I agree with vegans on 90% of things but the vegan position is ultimately arbitrary on what's allowed and disallowed.
Vegans, generally speaking, do not eat any animals. Oysters are not vegan despite the fact that they do not have a brain and their nervous system is extremely simple, they are more or less meat plants. They do not suffer nor have anything in which suffering could be inflicted. If such a simple creature is worthy of life, then most plants we eat are also worthy of life. If not, then veganism is not a moral imperative.
As demonstrated, the line that vegans draw around the animal kingdom is mostly arbitrary. Eating cows and other mammals is absolutely a bad thing. Poultry is a gray area. Most seafood is probably safe to eat. The fact that I'm called a blood-mouth for eating oysters makes me skeptical of whether some vegans are arguing in good faith. If someone's righteous indignation on what shouldn't be eaten ends at animals arbitrarily, then I think their views are based more on a social clique than science.
I do think they are better than the average person though even if their views are inconsistent.
How exactly is poultry a grey area? Have you met birds before? I hear what you're saying about oysters (even though I disagree), but making the same case for fish/octopus let alone birds is pretty fucking mind blowing.
(Not being overly contentious here. Please don't read it that way)
Many plant species, as the above poster alluded to, are at least as "sentient" as an oyster or other "lower order" animals. They respond to stimuli, etc.
There's also fungi. Again I could make a very compelling argument that many fungi are at least parallel with animals such as oysters on the scale of sentience.
Dietary reasons are one thing, I just mean on the side of "I don't want to eat an animal" how many people would say that but never object to eating mushrooms?
Is there a diet that clearly defines acceptable animals to eat based on perceived sentience? This would probably be my strongest argument against strict veganism. It's possible to be a non-vegan who eats animals like oysters, maybe snails, maybe even insects. Kinda spirals into "here's a small book I wrote on what animals I've personally deemed ok to eat" but I think the overall point is clear hopefully.
The reason I don't eat oysters as a vegan is because carnists are always looking for wedge issues and loopholes for why their favourite treat animal is actually fine to eat. When I'm out with friends and someone asks "you don't even eat oysters?" I say "no." specifically so that they don't get to say "oh well carpoftruth the vegan eats oysters but they're a super vegan so it's probably still fine for me to eat fish and look down on the steak eaters." Fuck that, I'm not giving them that satisfaction. They can carry their own water.
How exactly is poultry a grey area? Have you met birds before?
I have, they are capable of feeling pain and possess reasonable intelligence. I just don't consider them sapient in a way that matters. If you cut off a chicken's head, it will still act like a chicken. This implies that most of what a chicken feels mentally is instinctual. If you cut off my head and I came into work the next day acting normal, it would raise serious questions about the nature of human consciousness. Poultry shouldn't suffer unnecessarily, but I doubt it has much sapience. Thus a gray area depending on how you judge their intelligence and your own morals.
I hear what you're saying about oysters (even though I disagree)
Vegans always say that but not a single person has ever responded to that point in my 6 years of making it. If you disagree, do what the vegans I've talked with failed to do and address it please.
making the same case for fish/octopus
You shouldn't eat octopus. Everything I said about poultry applies 3 fold to fish. Less capacity to feel pain and less sapience. I don't consider a creature that acts entirely on instinct to have any right to life.
I don't think you know what veganism is. Poultry is not a grey area at all. None of the things you listed are inconsistencies. "Dont eat animals, don't support the harm of animals." It's fairly simple as a line.
Most agriculture exists to make animal feed, so not eating animals would still reduce harm if you insist on the "but what about the plants oyster vuvuzella" thing.
This is like when libs argue against their totally made up versions of what communism is. Would you argue that eating someone in a vegatitive state should be vegan? That's absurd.
None of the things you listed are inconsistencies. "Dont eat animals, don't support the harm of animals."
Yes it is, why is your line animals? Why are oysters so obviously worthy of life but not complex plants and fungus? Vegans claim that just because an creatures nervous system is arranged different, it doesn't mean that it's not worthy of life. Why does this not extend to complex plants and fungi?
