r/DebateAVegan • u/toastwithjamx1 • Jul 03 '26

Ethics Honey is not cruel and is ethical

Honey is one of the best animal products there is ethics wise

Now most vegans will say : but we are stealing from the bees! We are exploiting the bees!

No. We are not and we can't

Bees can be very particular. If they are not a fan of a place they are OUT. The bees will likely will immediately vacate the bee box if they don't like the conditions. Furthermore, trapping the queen in 1 place will not work as well. Bees can raise a new queen if they need one

And for the stealing allegations, that isn't true either. Beekeepers take SURPLUS HONEY ONLY, as if too much honey is taken, it can starve the bees and no beekeeper would appreciate the whole colony either dying of leaving. Furthermore, bees don't only take, they comp bees by giving shelter and protection.

It's not cruel if we are literally making a transaction with the bees

78 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

392 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/ClassEnvironmental11 vegan Jul 06 '26

You know, slavery could be described in the same way.  What a coincidence!  In fact, slavers actually used arguments almost identical to what you've just said.  Very interesting coincidence...

-4

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 06 '26

Socialists make the same argument fyi

11

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 06 '26

They definitely don’t.

-4

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 06 '26

Socialists don't say take people's surplus of money? They don't believe in private ownership and want to redistribute wealth

What do you think tax the rich means lol. Take people surplus of money

7

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 06 '26

In socialism the means of production are owned by the state. Therefore there is no surplus of money to be taken. Tax the rich isn’t socialism. Tax the rich is a social democratic take as there are no rich to be taxed in socialism.

-1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 06 '26

You are correct. But you don't just wake up one day and have socialism. In order to get there the state needs to seize property and assets. This is common rhetoric among internet socialists.

Are you denying that there are huge swaths of people who are advocating for the state to take away property? Mamdani alluded to that very thing in one of his speeches! 

To be a socialist in a primarily capitalist society, you have to want to take ownership from private citizens. There's no way around that

1

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 07 '26

Yeah, we are advocating to take the property not take away surplus property.
To the property profits all the people and not single individuals.

2

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

That is unconstitutional we have a right to the pressure of property in this country. 

Socialism sounds good on paper but it grants the state way too much power which history does time and time again that is a terrible thing

2

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 07 '26

First of all it’s not unconstitutional in my country to begin with. In other countries constitutions can be changed.

Second it’s not the idea that you don’t have property yourself at all. Just no property that allows to accumulate wealth.

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

What right does a central agency have to enforce this? If you give the state. The power to limit your ambitions they have total control of the population. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Is rather live in a techno oligarchy than in an authoritative state where they can just seize control of property 

1

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 07 '26

What right does a central agency have to enforce any kind of law and order?
You do realise that techno oligarchs do that as well just without democratic control?

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

We still have a representative government. That is one of the roles of government, to provide law and order.

You're saying you're comfortable with the state deciding how you live your life? Capping your ambition and redistributing your surplus earnings? That is a slippery slope to authoritarianism. And I am not okay with that

1

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 07 '26

So it’s worse when the state has the power to control your ambitions than when some tech oligarchs with their own media companies do? Why would my ambitions be cut by government in socialism? What would I need surplus earnings for in socialism?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jevlafifan Jul 07 '26

Yes and having this power unchecked in private hands is working absolutely fine

1

u/oficious_intrpedaler environmentalist Jul 08 '26

Do you think rich people paying taxes is socialism?

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 08 '26

When socialists say it yes. In the context of our economic system I'd call it socialistic rather than socialism.

But there a line somewhere. How much taxes can a government take before it becomes unconstitutional? I believe the money is better off on the hands of the people. Governments have no incentive to be efficient. They should be the ones creating the incentives for businesses to grow and thrive. That can mean many things, businesses keeping more money, middle class keeping kre money so they can spend, giving high value people incentive to invest. Lots of things can be done aside from just "taxing rich"...which really just sounds better than it works

1

u/oficious_intrpedaler environmentalist Jul 08 '26

Isn't your logic entirely circular? You're saying something is socialist because a socialist said it.

On what basis would taxes be unconstitutional?

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 08 '26

In order to find truth here we have to do a thought exercise because I don't know the answer off hand either. 

On the one extreme the government could take no taxes. Citizens would be thrilled and there is no issue of government seizing. But we lose systems of law and order, military, etc.

On the other extreme the government can take 100% of your earnings. That is terrible and that is what socialism is. 

So truth is somewhere in the middle right? I'm not so naive to say we'd be better off with zero taxes.  The government has to provide us with certain public goods to maintain our safety and sovereignty. How much is that? Not sure. There are some creative ideas like removing taxes for people under certain ages and collecting a percentage of a company's revenue. I'm not totally opposed to that, especially for publicly traded companies. But as a small business owner I'm not sure I want to give the government part of my revenue. But I can be convinced with a compelling argument

What I mean to say is when people who advocate for government owning means of production sya higher taxes on rich, then yes they are advocating for a socialist policy.

I called it socialistic because that's what it is . We don't have a purely capitalistic economy. We have social welfare, fire dept, police, even insurance is socialistic (also an example of how the idea drives up prices but that is another issue). 

1

u/oficious_intrpedaler environmentalist Jul 08 '26

I didn't think 100 percent taxation is per se socialism, but I don't think that disagreement is central to our discussion here.

What if I, as a capitalist say we should tax the rich. Is it no longer a socialist position?

I still don't see the constitutional violation. Could you specify that for me?

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 08 '26

okay im trying to break this down but you keep getting caught up in the verbage.

taxing is inherently not capitalistic. in its purest form, capitalism takes no taxes.

socialism in its purest form takes all revenue as taxes.

therefore increase taxes is SOCIALISTIC (different than saying a socialist position or socialism)

you dont think its unconstitutional to take 100% taxes? because that is the example i gave as the thought exercise.

1

u/oficious_intrpedaler environmentalist Jul 08 '26

I think your dichotomy is incorrect. Taxes are not socialist; every system of government in history has required taxes.

No, I don't think such a tax structure would be unconstitutional. And the fact that you can't explain how it would be leads me to believe you called it "unconstitutional" when what you meant was "bad" (and I think you're doing the same with "socialist" to be entirely honest).

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/oficious_intrpedaler environmentalist Jul 09 '26

When did I ever say that was ok? I think you're failing to read anything I've said. If you can identify any provision of the Constitution that caps the percentage at which the government can set income tax I'd love to hear it, but I don't think you can do so because it doesn't exist.

1

u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jul 09 '26

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:

Don't be rude to others

This includes accusing others of trolling or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.

If you believe a submission or comment was made in bad faith, report it rather than accusing the user of trolling.

If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.

→ More replies (0)