us. its that easy
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
instagram
0 notes
Note
Hi Hell, I wanted to get your thoughts on something. My friend who has been vegetarian for close to 30 years is thinking about becoming vegan. His main reason is that the pain and suffering of an animal in the large majority of the animal product industry is not worth the enjoyment he gets from cheese, milk, etc. He hypothesizes that most people are not vegan due to lack of education about the industry’s methods, and because eating meat is so normalized. I mostly agree, but something about what he’s saying makes me feel bad. Maybe because I don’t see myself ever becoming vegan, due to how much I love certain foods, but I like to think of myself as an empathetic and moral person. So I think I just feel quite selfish.
He is a very analytical and logical thinker, and says he wants to find more anti-vegan arguments before deciding for sure, but can’t seem to find many. What do you (and your followers) think? I was thinking you aren’t vegan, but I don’t actually know.
This is very much not my lane, but if you want my two cents then for me it comes down to a few things.
One: there is a basic mass of food that any human needs to consume in order to stay alive. That can be plants, it can be animals, it can be animal byproducts. For the a significant proportion of commercially produced food, there is a negative impact. It's hard to quantify; in some cases it is certainly direct, quality of life issues for animals. In other cases it's more broad environmental impact from commercial farming, or quality of life for the human laborers involved in harvesting etc. It's hard to come up with any objective measurement for harm when comparing individual animal suffering vs human quality of life vs large scale environmental issues. There's plenty of information out there on some of the vegan diet staples and how increases in farming things like quinoa have enormously detrimental effects on their native communities, if that's something your friend is not already aware.
Two: There is a degree of this that is just...unavoidable. Things eating other things is the way living creatures survive, and on a systematic level there's not a ton we individually can do to change things--and on a practical level, there's only so much you can afford to spend on food, and organic, cruelty free stuff is more expensive. There is a level of privilege in being able to choose to spend your money in that way that is not always an option for everyone.
I'm not vegan. I'm not vegetarian. I care deeply about animals, and I'm aware of what commercial husbandry looks like--it's pretty terrible. I still eat meat. I try to do so as ethically as I reasonably can.
I don't have an issue with eating other animals. It's a part of nature. To me, I see the obligation more to do our best to try to get meat (or byproducts) that have been raised as well as we can manage. Free range eggs are pretty easy to come by, if you live in the country. Same with locally made cheeses and butters, even farm fresh milk--some places have self-serve milking that allows cows to roam in pastures and then be milked at will. Price and availability will vary by where you are, but it's more and more common; as more and more people start to care about how the people and animals involved in making our food are treated, better options become more available.
It also should be noted that the animals involved in farming are almost universally completely domesticated. There's no alternative for these animals and their progeny except for life in human care. These breeds require human aid for their own health and safety, because we have been breeding them for (in many cases) thousands of years to rely on us and to develop traits that will not aid them in the wild. If everyone decided, tomorrow, to become vegan, then these animals would need to remain in human care for however many thousands of generations it would take to breed them back to the ability to survive without us, or we would have to sterilize them en mass and terminate these breeds through lack of reproduction. It is not an option to just release these farm animals into the wild. Domesticated animals require human care. Some of them, like pigeons, have gone feral when we abandoned them, but they are not like their wild cousins, and it shows.
Because of the selective breeding involved in domestion, most of these animals are producing byproducts--eggs, milk, honey, wool, etc--in quantities that they do not need. While some species have been bred to do that to their own detriment, most heritage breeds are fully capable of producing more than they need of these things, and there can be true symbiosis between these animals and their human caretakers. Some of these things they need to have removed for their own health. It's an ancient bargain--we keep them safe, and warm, and healthy, and protected, and they give us that which they have in abundance. The problem isn't the animal product, it's how it's produced commercially.
So yeah--veganism is one option, but it is, in my opinion, a narrow scope at an issue that is far more nuanced. I think it's equally ethical to aim for a diet that focuses on local, ethical farming practices--for growing crops, for caring for meat animals, for beekeeping, for chickens and sheep and whatever else we need. We've spent longer than any of us will live making these animals part of our world--discarding them and what they can give us is not going to benefit them. We just have to learn how to treat them respectfully.
828 notes
·
View notes
Note
https://www.tumblr.com/soul-hammer/742633865824354304 Saw this on my dash and I’m wondering what your thoughts on it are.
This is essentially just one big slippery slope fallacy. ‘If you do x you have to y then where does it lead oh nooo…..’
The argument is essentially that anywhere you draw the line of sentience/moral worth is going to be arbitrary so you’ll end up caring about plants etc. but it doesn’t follow that you just shouldn’t draw a line or even try to cause less harm. This is a very pseudo-philosophical way of essentially saying ‘it gets complicated so why bother.’