Because there aren't yet alternatives to consumption of plants. We know for a fact that animals suffer, feel pain, feel emotions, and have thoughts. We can reduce that harm easily.
And once again, most farmed plants go into animal feed. Your arguement still supports veganism.
Your arguement also implies that cannibalism is fine, because plants also suffer. Slavery? Also okay under this reasoning. Literally everything can be justified by this logic.
At what point does this line of reasoning end? Because there's no current way to achieve perfection, we should just stop trying. Leftism is over I guess? Nothing can ever be less bad, because fungus might be unhappy with us. Shut the site down, I'm off to go eat a Palestinian child because my fucking lettuce isn't 100% ethical.
Eating cows and other mammals is absolutely a bad thing. Poultry is a gray area. Most seafood is probably safe to eat.
Are you saying this is what vegans believe or it's what you believe? I think eating all of those are bad things, period, and I'm a vegan. The statement you put before "the line that vegans draw around the animal kingdom is mostly arbitrary" makes it rather ambiguous though.
Not three same person, but the demarcation between what should be OK to eat, and what - not - they baked most sense to me, is the capacity to experience pain or emotions.
So I see no substantial moral difference between eating plants or invertebrates, for example - neither can feel harm.
That said, fish and chicken can experience pain or emotions the same as cows and pigs.
OK. They have a brain to feel them with. If you're objecting to imprecise terminology here, I'll give you the point, but I don't think that affects my basic point any (I'm not a biologist, I meant insects and the like - though don't take that as definitive either; maybe someone knows an insect with a brain, too).
Insects also have brains. Some arachnids have the capacity for fairly complex cognition (e.g., the portia spider's hunting behaviors, jumping spiders communicate with eachother and in my opinion, engage in playful behavior).
The issue isn't with your terminology, but rather with what it reveals about the imprecision/inconsistency of your reasoning on these matters.
If you're going to draw a line at eating beings that can feel the harm done to them by eating, it might serve you to explore that boundary more thoroughly.
I agree with vegans on 90% of things but the vegan position is ultimately arbitrary on what's allowed and disallowed.
Vegans, generally speaking, do not eat any animals. Oysters are not vegan despite the fact that they do not have a brain and their nervous system is extremely simple, they are more or less meat plants. They do not suffer nor have anything in which suffering could be inflicted. If such a simple creature is worthy of life, then most plants we eat are also worthy of life. If not, then veganism is not a moral imperative.
As demonstrated, the line that vegans draw around the animal kingdom is mostly arbitrary. Eating cows and other mammals is absolutely a bad thing. Poultry is a gray area. Most seafood is probably safe to eat. The fact that I'm called a blood-mouth for eating oysters makes me skeptical of whether some vegans are arguing in good faith. If someone's righteous indignation on what shouldn't be eaten ends at animals arbitrarily, then I think their views are based more on a social clique than science.
I do think they are better than the average person though even if their views are inconsistent.
How exactly is poultry a grey area? Have you met birds before? I hear what you're saying about oysters (even though I disagree), but making the same case for fish/octopus let alone birds is pretty fucking mind blowing.
(Not being overly contentious here. Please don't read it that way)
Many plant species, as the above poster alluded to, are at least as "sentient" as an oyster or other "lower order" animals. They respond to stimuli, etc.
There's also fungi. Again I could make a very compelling argument that many fungi are at least parallel with animals such as oysters on the scale of sentience.
Dietary reasons are one thing, I just mean on the side of "I don't want to eat an animal" how many people would say that but never object to eating mushrooms?
Is there a diet that clearly defines acceptable animals to eat based on perceived sentience? This would probably be my strongest argument against strict veganism. It's possible to be a non-vegan who eats animals like oysters, maybe snails, maybe even insects. Kinda spirals into "here's a small book I wrote on what animals I've personally deemed ok to eat" but I think the overall point is clear hopefully.
