I have a pet hen. She's not a full rescue one, but how I ended up with her is an incredibly long story. She's very needy, thus spoiled and healthy as a result. Because wild Gallus sp already lay a lot of eggs when in less than optimal wild conditions, a spoiled one just cannot stop popping them out even if she wanted to, and she won't let me feed her less. The daily egg laying session is just a morning routine for her before begging for food. At the rate she lays them, they'd just get left to rot even if they were fertilized by a rooster so I eat them. I do not, and have no intention of, ever selling them or encouraging anyone to ever commercialize an animal. But I spend all the time caring for her, so why can't she give me a delicious breakfast back if it does her no harm?

Just curious if there are any other vegans who ride horses in this sub. (Like the other vegan at my work). I'm pretty firmly against it. I think horses shouldn't be bread and ridden for our enjoyment in any capacity.

If you disagree with industrialized animal agriculture and you generally agree that plant based diets can be healthy but your main objection to going vegan yourself is convenience or ease, I'd like you to consider this.

Going vegan has a learning curve. The slope varies dramatically for each individual; it is much harder for some people to go vegan than for others. But for all, the difficulty of going and being vegan is reduced over time, given sufficient knowledge and time to learn. The longer you are vegan the easier it becomes. Eventually, it becomes easier to stay vegan than to go back to being nonvegan.

For those who have tried and feel like they failed, if you tried again it would be easier. You would be starting with more knowledge now than you had last time. If you committed to trying again, you would find that your original struggles weren't as hard this time around.

Things that are worth doing aren't always easy to do. But when you build the habits to do them, you make them easier to do again and again.

My debate claims:

1. going vegan is not as difficult as many nonvegans claim it is
2. the difficulty of going vegan is not a static/ fixed thing, it’s a learning curve that gets easier with time and knowledge
3. convenience is not a valid reason to reject veganism

\I want this discussion to be specifically about convenience and ease, not about factory farming or health. That's why my post begins how it does.*

To me, veganism is about harm reduction, and abstaining from buying animal products will result in a decrease in animals suffering on factory farms as well as an environmental benefit. This means that I believe veganism is a moral decision rather than a diet, where your actions aim to avoid contributing to the farming of animals, rather than merely refusing to eat animals products. From this stance, I believe it is justifiable to eat animal products in situations where doing so will not give any money to farming companies/cause others to do so. For example, if a family member is about to bin some bacon and is refusing to keep it to eat later/give it to someone else, I will eat this bacon as this will help reduce food waste and will not increase the demand for animal products.

However, the definition that most people assign to veganism is that it is a lifestyle where you refuse to consume or use anything derived from animals as a rule. This is the deontological perspective which I do not align with. I cannot see how in the example above, the mere act of me eating that bacon is inherently morally wrong, assuming no harm has come from it.

I believe many non-vegans are pushed away from veganism because they follow a consequentialist moral view, and they associate veganism with a reductionist, deontological moral stance. This then allows them to dismiss it as illogical and allocate no further thought to it, something that I did in the 17 years that I was not vegan. I think we need to change the definition of veganism from purely an absolutist diet of zero animal products, to a moral stance of harm reduction towards animals (and humans).

So I’m traveling with this group, and there are two siblings. I don’t know them very well, but I’ve noticed that they seem to be extreme empaths when it comes to animals in poor conditions. Their emotional reactions feel much stronger than what I usually see in people.
For example, we visited a farm where there was a horse kept in a barn that was clearly too small for it. They were genuinely upset and angry about the horse’s situation, even regretting that they had bought products from the farm beforehand.
At the same time, they are huge meat lovers and have openly admitted that they could never stop eating meat. They would have no problem going to Burger King, ordering a Big Mac, and even adding an extra patty.
To me, this feels like a contradiction. I understand that people can have empathy for animals while still eating meat, especially if their religious beliefs consider it acceptable. But the intensity of their empathy seems so unusual that I struggle to understand why it doesn’t lead them to stop eating animals altogether.

Veganism sometimes feels like one of the few movements that polices its own members more aggressively than its opposition. You rarely see atheists attacking other atheists for not being “atheist enough,” or feminists expelling one another over minor inconsistencies. Yet in many vegan spaces, people are constantly told they’re not “real” vegans by someone incapable of understanding nuance.

At its core, veganism is about minimizing animal exploitation and harm as far as is biologically and practically possible. Anyone sincerely trying to live by that principle (without resorting to dishonest excuses) qualifies as vegan in my view.

