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
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
166 points (99.4% liked)
PhilosophyMemes
308 readers
155 users here now
Memes must be related to phil.
The Memiverse:
!90s_memes@quokk.au
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
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.
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)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
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)
load more comments
(8 replies)
- 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
it's cheaper because they receive a bunch of subsidies
regardless of the reason, that is the present condition
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
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.
Some of these factory farms are pretty torturous for the animals, like the scale of our meat production is way too high to be clean or humane, ESPECIALLY chicken.
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
Measurement of carbon emissions is a huge one but local meat is still usually better in that aspect, and it's also the people doing the local farming have closer to living wages usually.
Measurement of carbon emissions
can you point to some studies that support their conclusion?
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
load more comments
(12 replies)
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?
Biological meat eaters don't get heart disease and diabetes from eating meat, for example.
Humans do not get diabetes (type 2 the most common) from eating meat, it's a direct result of pernicious carbohydrate consumption
The same for heart disease
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I eat meat everyday but I can logically see the vegans are correct.
It's about like everything else living in our society. There's already too much to be concerned about without becoming exhausted by it, survival, economic, social, spiritual, moral, etc. Being truly vegan takes a particular special effort and our society is not set up to support it and make it easy and accessible without extra effort on your part. So then it becomes a question of priorities like everything else. Hard line vegans prioritize it higher than most, moral vegetarians a bit lower, and everyone else lower still, if at all. In a perfect world where the majority of our base level needs were met, I think veganism would be a much higher priority for people, but it's just one of many things to be concerned about in this world, and so naturally it will not be on top of everyone's list.
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.
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
(1 replies)
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.
Pineaple goes on pizza (Ominously in the background)
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.
The animal rights logic is usually the following: Animals have the capacity to suffer and a will to live, therefore they deserve a right to not be harmed or killed needlessly.
No sane person would argue that they should have the right to vote or anything like that, just the basic ones. I feel like there's a lot of confusion about this.
E.g. kicking a dog on a whim violates their right to not be harmed and should be illegal in an ideal world.
It seems like you share the ethical concern. Why wouldn't you be in favor of granting them these two basic rights then?
Maybe your problem is with extending this logic to something like killing a pig for taste pleasure compared to kicking a dog? I'd argue that if you're against the latter, there's no ethical reason to defend or even support the former. Something being culturally ingrained or pleasurable doesn't automatically justify it after all.
My issue with that approach is that all rights that we concede to animals are related to humans. We would not police interactions between animals (unless provoked by a human). So it feel strange to give an animal the right to live just if its live would be taken by a human, but that right becoming meaningless if the life-taker is another animal. At the end we are only caring about human-animal iterations so why not simplify making it an human duty instead of an animal right?
I'm also fond of duties. From two perspectives. We could talk about giving animal rights, but we could not talk about giving animal duties. So they would be recipient of rights without duties. And I also like to remind people that humans not only have rights, that we also have duties which are equally important.
The base of the underlying logic is also not against veganism. As soon as you consider killing an animal for it's meat something cruel it becomes inmoral. The the debate gets simplified in talking about what constitutes cruelty and, if killing for eating is cruel or not. Which to me seems much more on point that talking about animal rights which could get complicated and have the deep meaning lost in words and concepts.
At the end the animal having or not having rights is meaningless as most people debating this care only about what the human is doing to the animal. For instance, in a word without humans, would the animals still have those human invented rights?
can you explain what you mean by will to live?
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.
meat isn't necessary for the vast majority of people.
you don't know what others need
K
I'm not really swayed by the cruelty argument personally. I am much more open to the environmental damage arguments, but it's specifically the way vegans prefer to paint the issue in terms of a moral imperative which keeps me at arms length.
There are legitimately places in the world where the only realistic way to extract nutrients from the land is to graze goats and eat them. That reduces the morality argument to agricultural privilege imo.
97% of animals in the US are factory farmed. If you live in the US, it really is as simple as I stated. If you are one of the vanishingly few people that actually do live in places where the only option is pastoralism, then that's fine. But the vast majority of people do not. Judging Americans by the standards of a Sub-Saharan shepard is just as ridiculous as the other way around.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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 ..?
What if morality is subjective?
Morality is subjective.
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)
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.)
view more: next ›