killing animals in factory farms is not a symbiotic relationship. you don’t understand ecology at all. factory farms are not at all part of the equation of ‘symbiosis’ and relationships with nature, ecosystems or food webs. slaughter houses are not ‘gentle deaths’. factory farms and the industrial food system are the producers of harm and waste and destruction to all life and the land. nothing about this is ‘mutualistic’, ‘gentle’, ‘sustainable’, or ‘natural’. you’re living in a dream land if you believe this.

all sections of progressive movement overlap, just like all sections of oppressive movements overlap. every movement has its ‘own thing’, but they all come together to create one ideal. veganism is included in that. anti natalist vegans exist because not everyone has the same opinion. same reason why terfs exist, zionist antifa, etc.

being vegan is inherently anti capitalist, anti misogyny, pro choice and radically inclusive. being vegan and being ‘conservative’ or right leaning are incompatible. the basis of veganism is built on the idea of power and liberation for all, human or non human.

Stay yourself, stay curious.

People being like plants might feel pain as a rejoinder to veganism when it's like.

Pigs are allowed to be kept in pens where they can't turn around and we know they're like as smart as toddlers or whatever like please be realistic

Claiming being a vegan is racist is just peak 2013 tumblr discourse revival. Never mind the fact that factory farms overwhelmingly exploit POC, especially undocumented immigrants, and that most suffer psychological trauma.

While rudeness towards indigenous people regarding hunting is wrong, claiming that the existence of such rude individuals makes veganism itself wrong is patently absurd. Veganism isn’t wrong. Sanctimony is.

Veganism is harm reduction. Sadly a cruelty free diet isn’t possible in these times unless you grow all your own food. I follow the “avoidance of animal and/or human exploitation when practical” definition. That means you may have to eat sugar with bone meal in it, or if you were stranded on a desert island or in a famine, you’d have to eat a pig or a fish. I also think new vegans should finish off or donate their old food rather than toss it.

I do agree that some vegans are obnoxious but you get that in all groups.

I also agree that forcing obligate carnivores like cats to go vegan is cruel. My cat eats meat and my bettas eat insect based foods because they haven’t got a choice.

I think a lot of people make excuses for why veganism is somehow wrong (name one harm that vegans do that omnivores don’t) because it’s otherwise uncomfortable to address why they’re not vegan.

why should you have the right to end an animal's life for a meal that lasts you minutes that you will inevitably forget about

the vegan movement is so funny like half of it is "omg yum! 😋 check out these amazing, totally plant-based dishes we're serving at this chill vegan event! come hang out with some likeminded folk and enjoy some good eats! #plantlife" and the other half is "here's footage of a mass of activists breaking into a slaughterhouse to rescue as many suffering animals as they can before the cops show up then looking into the camera unmasked and stating their full names and intentions and daring the company responsible to press charges so they can drag them to court and show the judge & jury horrendously damning footage of widescale animal abuse they uncovered while inside"

'Is this recycled pleather bag just a greenwashing gimmick?' Most certainly. You want to know what else is greenwashing? Framing animal leather as environmentally friendly as a direct response to the issues pleather has.

being vegan is inherently anti capitalist, anti misogyny, pro choice and radically inclusive. being vegan and being ‘conservative’ or right leaning are incompatible. the basis of veganism is built on the idea of power and liberation for all, human or non human.

Human = Friend 🐇

an annual reminder to say nup to the shitshow that is the melbourne cup. these horses are abused and exploited for our entertainment and so rich sport celebs can just get richer. not to mention how it just enables gambling addiction (which is already a massive problem in australia) and the fact that they raced a horse today with a bruised leg. animals are not for our entertainment.

Catholic vegan here!

it depends on how you interpret it personally, but some people see it as Paul criticising those who cherry pick faith. Both men eat food (are Christian) but these foods are not the same, as one diet is diverse (believes and follows all of Gods word), while the other is not diverse (only believes and follows the word of God when it suits him and his beliefs). some of The Bible is taken literally and some is taken metaphorically, it all depends on how *you* read it

how can we respond to "Romans 14:2-3 tells us, “One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables." ?

Well, most of us can pretty much just respond with: ‘Okay? I’m not a Christian, and neither are the animals you’re eating.’ I do eat only vegetables and my faith isn’t just weak, it’s non-existent. This passage is irrelevant to anyone who doesn’t believe in the moral authority of the Bible, and even for those who do, it’s hardly a good ethical argument.