The reason I don't eat oysters as a vegan is because carnists are always looking for wedge issues and loopholes for why their favourite treat animal is actually fine to eat. When I'm out with friends and someone asks "you don't even eat oysters?" I say "no." specifically so that they don't get to say "oh well carpoftruth the vegan eats oysters but they're a super vegan so it's probably still fine for me to eat fish and look down on the steak eaters." Fuck that, I'm not giving them that satisfaction. They can carry their own water.
I have, they are capable of feeling pain and possess reasonable intelligence. I just don't consider them sapient in a way that matters. If you cut off a chicken's head, it will still act like a chicken. This implies that most of what a chicken feels mentally is instinctual. If you cut off my head and I came into work the next day acting normal, it would raise serious questions about the nature of human consciousness. Poultry shouldn't suffer unnecessarily, but I doubt it has much sapience. Thus a gray area depending on how you judge their intelligence and your own morals.
Vegans always say that but not a single person has ever responded to that point in my 6 years of making it. If you disagree, do what the vegans I've talked with failed to do and address it please.
You shouldn't eat octopus. Everything I said about poultry applies 3 fold to fish. Less capacity to feel pain and less sapience. I don't consider a creature that acts entirely on instinct to have any right to life.
This is literally the stupidest thing I've ever read on hexbear.
I don't think you know what veganism is. Poultry is not a grey area at all. None of the things you listed are inconsistencies. "Dont eat animals, don't support the harm of animals." It's fairly simple as a line.
Most agriculture exists to make animal feed, so not eating animals would still reduce harm if you insist on the "but what about the plants oyster vuvuzella" thing.
This is like when libs argue against their totally made up versions of what communism is. Would you argue that eating someone in a vegatitive state should be vegan? That's absurd.
Yes it is, why is your line animals? Why are oysters so obviously worthy of life but not complex plants and fungus? Vegans claim that just because an creatures nervous system is arranged different, it doesn't mean that it's not worthy of life. Why does this not extend to complex plants and fungi?
Because there aren't yet alternatives to consumption of plants. We know for a fact that animals suffer, feel pain, feel emotions, and have thoughts. We can reduce that harm easily.
And once again, most farmed plants go into animal feed. Your arguement still supports veganism.
Your arguement also implies that cannibalism is fine, because plants also suffer. Slavery? Also okay under this reasoning. Literally everything can be justified by this logic.
At what point does this line of reasoning end? Because there's no current way to achieve perfection, we should just stop trying. Leftism is over I guess? Nothing can ever be less bad, because fungus might be unhappy with us. Shut the site down, I'm off to go eat a Palestinian child because my fucking lettuce isn't 100% ethical.
I'm rather confused.
This statement:
Are you saying this is what vegans believe or it's what you believe? I think eating all of those are bad things, period, and I'm a vegan. The statement you put before "the line that vegans draw around the animal kingdom is mostly arbitrary" makes it rather ambiguous though.
Not three same person, but the demarcation between what should be OK to eat, and what - not - they baked most sense to me, is the capacity to experience pain or emotions.
So I see no substantial moral difference between eating plants or invertebrates, for example - neither can feel harm.
That said, fish and chicken can experience pain or emotions the same as cows and pigs.
octopodes have capacity to feel pain and likely experience emotion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6K1kVUct24
OK. They have a brain to feel them with. If you're objecting to imprecise terminology here, I'll give you the point, but I don't think that affects my basic point any (I'm not a biologist, I meant insects and the like - though don't take that as definitive either; maybe someone knows an insect with a brain, too).
Insects also have brains. Some arachnids have the capacity for fairly complex cognition (e.g., the portia spider's hunting behaviors, jumping spiders communicate with eachother and in my opinion, engage in playful behavior).
The issue isn't with your terminology, but rather with what it reveals about the imprecision/inconsistency of your reasoning on these matters.
If you're going to draw a line at eating beings that can feel the harm done to them by eating, it might serve you to explore that boundary more thoroughly.
That phrase describes the lines I draw in my personal consumption of animals. I said previously that vegans don't eat animals.
Then that means that your lines are abitrary; not vegans' lines.