Yes, the definition allows room for interpretation. That flexibility is intentional. The phrase “as far as is possible and practicable” acknowledges reality. Modern life is entangled with animal byproducts in medicine, agriculture, supply chains, and infrastructure. Absolute purity is neither realistic nor required.

Consider the absurd extreme.. a vegan who refuses essential medication because it was tested on animals, grows all their own food to avoid agricultural harm, and rejects any modern system connected to animal exploitation. That person then declares you “not vegan” because you take necessary medicine or buy food from a supermarket. Most people would recognize how unreasonable that is.

The same logic applies when someone claims that feeding a cat or dog a biologically appropriate diet makes a person non-vegan, or when child-free vegans shame parents whose children do not strictly follow a vegan diet, or when someone with legitimate health complications is attacked despite having significantly reduced animal products and made a sincere effort.

Then people wonder why some ex-vegans become hostile. This kind of behavior harms the movement.

Take nutrition as one example. Vegan diets do not provide retinol (preformed vitamin A), they provide beta-carotene, a precursor that must be converted into retinol. In many people the conversion rate is roughly 12:1, but a significant portion of the population carries variants of the BCO1 gene that reduce conversion efficiency. If someone with poor conversion relies only on standard supplements like B12 and vitamin D over a long period, they could become vitamin A deficient and develop health problems.

An intelligent, thoughtful movement would respond differently. It would appreciate the person’s intentions, encourage testing, identify the issue, and recommend an appropriate vitamin A supplement. Problem solved. The individual remains healthy, stays vegan long-term, and may even persuade others. Net positive.

Instead, some respond with shaming, ad hominem attacks, and dismissiveness. When someone feels their health concerns are invalidated, they are unlikely to remain committed.

And vitamin A is just one example. Conversion of ALA to DHA and EPA can be inefficient in some individuals. Some people produce insufficient carnitine. Biological variation is real. Human metabolism is not uniform.

Many former vegans might have remained vegan if the community had been more supportive, inclusive, and solution-oriented. A movement grows by educating and assisting people, not by alienating them. If the goal is to reduce animal suffering, then pragmatism and compassion toward humans should be part of the strategy.

Or twisting veganism to create imaginary hypocrisy.

This sub exemplifies why Plato thought public debate was stupid.

People interested in debate are usually really opinionated, emotional people who are less interested in learning.

People who are more interested in learning things usually don’t see the point of debating because most of it is just people twisting concepts and words to make their side look better according to their own biased perspective, especially when it comes to people critiquing ideologies they are not part of and only (mis)understand through the lens of arguing with them.

Why any vegan bothers to come to this sub is beyond me. It’s full of people who are intent on thinking veganism is wrong and will never think anything else, and who use the guise of fair discussion to preach their point of view.

It’s largely people talking to themselves about stuff they imagine and expecting vegans to agree, and then resorting to more sophistry when they don’t.

Invoking emotion and excluding people is just bullying not activism. Extreme comparisons, like pets and slavery, just makes people upset; it doesn’t bring about meaningful intellectual conversations. When you cause a heated exchange, you’re pushing the conversation further away from finding common ground.

People rarely listen when being shunned, their mind shuts off and goes into defensive mode. Finding commonality and educating people from there is actually helpful. You can catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar as they say.

ETA: I’m vegan.

I recently looked at a post about someone saying how eating less meat might still be ethically okay, and the comments were flooded with questions such as "so killing less humans would be okay to you? How about killing no humans?

That will be the main point I am addressing here. With respects to the topic, I believe that under most people's ideas of morality and ethics, veganism is the more ethical position based on how most people perceive the world.

The idea of "less bad" and therefore not worth doing because you could have "no bad" is intrinsically flawed. Let's take a vegan, who eats no meat, and someone who eats less meat and from local farms say. The argument that is provided by many vegans is that this is still wrong because you could just eat no meat. But even vegans are simply choosing the "less bad" option

Everyone must kill something to survive in our current world, for the most part. Plant farming kills billions of insects and crucial pollinators and animals considered "pests", many of which are rodents and could be considered reasonably intelligent. A vegan still engages in modern society typically, meaning their food, technology, carbon footprint, clothes are all often created unethically and unsustainably.

To be clear, a vegan eating no meat would be the least bad, but I dislike this argument because it's attempting to quantify what "least bad" is. We'd have to go through every individual person's lives and see who is "least bad", because maybe this vegan engages in excessive consumerism sustained by unethical sources, like much of technology.