People interpret scripture in ways that are useful and meaningful for them, which is completely fine, but what someone may happen to believe a man wrote 2000 years ago and how much they believe in those words gives th absolutely zero right to harm anyone else. They can believe in the Bible all they want, but it doesn’t give them the right to enforce those beliefs on anyone else, or kill someone on the basis that ‘Paul said it’s fine.’

Paul is also fairly obviously not offering a moral defence for eating factory farmed, industrially slaughtered animals in the 21st century. Paul is writing a letter that certainly isn’t intended to be any sort of reflection on animal rights. I’m not going to go on into the various interpretations of that passage, but suffice to say that if this line were a moral argument in favour of eating animals it would be jarringly out of place in the context of the rest of that letter. That should be pretty obvious on reading it even if you don’t have much scriptural literacy.

Even if it were, things change, society changes, and religion has always changed with it. The Old Testament was often quoted by pro-slavery polemicists, for example, as it was by those opposing women’s suffrage. It is still quoted as a way to justify homophobia today. Do we really want to treat every word of the Bible as an unchanging, infallible moral law, despite the fact that it is made up of many books, written at different times and by different people, all of them being fallible mortals who were very much a product of their time?

More fundamentally, why should the rest of us have to answer to or even respond to scripture we don’t believe in? We don’t live in a theocracy, and the Bible is not a universal moral law applying to all peoples. I mean, how do you think the Christians making this argument would respond if I told them that they were not allowed to call Jesus divine because in the Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Arjant warned us to ‘call no man God’? I don’t imagine they’d find that any more convincing than I find this.

The biggest question for them to answer though, is why an animal’s life should be forfeit because of their spiritual beliefs. Their right to practice their religion is important, but it is not so important that it can take away someone else’s right to live free from exploitation and harm. Religious freedom is not unique compared with any other kind of freedom; it has to be balanced with the competing rights and freedoms of other parties, and doesn’t automatically override everything else. ‘My religion says X therefore I am allowed to harm Y’ should be dismissed as the obviously self-serving nonsense that it is.

If you can’t stand to see how your food is made, maybe you shouldn’t be fucking eating it. 

You’ll eat bacon and hamburgers and omelets all day, but you won’t look at how animals are slaughtered to make them? Okay…

Animal Rights Activism 🤝 Radical Feminism

inherently conservative, colonialist, overall extremely harmful ideologies that are dressed up in a “progressive” package to make people buy into them

here we go again:

no, it’s not ending human/animal interaction. heaps of vegans and people who advocate for animal rights support the idea of pets and animal sanctuaries and other ways people can access animals whether it’s in their natural habitat or not. i don’t know why you think that but it’s not true at all.

the majority of people in the vegan and animal rights spaces *im* apart of advocate heavily for black and indigenous rights especially, alongside righys for other marginalised people. this is because veganism and bigotry cannot and never have gone together. they work against each other. a vegan who is a bigot is just plant based. saying animal rights activists are ‘very often’ puttinh animal rights above human rights isn’t true and it just shows your experience, same with anybody else’s pov of animal activists.

how is being anti meat contributing to anti indigenous ideas when indigenous people are losing their home due to beef farming? nobody is complaining about native people sustainably hunting food that will sustain them and their family for who knows how long, we’re complaining about the mass production of meat that is killing our planet and killing our people. we are against the fact that it adds to the idea that animals solely exist for us to kill and consume. we are against how unnatural we live.

beans, rice, chickpeas, tofu, vegetables and maybe a few supplements are not very expensive at all. to give this argument the benefit of the doubt, pre made meat replacements are expensive, but nut milks are around the same price and you can easily make homemade seitan.

unless someone’s shoving tofu and impossible meats down your throat, nobody is ‘forcing’ you to become vegan. people protest and speak out against what they perceive as oppression and you can either take it in, or disagree. veganism and animal rights are a movement, movements will not always be quiet. don’t like it? block people! i promise you it’s fine

the fact that you’re comparing veganism to terfs who are literally pushing for the genocide of trans people is honestly insulting as a trans person.

Animal Rights Activism 🤝 Radical Feminism

inherently conservative, colonialist, overall extremely harmful ideologies that are dressed up in a “progressive” package to make people buy into them

if you learn to love bugs with all your heart the world will feel half as hostile and a thousand times as big

Yeah but you know animals are being made to live in unbearable conditions and then being killed so I’d rather not be ‘nice’ about your meat diet and your poor precious taste buds.