this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
167 points (99.4% liked)

PhilosophyMemes

316 readers
100 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] candyman337@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

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

[–] MeatPilot@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

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.

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 13 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Vegetarianism is a luxury? Meat is a luxury, and we need to start acting like it.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Vegetarianism is a luxury

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] stray@pawb.social 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] xep@discuss.online 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

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.

[–] MeatPilot@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 11 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Veganism is a luxury of modern times

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.

[–] stray@pawb.social 6 points 2 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] candyman337@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
  • Natural does not imply good
  • The only way meat is cheaper than a slavery free vegan (or vegetarian) diet is if that meat comes from a torture factory
  • Local meat is still worse for the environment than non-meat that was shipped across the globe
[–] rapchee@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

it's cheaper because they receive a bunch of subsidies

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

regardless of the reason, that is the present condition

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

The only way meat is cheaper than a slavery free vegan (or vegetarian) diet is if that meat comes from a torture factory

a single counterexample would disprove this. also, torture factories don't exist.

Local meat is still worse for the environment than non-meat that was shipped across the globe

I don't know how you can prove this

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

A single counterexample would disprove this

Go ahead.

Torture factories don't exist

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.

I don't know how you can prove this

Here's the data.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

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?

[–] candyman337@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

That's scientifically incorrect on so many levels

[–] stray@pawb.social 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Biological meat eaters don't get heart disease and diabetes from eating meat, for example.

You should go and tell vets so they're aware too.

[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 2 points 2 weeks ago

We are omnivores.

The only reason why we experience those diseases is because we eat too much meat as an omnivore.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ShotDonkey@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 6 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

What qualifies a behaviour as natural?

[–] blind3rdeye@aussie.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

It doesn't require magic, or intervention from otherworldly spirits, etc.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 20 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I eat meat everyday but I can logically see the vegans are correct.

[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 8 points 2 weeks ago

Vegans are objectively right about the meat industry.

People who claim otherwise just don't want to be told they can be wrong.

But I also love meat.

[–] decended_being@midwest.social 4 points 2 weeks ago

I was like that for awhile. It's tough to admit to yourself that you're part of the problem and even more difficult to change. My actions now align with my values, so I feel less moral tension day-to-day.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

Please, humans would eat humans if it was socially acceptable, proof? All the humans eating humans when it is socially acceptable. Also murder is accepted in every society in the world as long as the state approves. And puppy murder? Have you ever been to a vet? The truth is that ethics are not relative they are simply a lie to pasify the masses so they have an arm tied behind their back when fighting the rich. In other words the only truth in this world is that pineapple on pizza is a sin against God and you will end in eternal hell fire gnashing your teeth begging for a drop of water on your tongue.

[–] Zuriz@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago

Pineaple goes on pizza (Ominously in the background)

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

This is giving me some vibes of "without religion people be murdering each other".

There's no moral conflict in eating meat and not murdering humans, eating meat and refusing to hurt animals other ways, or even eating only some animals and not anothers.

I have well developed morals about the animal thing. And they are not based in giving animals rights. I don't consider animals as having rights like humans. What I consider, on the other hand, is humans having the duty not to be cruel. So hurting animals (or even plants) for no reason is cruelty thus is wrong. This allows for the hurt of other living beings without cruel intentions, and sits pretty good with a lot of different situations and dilemmas on what's right and what's wrong.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 12 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

So hurting animals (or even plants) for no reason is cruelty thus is wrong.

The entire point is that meat isn't necessary for the vast majority of people. Which thus makes it cruel and wrong.

This is before we get to all of the points about land use, pollutants, climate change, and the general inefficiency of getting calories from animals, which are all good reasons regardless of the above.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

meat isn't necessary for the vast majority of people.

you don't know what others need

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago

I feel like if people actually made a pros and cons table regarding veganism like you would in primary school and actually listed them out they would learn a lot.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Ok but what if morality is subjective..? My morals say that killing puppies is bad, and people who do it are bad.

But with universalism, killing a Nazi is bad. Because it's killing. With universalism, humanity is attempting to assign intent to the universe and say that the natural state of being for morality is that killing is bad. It's simply not true. Perhaps in most cases, but not all. That's not universalism, by definition.

Am I woefully misunderstanding something here ..?

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

What if morality is subjective?

Morality is subjective.

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Well with objective universalism, killing is good, as unlife is the most common state of existence, it can never be immoral to unalive something.

If the universe has intent, it clearly is moving all things towards low entropy unlife, and as such unaliving is to carry out a moral good, and always moral, no?

/s

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 week ago

It seems exhausting to jump through hoops to justify it. It's so easy to just say that you love the taste so it's fine to you

[–] kek_kecske_31@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Stating ideologically that you must not kill animals will lead to absurdity as well. (The post is about the absurdity that does come from ideologically negating the questions of veganism.)

load more comments
view more: next ›