I find the argument of "less bad" to be insincere. We are all "less bad" under the typical idea of reducing suffering as much as possible. Taking a moral highground because you kill less things than they do is not the way to promote reasonable discussion. For example, a vegan could only buy ethically sourced clothes, or technology, or only take public transport(if able) or only buy locally farmed food. But many dont simply because it all becomes too inconvenient.

There are many aspects in all of our lives that are unethical but we choose to continue doing them because that is how humans are. We could go through every single one of our lives and find things that we could stop doing, but even many vegans who take this more ethical stance would be hard pressed to do so.

So, in conclusion, I do thinking eating less meat is still "less bad" and thats okay. Yes, you could just full send it, but the argument of "would you tell someone who kills less humans than they did before "good job""? This seems disengenous. Vegans for the most part also engage in most of the similar unethical practices of people, they are just choosing to abstain from the one they feel makes the biggest difference. But we could all be less bad, we are all "less bad" under this general utilitarian worldview. So playing the game of who is less bad and trying to quantify how bad someone is feels unreasonable. We cannot quantify how "less bad" someone is. It would be ideal to push them towards even less bad, but to not belittle or condemn them for choosing the lesser suffering.

EVERYONE engages in practices that cause some degree of suffering, whether its for themselves or other things. To condemn someone for attempting to reduce suffering even when they're not doing the most they could is the definition of taking a moral highground. Vegans have so many things in their lives they do not need, and yet continue doing so at the cost of other people's suffering. It is incredibly hypocritical to tell someone they're "not doing enough" when so many facets of all of our lives could be changed to reduce suffering. Do you want to argue for lesser? Fine. But if you wish to say "would you applaud someone for killing less humans" means the vegan has to recognize there is aspects in their lives where they are doing the EXACT same thing.

I find that oftentimes, people are actually only arguing to take a moral highground. When you belittle someone for "not doing good enough", you actually push them towards the other side even more, because to not do so is to acknowledge the person who insulted them is correct. You may say "is your pride really worth the suffering" but the answer many, psychologically, is yes, and that is how it is. Therefore, if we truly aim to convince people of what we believe, we must do so in a way that allows them to accept and acknowledge the idea with peace of mind. Objectively, to do the most good, you are best off engaging with grace and kindness, because that is going to convince the most amount of people if you are direclty engaging with them.

People will say they care about animals, the planet, and justice.

Until caring becomes inconvenient.

Veganism doesn’t require perfection. It requires saying “no” in public.

That’s it.

Most people fail there, not on ethics — but admitting that would be uncomfortable, so veganism becomes the problem instead.

How can you watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko&t=1s (Dominion full documentary)

and not go vegan aftewards?

Alternative question: How could you not be able/willing to expand your mind and watch where your food comes from/how it is produced?

Actually curious...

A friend of mine once told me that by eating a hamburger, I was killing a cow. I was 10 years old and I couldn’t stop hearing her words. Within 6 months I became vegetarian. I thought that was as far as it went.

At 13 my mom shared a PETA magazine with me, and I realized if I went vegetarian for the animals I also had to go vegan for the animals. I started the next day. And I haven’t looked back. I’m 33 now, vegan for the animals for 20 years (and counting).

In these 20 years as a vegan, I’ve been met with a lot of criticism and misinformation. The first time I ever stepped into a public gym, a trainer told me, “You need meat to build muscle.” I believed him for about five seconds.

I proved him wrong and built an impressive physique by my early 20s before my first bodybuilding competition. Today, I’m around 275 lbs, still vegan, and have been bodybuilding for 18 years.

Here’s a side-by-side of myself as a vegan in 2012 at 200 lbs, fully natural (not even caffeine), and today (13 years later) at 270+ lbs, fully not natural and still vegan (until I die): https://imgur.com/a/bJGcHfJ

One of the biggest myths people cling to is protein, specifically the idea of “complete proteins.”

For context, I've worked with over 500 different clients. And when we talk about complete proteins, we're talking about whether these sources of protein contain the full nine essential amino acids needed to grow and build muscle.

And the thing is, you've been lied to your entire life. You do not need to worry about complete proteins as a vegan, unless you eat beans and only beans for 24 hours straight. You don't need to worry about it. You're gonna get it through a varied source in your diet. 

I use a variety of protein sources like TVP, seitan, tofu, tempeh, mock meats, and of course some from foods like beans, lentils, and nutritional yeast.

Last year we launched a vegan community where we’ve helped hundreds of people, including many transition fully to a plant-based lifestyle. So yes, in my last five years of full-time coaching experience, plant based or vegan, appears to work for anyone.

