this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
167 points (99.4% liked)
PhilosophyMemes
318 readers
96 users here now
Memes must be related to phil.
The Memiverse:
!90s_memes@quokk.au
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Vegans that think like this aren't right, you can not eat meat if you want, but eating meat is a natural thing. We humans, especially in America, eat entirely too much meat, but we are omnivores. You don't need meat to survive but it's easier to do so when you eat meat, and as it stands, cheaper! The real issue is the cruelty and unsanitary conditions that are rampant across the factory farm/meat industry. There is too little regulation, and too few companies controlling the market. An equally good form of protest is to just get your meat sourced locally. It can be an even better form of protest depending on what you would eat as a vegan, because there are several crops that are commonly eaten by vegans that have slave labor and water depletion involved i.e. almonds and quinoa.
Edit: wording
Veganism is a luxury of modern times and certain social economic circles. Bless people for being able to keep to it. Personally I can't, not because I love murdering innocent animals but feeding myself and a family is a complex task with the items I have in my area and the time I have.
I was able to do meatless days more often when I had a market down the road and didn't have many mouths to feed, but now I've moved and the local produce is complete garbage and I have to put my effort into other items into the day that are unfortunately not meal prep.
This is not me saying "Veganism bad" this is saying you can't assume everyone has the same situations you do. Change things from the top, not beat up people just trying to make it day to day.
Vegetarianism is a luxury? Meat is a luxury, and we need to start acting like it.
Yes it is, sometimes, based on the criteria in the post you are replying to.
They even give examples of why this is and point out not everyone has the same circumstances you , but you still somehow read it as your own personal position being the only correct one.
To be clear, that's vegetarianism, not vegetables.
Access and "cost effectiveness to nutrition ratios" are skewed towards meat in some places, especially when looked at from a socio-economic point of view.
Per calorie, meat or "meat" can be cheaper, especially when you factor in time/effort taken for purchase, storage, prep and cooking.
That's almost certainly because of the focus on meat production in some countries and you could argue that it shouldn't be that way, but that's a different conversation.
That is, in fact, this conversation. That's what I mean by "we need to start acting like it".
If you want to change conversations then indicate that that is what's happening , because the post you are replying to clearly stated the context in which that statement was made.
If you want to reply to that statement in an entirely different context and then don't mention that that is happening you're going to get confusion.
There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual. She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables. We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.
There is no world in which a person's daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.
You have to be doing it on purpose at this point, nobody accidentally misses the context with that amount of pinpoint accuracy.
You're even including partial sentences and specifically leaving out the part that gives the context.
OK so I'll do this one line by line and then you're on your own.
The whole line was
As for "patently counterfactual" that's a strong phrase for zero supporting arguments.
Yes, as a supporting argument that the current conditions mean that it's not universally economically viable to subsist on vegetables.
It was mentioned yes, but in the context of current conditions.
I'll simplify for you.
As things currently are it is not always economically viable to subsist on vegetables alone.
There was no argument that it isn't possible for the world to get to a point where this is possible, just that it's not the current world.
Do you know what the word is for an item that is possible to obtain with an expenditure of wealth, while a less costly viable alternative exists?
No, they describe many reasons aside from just the purchase price, if you haven't seen them i suggest you back and re-read the post, it's like 3 small paragraphs.
In case you are still struggling. I'll bullet point them for you.
Overall your replies imply a lack of ability to empathize with another persons circumstances and not a small amount of (let them eat cake) entitlement.
it's great that you are in a financial situation, physical location and with enough free time to make vegetarianism viable.
Declaring that it's not possible to be in a situation worse than the one you are in, especially when realistic potential reasons for the differences are offered, is tone-deaf and frankly disgusting.
I'm done with this, if you can't figure it out from the above that's a you problem, and i suppose anyone who has to deal with you on a regular basis.
Speaking locally to me, chicken is half the price per gram of protein compared to vegan proteins. It might be different if I could digest wheat. Beans are closest in price, but I can't physically consume enough beans for that to work alone. Vegan options need to be subsidized to encourage wider adoption.
Regarding vegetarianism specifically, anyone who thinks they aren't hurting animals by consuming commercial eggs and dairy are kidding themselves. Chicken is also (again, local to me) cheaper than dairy-based proteins. (Not sure about the cost of eggs since I can't digest those either.)
I think it's accurate to say that meat is a luxury in the sense that we collectively are paying environmental and ethical costs for the farming industry.
e: Another consideration is the support of healthcare providers. Only an omnivorous diet is supported by the Swedish healthcare system. I was just in the hospital and had no option for protein other than pork and yogurt. When attempting to meet my dietary needs on a vegan diet, I have received no professional help.
I'd like to see us factor in the bio-availability of nutrients from both plant and animal sources when considering the costs, as well.
I totally understand why the word luxury can sound off here. I just meant that being vegan or vegetarian often takes extra time, knowledge, and access. Things that aren’t always easy for everyone.