Besides, where vegans draw the line is fairly clearly defined: sentience is the relevant moral factor for us. You don’t end ‘having to’ factor in plant suffering because we have absolutely no evidence that plants suffer. Plants are not sentient, so they’re really just pretending that the issue is more complicated than it is. That logic doesn’t turn you into a ‘ghoul’, it turns you into a vegan, which as it turns out is far less difficult and less complicated that these people want to pretend that it is.
22 notes
·
View notes
Photo
“Végan ? Et les humains qui souffrent ?”
#excuses carnistes#arguments carnistes#dissonance cognitive#carnistes#anti-végan#anti-végans#viandards#non-végans#humourvegan#humour végan#humour vegane#memevegan#mème végan#mèmes végan#jhoumous
0 notes
Text
easily one of the most irritating lines of 'anti vegan' argumentation is when people deny or ignore the fact that the breeds used in commercial animal agriculture are very much bred to serve human purposes and are consequently not even remotely representative of how these species would / could function in the absence of human intervention
946 notes
·
View notes
Note
okay, i have no one else to say this to, and ARAs make me feel rabid. Sorry for this, lol. I get constantly frustrated by vegans using specism as a reason for their choice,,, outside of the irony that most of the ones i’ve seen online are super racist and ableist with more care for animals than the people who farm their food. I just think the argument is incredibly hollow. There is constantly more evidence that plants have sentience, so why are animal lives prioritized over plants? with this knowledge wouldn’t an omnivorous and sustainable diet be the most ethical from an anti-specist perspective?
They will never care about plants because many of them go by the “I don’t eat it if it has a face” mantra despite that being quite reductive and not even inclusive of most animals let alone plants or fungi which function on such a high level humans can’t even fully perceive its scope.
They’ll say omnivores only eat animals because we see them as “less than” which they acknowledge as being wrong but if you mention plants they go on about how OBVIOUSLY that’s different because a plant doesn’t have REAL feelings because they don’t have brains or even a basic central nervous system, which, is arguable, but more to the point is really not any different from saying a pig doesn’t have REAL value since it can’t read and doesn’t even have opposable thumbs.
They will flaunt that it’s difficult to argue that speciesism is fake without using an argument a white supremacist would make about poc, but it’s difficult for them to argue for the life of a plant or fungus not mattering without it sounding like something a filthy carnist would say about steak.
Point being, the tactic they use to claim comparing black people to livestock as not being racist is a very easy tactic to redirect at them because the fact of the matter is that humans have a very limited perspective. No matter what you do, you’ll always see the world through the lens of a human being.
It’s easy for a human to sympathize with something they can relate to. A pig? One of the closest genetic relatives to humans and express a lot of human-like opinions through their actions. That’s actually why I don’t personally eat pork. It’s easy to sympathize with a pig. Many people are more okay with eating fish because they’re cold blooded, slimy, don’t have arms or lungs or legs or anything a human can easily relate to, they don’t even have eyelids or a complex heart, so of course they don’t bat an eye to fishing in comparison to hunting because a fish is more primal and feels less human. Then there’s invertebrates, very few people feel guilt eating a crab, they’ll even justify boiling lobsters alive if you tell them it tastes better! After all, is that even REALLY a face? Which part is their mouth? What are those creepy antennae? Perhaps it isn’t even fit to eat since it looks so alien to humans.
Even for the plight of an insect most ARAs can stand by their principle, but what is it that makes plants and mushrooms different? No, they don’t have a face, but they still respond to different stimuli, plants and fungi can even send messages to others in their colony to warn of danger and more that we don’t really understand yet.
The average person doesn’t care about squashing a bug because they don’t see enough of themselves in it to care about its life, so why do ARAs see no issue in harming plants and fungi just because they don’t see enough similarity between them and animals?
To live, you have to take away from the life of another. That’s how life works. You can adjust your diet to suit your ethics, I certainly do, but if you’re going to try to guilt and force it on others then you could at least try to be less hypocritical.
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
Smartest anti-vegan argument
111 notes
·
View notes
Text
Is tumblr dot com’s new anti-vegan argument seriously “because vegans consume things, veganism = consumerism”?
This is some of the most ass backward, immature, closed minded, dense, and selfish arguments I’ve heard in a while.
And I’ve been on this hellsite nearly since it was fucking created.
Tell me you don’t know anything about veganism, consumerism, or economics without telling me you don’t know anything about veganism, consumerism, or economics.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
#vegan#animal rights#thatveganwhiterose#consumerism tho#social justice#go vegan#veganism#jfc#what is philosophy#what are morals#what are politics#what are economics#these dipshits sure don’t know!
69 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
tulsaroofers
A. Fricker Roofing
unnoticable-artist
Artist From Space
angelalpine
starry haze, crystal ball
dangerouskingjellyfish
Untitled