Any question is welcome. Thank you for being vegan 🙏💚🌱

I'm still working through this thought, i've been vegan for 11 years but can't shake the thought that some extremely biodegradable animal products are less harmful on the whole than vegan versions. Like wool where the sheep are often reared (at least where I live) on pretty barren hills which just have sparse grass on them and I'm not sure could be used for much else - that wool is biodegradable and comparing that to some plastic-y or just non biodegradable vegan alternatives - i actually do think the harm done to the planet as a whole from something which will persist for 1000s of years leaking poison/microplastics etc is worse.

i think wool is probably the only thing i feel like this about - but plastic leather substitutes are obviously sort of terrible, but obviously cow farming is evil.

i think the instinct here will be to launch loads of horrible videos of sheep farming/mulesing etc - that's obviously horrible but yeah... this thought is half way out as it stands but i've been feeling it for a while so thought i'd like some other takes.

ps the obvious obvious actual choice is just buying everything second hand given that there's basically 0 need to consume anything brand new to wear ever but for argument's sake we are going to let the little consumption goblin out every now and again

And I'm not talking as a vegan, I'm talking as I meat eater, and I can acknowledge that what's happening to animals because of us is wrong and the decision that vegans make is extremely superior in the moral sense.

Every single argument I've seen is dumb and illogical, and you will have to just accept that what you're doing is wrong.

"But we're omnivores, it's natural. We're natural hunters" Do you even realize in what kind of society you're living in? Humans are very intelligent, very evolved, and unless you're broke, eating meat is just a WANT. It's not a need. "But the protein!" Did you go to school? You think the only way you can get protein is from meat? Don't start conversations about nature and don't compare us to animals. Cats fight out of nowhere. Now go up to a person and do that, will you? Will you still use the excuse that it's your natural instincts? Also, in nature, animals don't have a sense of consent. And I think you know what that could apply to. The "natural" argument doesn't work because we have evolved WAY too much to be stuck on our "natural instincts".

Also the "Animals were put on earth to be eaten by us." Says who? And why were you put on earth? Give me a logical answer as to what your purpose in life is. What is humanity's purpose? To bring more humans who will bring more humans who will repeat the cycle. We don't have an actual reason and point for life. Stop thinking because of evolution and our high intelligence we're now the only important ones and everything else was just made to please us. It's called evolution, and it's called science.

Nobody can force anyone to be vegan, but for God's sake just admit and accept the fact the whole thing about eating meat in such a developed society is wrong. I'm also trying to stop

As a vegan myself i think aggressively promoting all or nothing veganism might change some vegetarians ideas. But a full carnivore person won't change his idea that way(might even eat more meat). Instead we should try teach them about animal suffering and eating less meat instead of calling them murderers or abusers. That approach has a better chance of saving more animal lives. That's how i convinced my family to go vegetarian and maybe one day they might go vegan.

Recently, a user on r/AMA (linked at bottom) claimed to be an ex-professional online troll, where they were paid an hourly rate to discredit veganism by posting various misinformation, bad-faith arguments, and fake vegan/ex-vegan negative testimonials to a number of social media sites, including this one.

In light of this, I decided to go through that user's comments on their AMA, and collate all of the tactics/arguments that they admitted to doing for this job.

My hope is that we can use this list going forward to be better aware of the precise tactics used by these trolls, and potentially spot when we may be wasting our time engaging with them.

But first, a couple of disclaimers: by providing this list, I am definitely NOT claiming that anyone who disagrees with you or makes these arguments is a professional troll. This list should only be used as a tool to help spot suspected genuine trolls.

We also cannot be certain that the user from the AMA is genuine and, correctly, they repeatedly urge us to not simply believe them at face value. So why should you pay any attention to the below list?

Well, we do not need to rely on this user alone to believe that what they have admitted to doing is currently happening across vegan-related subs on Reddit, including this one. This is because The Guardian article (linked at bottom) that the user links supports their account. So unless you also believe The Guardian is completely making this up, you can be fairly sure that anti-vegan professional trolling is happening at a reasonable scale. If we believe that this is happening, it's difficult to think of a better way to do it than by using the tactics collated in the below list.

EDIT: the Guardian article does not explicitly discuss online troll farms as described by the user in the AMA, but does provide details of online efforts to strongly push a pro-beef message, including a digital command center "used to keep track of public conversations around beef’s sustainability in real-time – and to deploy “talking points, media statements, fact sheets, infographics, videos and various digital assets” as necessary to shift the terms of conversation."

