4 ms·

Veganism = reduce animal suffering as much as possible. Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering? On the other hand you c

Veganism = reduce animal suffering as much as possible. Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering? On the other hand you could also argue that veganism attracts people who want to move away from the extremes of the animal and dairy industry, which contributes massively to our carbon footprint and biosphere destruction on top of causing unnecessary animal suffering.

layer8 4y ago
I guess it gets perceived as extreme-ish when it becomes an ideology constantly imposed in a combative fashion onto others.
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  Agree - the holier than thou attitude can be off putting.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
> Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering? That's a (lazy) strawman [edit: because it that has nothing to do with what I wrote and unfortunately also seems to be a common Pavlovian response to any criticism]. If you want to make a constructive reply I will gladly engage with it.
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  It was a genuine question. If you look up the actual definition of veganism - it's all about not wanting to cause unnecessary suffering and destruction [0] We live in a time where we don't need meat anymore to survive. Yes there are still regions of humans who need to hunt and farm animals as it's their only means of survival. But I'm talking about us living in the western world who rely mostly on factory animal farms to provide meat and dairy. There are numerous studies that clearly show feeding the world with animal meat is not sustainable [1] So what is extreme about not wanting to cause animal suffering and not wanting to support a food system that contributes heavily to biosphere destruction? Where is the (lazy) strawman? Again - genuine question. [0] https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." [1] Just one of those studies: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environme... Many more from the UN and other universities.
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  Replying to your edited comment... I understood your comment as saying that veganism is seen as an extreme act. But veganism is far from that. Veganism isn't dogmatic. It's pragmatic as per the official definition. E.g. if you are on a hike and you get lost and have to survive by hunting, even though you usually don't eat animals - you could still call yourself vegan - because you need to hunt to survive. Or something simpler - if you have your own chickens and eat their eggs and you don't intend to slaughter the chickens later on- I'd class that as vegan, because you're not harming the chickens. But I agree with you - people who promote veganism as a dogmatic philosophy can be seen as extreme.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    > and eat their eggs and you don't intend to slaughter the chickens later on- I'd class that as vegan, because you're not harming the chickens. You cannot make your own definition of 'veganism' as you go, that makes any discussion impossible even without your strawman argument. What you describe here is not veganism (no animal products at all, including things like honey), it's a common flavour of vegetarianism (no killing of animals). In the definition of 'veganism' you quoted from the Vegan Society, there is 'exploitation'. Veganism sees eating eggs or honey as exploitation no matter how well treated the animals are, which is why it is off-limits. That same goes with wearing wool, for instance.
    - uxcolumbo 4y ago
      Again - veganism is pragmatic - not dogmatic. There are vegans who have rescue chickens (from factory farms) and they do eat their eggs. The rescue chickens are given a happy life where they can roam freely in a garden. It's a different matter when it comes to milk - which is intended for the baby cow. Same with honey - it's actually being eaten by bees and you can't replace it with sugar water, as it has fewer nutrients for the bees. Edit: When it comes to wool, there are vegans who still wear their wool or leather items from their pre-vegan days. You wouldn't simply throw them away - you just don't buy new wool or leather products. Keyword here is pragmatism.
      - 4y ago
hombre_fatal 4y ago
Merely having a countervailing ethics framework is extreme to most people.

layer8 4y ago

I guess it gets perceived as extreme-ish when it becomes an ideology constantly imposed in a combative fashion onto others.

uxcolumbo 4y ago
Agree - the holier than thou attitude can be off putting.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

> Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering? That's a (lazy) strawman [edit: because it that has nothing to do with what I wrote and unfortunately also seems to be a common Pavlovian response to any criticism]. If you want to make a constructive reply I will gladly engage with it.

uxcolumbo 4y ago
It was a genuine question. If you look up the actual definition of veganism - it's all about not wanting to cause unnecessary suffering and destruction [0] We live in a time where we don't need meat anymore to survive. Yes there are still regions of humans who need to hunt and farm animals as it's their only means of survival. But I'm talking about us living in the western world who rely mostly on factory animal farms to provide meat and dairy. There are numerous studies that clearly show feeding the world with animal meat is not sustainable [1] So what is extreme about not wanting to cause animal suffering and not wanting to support a food system that contributes heavily to biosphere destruction? Where is the (lazy) strawman? Again - genuine question. [0] https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." [1] Just one of those studies: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environme... Many more from the UN and other universities.
uxcolumbo 4y ago
Replying to your edited comment... I understood your comment as saying that veganism is seen as an extreme act. But veganism is far from that. Veganism isn't dogmatic. It's pragmatic as per the official definition. E.g. if you are on a hike and you get lost and have to survive by hunting, even though you usually don't eat animals - you could still call yourself vegan - because you need to hunt to survive. Or something simpler - if you have your own chickens and eat their eggs and you don't intend to slaughter the chickens later on- I'd class that as vegan, because you're not harming the chickens. But I agree with you - people who promote veganism as a dogmatic philosophy can be seen as extreme.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  > and eat their eggs and you don't intend to slaughter the chickens later on- I'd class that as vegan, because you're not harming the chickens. You cannot make your own definition of 'veganism' as you go, that makes any discussion impossible even without your strawman argument. What you describe here is not veganism (no animal products at all, including things like honey), it's a common flavour of vegetarianism (no killing of animals). In the definition of 'veganism' you quoted from the Vegan Society, there is 'exploitation'. Veganism sees eating eggs or honey as exploitation no matter how well treated the animals are, which is why it is off-limits. That same goes with wearing wool, for instance.
  - uxcolumbo 4y ago
    Again - veganism is pragmatic - not dogmatic. There are vegans who have rescue chickens (from factory farms) and they do eat their eggs. The rescue chickens are given a happy life where they can roam freely in a garden. It's a different matter when it comes to milk - which is intended for the baby cow. Same with honey - it's actually being eaten by bees and you can't replace it with sugar water, as it has fewer nutrients for the bees. Edit: When it comes to wool, there are vegans who still wear their wool or leather items from their pre-vegan days. You wouldn't simply throw them away - you just don't buy new wool or leather products. Keyword here is pragmatism.
    - 4y ago

hombre_fatal 4y ago

Merely having a countervailing ethics framework is extreme to most people.