4 ms·

Vegans don't face any such dilemma. The animal kingdom is quite clearly defined and vegans are pretty consistently defined as not consuming animals or animal p

Vegans don't face any such dilemma. The animal kingdom is quite clearly defined and vegans are pretty consistently defined as not consuming animals or animal products. If you wish to take a more extreme position that considers other forms of life (and almost nobody appears to), that's no longer just veganism: it's something more extreme.

kempbellt 6y ago
> Vegans don't face any such dilemma. This is such hand-wavy bullshit. It's such a lazy response to OPs point... Are humans animals? If so, should we not consume the products that humans create, in order to achieve perfect veganism? And if people are not animals, and I'm feeling a bit hungry........? The computer or phone you used to post your comment is an animal product. Unless, yet again, we consider humans to be above animals, and therefore exempt from all the rules, and veganism is cannibalizing itself, philosophically. Absolutist veganism (which is a beautiful idealism) exists heavily in a state of cognitive dissonance.
- the_gastropod 6y ago
  This is.... one of the more bizarre critiques of veganism I've ever seen. You familiar with the concept of consent?
- netrus 6y ago
  That's such a strange way to argue. We use heuristics all the time. As I said elsewhere, the farmer is not a slave, that changes the equation. If all salads were made by slaves, beef might be the ethical superior choice. But it isn't. If you find someone who wants you do eat them: I guess that's fine? You cannot li ve 100% without harming animals - so it is cognitive dissonance to call for ending 95% of animal suffering (that, again, serves no good reason)?
  - kempbellt 6y ago
    The cognitive dissonance is the perfectionist idealism of veganism, and the assumed "ethical superiority" that constantly gets thrown around while taking zero constructive criticism that the people promoting it are in fact, living at complete odds with it. It's like beating your children to try and instill core values that abuse is bad. "Don't hit, Timmy. Hitting is bad! I'm going to spank you to get my point across." OP made a good point about the imperfections of idealistic veganism and it was dismissed with a, "Nope. This isn't a thing. Our ideals are perfectly defined. You are the problem", which goes directly against the belief that one's ideals are perfectly defined if someone is questioning holes in the definition - i.e, cognitive dissonance...
    - Falling3 6y ago
      The OP did not make a good point - they made a Nirvana Fallacy. And your analogy in no way captures that argument anyway.
      - kempbellt 6y ago
        I interpret OPs point to be one that highlights the already existing Nirvana Fallacy that is the core of idealistic veganism. My analogy adds directly to that point.
        throwaway2245 6y ago
        Vegans don't have to be vegan for ethical reasons. They can be vegan for health reasons, or environmental reasons, or any combination of reasons. Vegans in general choose to not consume animals or (non-human) animal products, by definition. There is a large variety of adherence and some variety in self-definition, just as there is in any common human community. The Nirvana Fallacy lies in claiming that all vegans are vegan because they wish to be perfectly ethical, or follow a particular definition strictly, and are therefore failing on their own terms. But vegans in general make no such claim to be perfectly ethical. They are not failing on their own terms - they are failing on your invented terms: ones which only highlight your own cognitive dissonance.
standardUser 6y ago
Vegans obviously consume animals. We are all inhabited by by and, through circumstance, kill and consume countless microscopic animals, such as mites.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  I'm not sure that counts as "consumption." We also "cultivate" countless microscopic animals such as bacteria in the gut and on the skin but that doesn't really count as it is both unavoidable and requires no choice. Vegans choose not to consume animals to the greatest extent possible and that's what is being discussed.

kempbellt 6y ago

> Vegans don't face any such dilemma. This is such hand-wavy bullshit. It's such a lazy response to OPs point... Are humans animals? If so, should we not consume the products that humans create, in order to achieve perfect veganism? And if people are not animals, and I'm feeling a bit hungry........? The computer or phone you used to post your comment is an animal product. Unless, yet again, we consider humans to be above animals, and therefore exempt from all the rules, and veganism is cannibalizing itself, philosophically. Absolutist veganism (which is a beautiful idealism) exists heavily in a state of cognitive dissonance.

the_gastropod 6y ago
This is.... one of the more bizarre critiques of veganism I've ever seen. You familiar with the concept of consent?
netrus 6y ago
That's such a strange way to argue. We use heuristics all the time. As I said elsewhere, the farmer is not a slave, that changes the equation. If all salads were made by slaves, beef might be the ethical superior choice. But it isn't. If you find someone who wants you do eat them: I guess that's fine? You cannot li ve 100% without harming animals - so it is cognitive dissonance to call for ending 95% of animal suffering (that, again, serves no good reason)?
- kempbellt 6y ago
  The cognitive dissonance is the perfectionist idealism of veganism, and the assumed "ethical superiority" that constantly gets thrown around while taking zero constructive criticism that the people promoting it are in fact, living at complete odds with it. It's like beating your children to try and instill core values that abuse is bad. "Don't hit, Timmy. Hitting is bad! I'm going to spank you to get my point across." OP made a good point about the imperfections of idealistic veganism and it was dismissed with a, "Nope. This isn't a thing. Our ideals are perfectly defined. You are the problem", which goes directly against the belief that one's ideals are perfectly defined if someone is questioning holes in the definition - i.e, cognitive dissonance...
  - Falling3 6y ago
    The OP did not make a good point - they made a Nirvana Fallacy. And your analogy in no way captures that argument anyway.
    - kempbellt 6y ago
      I interpret OPs point to be one that highlights the already existing Nirvana Fallacy that is the core of idealistic veganism. My analogy adds directly to that point.
      - throwaway2245 6y ago
        Vegans don't have to be vegan for ethical reasons. They can be vegan for health reasons, or environmental reasons, or any combination of reasons. Vegans in general choose to not consume animals or (non-human) animal products, by definition. There is a large variety of adherence and some variety in self-definition, just as there is in any common human community. The Nirvana Fallacy lies in claiming that all vegans are vegan because they wish to be perfectly ethical, or follow a particular definition strictly, and are therefore failing on their own terms. But vegans in general make no such claim to be perfectly ethical. They are not failing on their own terms - they are failing on your invented terms: ones which only highlight your own cognitive dissonance.

standardUser 6y ago

Vegans obviously consume animals. We are all inhabited by by and, through circumstance, kill and consume countless microscopic animals, such as mites.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
I'm not sure that counts as "consumption." We also "cultivate" countless microscopic animals such as bacteria in the gut and on the skin but that doesn't really count as it is both unavoidable and requires no choice. Vegans choose not to consume animals to the greatest extent possible and that's what is being discussed.