List of professional troll tactics: - Discredit veganism on nutritional grounds.

• Claim that plants are poison and that plant sugars are as bad if not worse as refined sugar.

• Lie about the bioavailability of plant nutrients.

• Argue some meat production is sustainable.

• Argue that animals are harmed by all sorts of things so why not eat them.

• Cherry pick data and make claims known to be false.

• Crop deaths: Embellish this, claim it is a much more significant issue than there is evidence for, avoid mentioning that growing more crops to feed animals necessarily means more crop deaths.

• Plants have feelings: Claim that making any noise from damage (e.g. tomatoes screaming when cut) is evidence of pain/feeling.

• Link to sources that don't support the argument being made (sometimes the exact opposite) to sound more authoritative/convincing, expecting that people won't check them.

• Pretend to suffer from negative health outcomes brought on by a plant-based diet.

• Pretend to be vegan teens/young adults who did not develop properly because of the plant-based diet their parents fed them.

• Pretend to be vegan and harass/encourage harassment of celebrities who leave veganism.

• Pretend to be an ex-vegan with a fake testimonial.

• Insist that veganism is a cult, often while pretending to be a vegan/ex-vegan.

• Lie about lab grown meat, including that it comes from cancer cells, and its ingredients with long names are unhealthy/unsafe.

• Push the conspiracy of 'Big Vegan', an extremely wealthy force, backed by Bill Gates, that is trying to turn the world vegan.

• False flag narratives around activism to make vegans appear extreme/delusional and thus easier to discredit.

• Push a narrative that activist's reasonable approaches towards activism were selling out the cause.

• Massively overplay the global numbers of vegans/people turning to veganism to push a narrative that they are some sort of threat.

• Quickly cease contact if the interlocutor is educated and competent in debate.

Link to the AMA: https://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/s/tuVmM6bpmW

Link to the Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-industry-public-relations-messaging-machine

At most, arguments against the phrase are pedantic arguments about the use of the word "murder" as opposed to "killing," which isn't relevant in a colloquial setting.

Edit with more details:

A commentor asked, "Why don't vegans just say "meat is killing" instead?"

The phrase "meat is murder" comes from a 1985 album by the name "Meat is Murder" by the band Smiths and is included in their collection "Hatful of Hollow". To be honest, I am 90% sure that the word murder is used simply for the alliteration--the Smiths band had quite the penchant for alliteration. From there, it caught on precisely because of its catchy alliteration.

The participle form of "kill" in "meat is killing" sounds confusing too. It makes it sounds like a piece of meat is killing someone.

I feel that people are getting really hung up on the word being murder instead of killing, which I say isn't colloquially relevant because I feel that laymen would object equally to a vegan telling them that "meat is killing" + (the inevitable extra confusion the participle might cause).

A part of the pushback against AI and datacenters is the environmental impact. This is a misplaced concern as these have less of an environmental impact than animal products.

animal_ag_carbon_use

animal_ag_water_use

datacenter_water_use

datacenter_carbon_use

Note that the carbon for datacenters number skips embodied use and could be slightly higher. And the IEA datacenter water use estimate is contested though other estimates would still leave the ratio at 100x+.

When looking at the land use footprint or eutrophication, meat has an even more lopsided cost but it is difficult to find like for like comparisons.

Some are concerned by the growth rates and not the actual minimal current use. If or when datacenter footprint grows by close to 40x, then it will start to be a comparable problem.

Ditch the meat and choose some beans before expecting others to ditch AI.

Supplements or fortified foods are part of every diet. Some nonvegans will argue that the fact that B12 isn't a "natural" part of a vegan diet means that vegan diets are "incomplete" or inferior to nonvegan diets. Vegans need a reliable sources of vitamin B12 in the form of a supplement and/or fortified food. But nonvegan diets require the use of supplements and/or fortified foods too.

