3 ms·
> Detractors of veganism often like to tout the fundamental right of personal choice: "I respect your choice to be vegan, now respect mine to eat meat". What su
by voidr 11y ago
> Detractors of veganism often like to tout the fundamental right of personal choice: "I respect your choice to be vegan, now respect mine to eat meat". What such proponents are failing to consider is that when a personal choice has a victim, it is no longer just personal. Just as it is morally bankrupt to have the opinion that women are inferior to men, it is equally unacceptable to subject a living, feeling, and consciously aware animal to death, just so your personal choice can be satisfied. So, the next time you think to ridicule a vegan, consider that it is people like vegans who have led the charge for every great inequality that the world has ever seen. People who weren't prepared to let morality be obscured by the status quo. Without people like vegans, we would still be living in a society where women could not even vote.
The author is trying hard to convey the supremacy of vegans over the rest of humanity.
You know somebody is just trying to stir up a flamewar when they bring sexism into the mix for no good reason.
Carnivores eat other animals, are they immoral beings? Is nature immoral then?
Contrary to what the author is trying to make you believe, by definition being a vegan is a personal choice, and nothing more.
If you care about animals, you should support PETA.
If you want to personally protest against the horrible treatment of animals on a lot of the farms, choose to buy free range products.
If you just want to be vegan, fine, do that and respect that not everyone is like you(the same thing vegans ask) and a lot of people prefer that juicy meat.
- cholantesh 11y agoI'm not a vegan and I think the article is self-aggrandizing fluff. However, this rhetorical question you pose: >Carnivores eat other animals, are they immoral beings? Is nature immoral then? is one that has been addressed by vegans for a long time, usually on the basis of biology (carnivores are literally incapable of extracting nutritional content from plants, where we generally have that choice), intelligence (some animals are just as intelligent as young humans), and moral agency (the question of whether animals have it). I'm not saying I agree with these arguments, but they exist, and are worthy of discussion. Peter Singer's Animal Liberation is the work that explained these ideas best, much better than I could. I think it's a great read.
- xlm1717 11y agoIf I understand correctly, this line of reasoning states that because animals can't make the choice, we can't make it for them (we could feed them all kibbles if we wanted), but since humans can make the choice, then we should make that choice for all of them.