I think it’s great when people can make it work, but not everyone has the same options or support. It’s less about right or wrong choices and more about recognizing that everyone’s circumstances are different.
I'm trying to be empathetic, because it really feels like lashing out at the wrong targets here. Hopefully we can agree society is the problem, not the people in the society who can't access these choices.
Plenty of vegans in India for centuries, not luxurious or modern. You can say that being vegan is hard in modern meat-oriented society, but then turn your critique towards the system and not towards the people telling you to go vegan. And I say this as a non-vegan.
You're thinking of vegetarians, and it's more commonly practiced by those who can afford to. Upper-class vegetarians fought to prevent eggs being given to impoverished school children in India.
veganism is a philosophy, and has been around less than one hundred years
There earliest proponent of veganism listed on Wikipedia is Abu al-Ala al-Ma'arri, roughly one thousand years ago. According to their source:
Also:
I should read this guy's work.
veganism as a term didn't exist until the 1940s, and the philosophy is not the same as what al-ma'arri advocated.
Agreed
Vegan almost always = privileged and preachy
It's wild that these people are so aggressive to anyone who can't afford their crazy expensive and nutritionally deficient diet.
They have infinitely more empathy for animals than they do fellow humans. If they had any empathy for people they'd see how classist their belief system is.
Where are you living that vegetables are more expensive than meat??
You act like processed foods aren't the main staple in most American diets.
The vast majority of processed foods are meat based.
Saying "just eat less processed foods" shows classist bias because it demonstrates an absolute ignorance as to why people eat this shit in the first place.
Ah, America. What a shithole
it's cheaper because they receive a bunch of subsidies
regardless of the reason, that is the present condition
a single counterexample would disprove this. also, torture factories don't exist.
I don't know how you can prove this
Go ahead.
What do you mean? It sounds like torture to me: "Chickens raised for meat have been genetically selected for rapid growth. They typically reach market weight 6–7 weeks after hatching and grow so fast that their organs and bones often cannot keep up. As a result, many die from heart failure or other ailments, and countless more suffer from broken bones, lameness, and ruptured organs."
Many more kinds of torture are documented by this and many other sources that are easy to find.
Here's the data.
this data is based on bad science. in particular, it relies on poore-nemecek 2018, which misuses LCA data by combining disparately methodized studies.
Do you have a different study that you prefer?
as I said, I don't know that you can prove your claim
in torture, the point is to cause pain. in farming, pain is incidental. if it could be done at the same cost and entirely painlessly, i'm sure that method would prevail.
Sure. I'd be down with calling them "extreme pain and suffering for cheaper food" farms if you prefer.
I just want you to stop trying to use sophistry to convert people to your ideology. surely the plain-spoken facts are sufficient.
Absolutely agree, the plain spoken facts are sufficient. Therefore I'm happy to leave these comments to let people decide on their own what they think makes more sense.
hunting can yield hundreds of pounds of meat for just a few dollars.
Straw man. Vegans don't claim veganism is natural. That would be a logical fallacy, anyway. Vegans claim that what you do to animals is cruel, violent, and needless.
Biologically, you are an herbivore; the more meat you eat, the younger you die, and the more major diseases you experience. Biological meat eaters don't get heart disease and diabetes from eating meat, for example. But let's say that you are a (non-obligate) omnivore. That means you can choose not to be cruel and violent. If you don't have to harm vulnerable individuals to be happy and healthy, then why do it?
That's scientifically incorrect on so many levels
Omnivorous adaptations seen in humans include our teeth structure, dexterous hands, and historical ability to adapt to nearly any environment.
Herbivores usually have adaptations like cellulase, ruminating, and coprophagia to cope with digesting plant matter. They also consume meat in many cases.
You should go and tell vets so they're aware too.
almost no one does that
We are omnivores.
The only reason why we experience those diseases is because we eat too much meat as an omnivore.
My goodness this is so full of wrong arguments I don't even know where to start. If it wasn't bad enough the almonds and quinoa make it perfect. What's next? Vegans eat the rainforest because they eat tofu? Veganism is not a diet! Heavens sake. Talk to your 'good' lifestock farmers. Ask them if they give their animals names and if no, why. Ps. I am an agronomist with a PhD and became a convinced vegan 5 years back because it's just the right thing to do in so many ways not only from my professional knowledge but from a point of basic decency.
By all means, take off your clothes and run off into the woods if you wish to live 'naturally'.
Anything nature can do by accident, we can do better on purpose. Which is exactly what we've done: selectively breed a huge variety of plants that can be raised artificially, to the point that any meat consumption is utterly unnecessary. Meat consumption could, in fact, be described as an active choice to cause suffering and further harm Spaceship Earth's life-support system for no reason.
What qualifies a behaviour as natural?
It doesn't require magic, or intervention from otherworldly spirits, etc.
I'd say acting on instinct primarily.
That's why I rape often, it's natural. Same with murder when I'm inconvenienced. Also losing my job and foraging naked for berries while I die of food poisoning. Natural as fuck.