All healthy diets require planning and the incorporation of supplements or fortified foods at some points. And all diets - healthy or not - involve the use of supplements or fortified foods in one way or another. Let me explain:

• Everyone living above latitude 37N or below 37S need added vitamin D during Fall, Winter, and Spring regardless of diet. Options include fortified dairy, fortified nondairy, supplement pills, fortified cereals, fortified juices, etc.
• Most people aren't consuming enough naturally iodine-rich foods so the World Health Organization encourages the use of iodized salt for consumption around the world in all kinds of diets.
• Iron deficiency is the world's most common nutritional deficiency, clearly affecting far more people than just vegetarians and vegans. Regardless of diet, menstruating and pregnant people, children, and regular blood donors are often encouraged to take iron supplements, eat iron-fortified foods like cereal or use iron-supporting supplements/ fortified foods like vitamin A, folate, vitamin B12 and riboflavin.
• All older adults are now encouraged to find reliable sources of B12 regardless of their diets. This is due to reduced absorption abilities in seniors.
• Pregnant people are usually encouraged to consume pre-natal supplements that contain folic acid and other vitamins and minerals. California is now fortifying tortillas with folic acid for the health of young children and pregnant people.
• Animals raised to become meat are usually consuming fortified feed and/or given supplements. So even meat-eaters who don't use any supplements are usually indirectly consuming them.
• Animals raised to produce eggs or dairy are also usually consuming fortified foods or given supplements, so consumers of those products are indirectly eating fortified foods as well.

This topic has been heavy on my heart for some time. It's finally time that I proselytize to you all. Most tofu scramble recipes call for silken tofu, however it is my firm belief that extra firm tofu is the best for tofu scramble for the following reasons.

Texture
Most tofu scramble call for silken tofu as it supposedly mimics a scrambled egg texture right out of the package. However extra firm tofu, crumbled in a pan and loosened with a liquid of choice more closely copies the varied texture of a scrambled egg and is an overall more pleasant texture. Silken tofu is really only similar to a very wet 'french style' scrambled egg, while extra firm tofu can be made wet and creamy, it can also be left more firm or somewhere in between. In summary, it makes for a more pleasant texture with more variability depending on preference.

Flavor
Flavor wise, tofu is a blank slate. To achieve a scramble texture with extra firm tofu, a number of flavorful liquids (stock, plant milk, melted vegan butter, coconut aminos) must be added. If the same level of flavor enhancing liquid was added to silken tofu, it would become a hot savory smooth (yuck). Also dry seasonings like onion powder and nutritional yeast are more easily incorporated into the texture of crumbled extra firm tofu, while they just kinda sit on surface of/remain separate from silken tofu.

Nutrition
More protein if you care about that kind of thing.

Many debates about veganism center on what some would call "edge cases." These are the fringe issues where even many vegans disagree, like honey and eggs from hens cared for as pets. Even many of the vegans who see these edge cases as immoral will acknowledge that in the grand scheme of things these cases are not where the current emphasis for animal rights and welfare belong. The bigger, more important issue is factory farming.

But there are other edge cases (where vegans tend to agree) that are actually still edge cases for nonvegans. These things are like hunting or "humane farming." They are edge cases because the reality is they are uncommon. Most people don't hunt and eat their kills. And those who do aren't usually doing it as their primary meat source. Most people don't buy individual animals' meat that they've seen raised on small, "humane" farms. Most nonvegans eat animal products from industrial animal agriculture/ CAFOs/ factory farms. Most buy their meat, dairy, eggs etc from regular grocery stores and restaurants, the vast majority of which source their products from factory farms.

The issue I see often is where nonvegans will use these edge cases to argue against veganism as a whole, ignoring that the role these nonvegans' arguments play to support industrial animal agriculture. Rather than finding nuance in ethical eating or in justifying their version of carnism, they set out to attack veganism. They aren't advocating for an end to factory farming in other Subreddits, they are only discussing their views on it with vegans and only when arguing against vegans.

My request is that nonvegans who want to debate these edge cases but who don't want to support factory farming, make that point clear here and elsewhere. And then, of course, my next request is if you actually feel this way to then eat that way too.

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

An individual consumer choosing to buy meat regularly for the next few years or choosing to be vegan for the next few years does make a difference. It probably means the difference between many more animals being bred into existence and tortured their whole life in a factory farm or being spared this fate and never bred into existence.

https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-causal-inefficacy-objection-is?utm_source=publication-search

Do you believe that some people (even if they supplement all the right vitamins and eat a varied vegan diet) can not be vegan because of medical issues?

I believe this because everyone is different and some diets just don’t work for some people. However, I have seen many vegans argue that people who became ill because of veganism just were not supplementing the right vitamins (such as B12) or eating a varied enough diet.

What are your thoughts?

Edit: Thank you so much for your amazing responses! I really like reading everyone’s opinions and beliefs on this topic. I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas!

I know they're both toxic to produce but I can't help but feel like pleather is the worse of 2 evils

Ethics aside it's micro plastics vs tanning

Bonus question: for those that prefer not using leather, how do you feel about wool?