3 ms·

You're conflating vegetarianism with veganism. You being a vegetarian is largely irrelevant because being a vegetarian isn't a vegan, and veganism is focused on

You're conflating vegetarianism with veganism. You being a vegetarian is largely irrelevant because being a vegetarian isn't a vegan, and veganism is focused on ethics, which is something commenters who are neither vegetarians nor vegans are likely to understand the nuance of. You'd probably never drink coffee or beer again if you saw how it was made. Come to think of it, you'd probably never eat any kind of processed food if hygiene is unacceptable.

indigodaddy 4y ago
He didn’t conflate anything. He said “I’m vegetarian.” You are the one who is making ethical assumptions on his behalf. He can state he is a vegetarian and then state another opinion without an arrogant and condescending vegan looking down on him from up high.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - indigodaddy 4y ago
    He said nothing about vegans. He is only talking about himself. You are making assumptions about what point you think he is trying to make, and/or belittling his own personal ethical stance on things, just because he is vegetarian. What you are doing is wrong. But you are correct that I’m projecting a bit. This is because as a vegetarian, I’ve seen so much vegan arrogance, condescension, and outright aggression toward vegetarians that I am indeed particularly sensitive to it. So if I see it I call it out. In my experience, an average vegan has more hostility toward a lifelong vegetarian than they have toward a lifelong meat-eater (granted that most vegans hold no hostility at all— so this would be a smaller subset of vegans that do hold hostility— a great many can be seen on any random Facebook vegan group).
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    As a meat-eater I agree with you in spirit, though imho that doesn't invalidate what the original poster said. "I don't eat meat for environmental reasons, but would prefer traditional farm-animal-meat to this" is a valid opinion. It is also easy to confuse with "I don't eat any animal products for ethical reasons, but still find eating real meat better than this", which would be much more surprising and interesting, but is not something expressed here. It's important to note the difference, though let's avoid judgements to avoid descending in a flamewar
dheera 4y ago
I think you're making a lot of assumptions here. If you believe ethics drives you to be vegan, that's respectable, you do you, but it's not the only way to act on ethics. There are many, many reasons to be ethically-motivated but not go all the way to 100% veganism. Some of them include: * Having beliefs that are more socially compatible and being able to attend a wide spectrum of social events and enjoy them with others allows one to exert greater influence on others (especially if you believe that e.g. 10 people reducing meat intake by 25% is better than 1 person reducing by 100%). There's a good chance that hard vegans don't get invited to a lot of things, and are effectively locked out of a lot of opportunities to exert influence. * If you are pragmatic and believe the world is highly unlikely to stop eating meat altogether but can reduce meat intake to a point where peoples' appetites are satisfied but factory farming isn't necessary * If your ethical reasons are largely carbon-motivated, in which case going 90% vegan (time-wise OR portion-wise) is scientifically, mathematically, close enough to 100% that environmental concerns become a non-issue * If your body's physiology cannot cope with a vegan diet but can cope with a 90% vegan diet There are lots of other reasons, and while veganism is respectable, I disagree that black-and-white thinking is the only way to approach ethics.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  I don't disagree with some of the points raised, however the point still remains: his vegetarianism is largely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. It's no more relevant than someone who designs PC cases chiming in on chip architecture whilst leaning on the fact they have something to do with computers in an abstract way, somehow giving their opinion credence. It's a misdirection to prop up this idea that lab-grown meat is wrong because it's unnatural and they're a vegetarian. Well, cancer treatments are unnatural, sterile and hygienic hospitals too, as are most things in life. Is the world better off for medical progress even though Christian Scientists et al who hold no real medical qualifications disagree? Yup. This puritanical angle is bizarre, and doesn't make the point he thinks it does, whilst giving others who aren't vegans or vegetarians a pithy soundbite of "this vegetarian wouldn't even eat this shit", which once it's been repeated a few times, very quickly becomes "vegan".
- hombre_fatal 4y ago

indigodaddy 4y ago

He didn’t conflate anything. He said “I’m vegetarian.” You are the one who is making ethical assumptions on his behalf. He can state he is a vegetarian and then state another opinion without an arrogant and condescending vegan looking down on him from up high.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
[flagged]
- indigodaddy 4y ago
  He said nothing about vegans. He is only talking about himself. You are making assumptions about what point you think he is trying to make, and/or belittling his own personal ethical stance on things, just because he is vegetarian. What you are doing is wrong. But you are correct that I’m projecting a bit. This is because as a vegetarian, I’ve seen so much vegan arrogance, condescension, and outright aggression toward vegetarians that I am indeed particularly sensitive to it. So if I see it I call it out. In my experience, an average vegan has more hostility toward a lifelong vegetarian than they have toward a lifelong meat-eater (granted that most vegans hold no hostility at all— so this would be a smaller subset of vegans that do hold hostility— a great many can be seen on any random Facebook vegan group).
- wongarsu 4y ago
  As a meat-eater I agree with you in spirit, though imho that doesn't invalidate what the original poster said. "I don't eat meat for environmental reasons, but would prefer traditional farm-animal-meat to this" is a valid opinion. It is also easy to confuse with "I don't eat any animal products for ethical reasons, but still find eating real meat better than this", which would be much more surprising and interesting, but is not something expressed here. It's important to note the difference, though let's avoid judgements to avoid descending in a flamewar

dheera 4y ago

I think you're making a lot of assumptions here. If you believe ethics drives you to be vegan, that's respectable, you do you, but it's not the only way to act on ethics. There are many, many reasons to be ethically-motivated but not go all the way to 100% veganism. Some of them include: * Having beliefs that are more socially compatible and being able to attend a wide spectrum of social events and enjoy them with others allows one to exert greater influence on others (especially if you believe that e.g. 10 people reducing meat intake by 25% is better than 1 person reducing by 100%). There's a good chance that hard vegans don't get invited to a lot of things, and are effectively locked out of a lot of opportunities to exert influence. * If you are pragmatic and believe the world is highly unlikely to stop eating meat altogether but can reduce meat intake to a point where peoples' appetites are satisfied but factory farming isn't necessary * If your ethical reasons are largely carbon-motivated, in which case going 90% vegan (time-wise OR portion-wise) is scientifically, mathematically, close enough to 100% that environmental concerns become a non-issue * If your body's physiology cannot cope with a vegan diet but can cope with a 90% vegan diet There are lots of other reasons, and while veganism is respectable, I disagree that black-and-white thinking is the only way to approach ethics.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
I don't disagree with some of the points raised, however the point still remains: his vegetarianism is largely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. It's no more relevant than someone who designs PC cases chiming in on chip architecture whilst leaning on the fact they have something to do with computers in an abstract way, somehow giving their opinion credence. It's a misdirection to prop up this idea that lab-grown meat is wrong because it's unnatural and they're a vegetarian. Well, cancer treatments are unnatural, sterile and hygienic hospitals too, as are most things in life. Is the world better off for medical progress even though Christian Scientists et al who hold no real medical qualifications disagree? Yup. This puritanical angle is bizarre, and doesn't make the point he thinks it does, whilst giving others who aren't vegans or vegetarians a pithy soundbite of "this vegetarian wouldn't even eat this shit", which once it's been repeated a few times, very quickly becomes "vegan".
hombre_fatal 4y ago