Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
I think the issue for me is less about not harming animals but more about the massive infrastructure of resource extraction, exploited labor force, and resource-intensive production that directly contributes to pollution and the undermining of low-income populations to subsidize vegan plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy. Vegans that support this industry arguably cause just as much harm to animals (including human workers and beasts of burden) as your average Texas Roadhouse customer.
Extremely ignorant take. Oxford Scientists Confirm Vegan Diet Is Massively Better For Planet
You don’t even need sources for this, use common sense. What’s going to cause more harm and resource consumption - growing five times more grain to feed animals and then eat those animals, or simply eating the grains directly? Animal agriculture is responsible for mass deforestation, a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and species extinction. But no, it’s the vegans “arguably causing just as much harm.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if people bothered looking up things before they talk about them?
It’s not about being better than someone. Avoiding both animal and human harm can (and often do!) go hand in hand.
Many vegans I know try to reduce their harmful effects on the planet altogether.
Not many omnivores I know even try to help at all. Some do, but the ratio is completely different for this segment in my experience.
I mean throwing up a study about how vegans in the UK produce less greenhouse gas emissions than high-meat eaters only proves that veganism is better at producing less pollution. I never argued that it’s not.
But the study you referenced doesn’t account for worker exploitation, inequity in food distribution, or trade asymmetries. I think plant-based diets are fine, but many vegan products occupy industries that still perpetuate monocropping and resource-intensive production lines that produce massive profits for executives while leaving farmers with the short end of the stick.
I don’t have a bone to pick with vegans, I just think being vegan is a stop along the way to a healthy planet, not the destination. I’m striving to be as nuanced as I can when I offer my critique, which is essentially we need to start discussing why slaughtering animals is morally bad but exploiting workers and agriculture in third world countries isn’t. Having a healthy planet and lifting people out of poverty shouldn’t be mutually exclusive goals.
You talk about nuance, but then just ignore a major point I made? Any kind of exploitation only increases many times over for non-vegan products because of how inefficient they are. Animals don’t just pop into existence. Not only that, slaughterhouse workers have it way, way worse. You can look about their trauma and miserable lives, many articles will come up upon a single search.
Moreover, your critique isn’t even relevant to veganism, which just makes it disingenuous. It’s an agricultural issue and vegans aren’t responsible for the way it is with their tiny population. On the other hand, meat and other animal products are inherently morally bankrupt.
I urge you to double-check your supposedly nuanced critique because this has been discussed many times over and it doesn’t look like you’ve looked it up.
So veganism isn’t related to or affected by agriculture? The plight of farmworkers worldwide is invalid because it’s not as traumatic as slaughterhouse workers? You keep trying to frame my argument as anti-veganism, but it’s really not. At this point I can only consider that I’ve triggered you in some ridiculous way that has nothing to do with anything we’re talking about
I’m only responding to your critique. You’re strawmanning me, I never said their plight invalid - I explained why it’s worse for animal products. I’m not trying to “frame” your argument as you claim, I responded to as it is objectively. Bring your counterpoints, not personal accusations.
this study is just warmed-over poore-nemecek 2018, and suffers from the same flawed methodology to make its hyperbolic claims
You commented without any methodology at all, how do you expect to be taken seriously? It’s not just “this” study either, every credible study on the matter shows quite clearly how disastrous animal agriculture is on the environment. Are you going to claim they all suffer from the same flawed methodology? Do you also believe that climate change is a hoax?
Bring your counterpoints, not personal accusations.
You contradicted without any evidence or reasoning. I reminded you that it’s a pretty well-known fact, not something one study unexpectedly revealed, and asked how you would go about discrediting all the science. No personal accusation.
I showed my reasoning, and the evidence is in the citations of the study we are discussing, and their citations
i’m certainly willing to read any study you can present. this study relies almost entirely on poore-nemecek 2018, which combined LCA data gathered with disparate methodologies, and did so against the guidance of the LCA studies themselves. it’s garbage. it’s not science. writing a study that relies so heavily on that study is also garbage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry#Environmental_impact Plenty of sources are referenced in this section. Also, I wouldn’t trust some short comments without any explanations over studies published in Nature.
this is a gish gallop. which study are you citing? the 22 year old study (reference number 78)? which of the dozens of references did you actually read?
you can read the citations on that study and see that LCA studies cannot be combined