1. Animals eat other animals
We should not base our ethics as a society on what animals do in nature. Lions eat their offsprings if they
don’t have enough food, engage in violent territorial disputes and forcibly impregnate females.
Dogs smell each others’ backside when they first meet. Many animals even kill
members of their own species. If we say that animal behaviour is a basis for human morality, we
could advocate murder, infanticide,
rape and several other unethical and/or disgusting behaviour that are commonplace in nature.
Another crucial point is that animals in the wild kill to survive. We don’t need to eat other animals to
survive, and doing so causes suffering, so if we can avoid it, we should. Animals are clearly not good
ethical role models.
2. Top of the food chain / Circle of life
Scientists have proven that we are in fact not at the top of the food chain. This study by the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States concluded that “humans are similar to anchovy or pigs and cannot be considered apex
predators”.
This means that everyone who uses the “circle of life” or “we’re at the top of the food chain” argument
should be fine with being violently eaten by other animals higher in the food chain like lions or bears. In
fact, they should be fine with
having the same treatment as pigs since we are at their same level in the “food chain”.
But we are superior to pigs!?
3. Eating animals is necessary
It’s not. There are millions of vegans from all paths of life that are perfectly healthy. In fact,
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
, the United States’
largest organisation of food and nutrition professionals
, states the following:
“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian,
including vegan, diets are healthful,
nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain
diseases. These diets are appropriate for
all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older
adulthood and for athletes. Plant-based
diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer
natural resources and are associated
with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health
conditions, including ischemic heart disease,
type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.”
The
largest study ever done
on vegan nutrient profiles states the following:
“In strict vegetarians, low dietary intakes of vitamin B12 and D, calcium, and omega-3 fatty acids, in
addition to iron and zinc,
have often been of concern
25
. In the present study, mean intakes of these nutrients were above minimum requirements
26
in strict vegetarians.”
4. Eating animals is natural
It doesn’t matter if it’s natural, because this doesn’t imply eating meat is ethical or good. This is known
as an “
appeal to nature
fallacy”. We don’t do things solely because they’re natural.
We use planes, cars, buildings, clothing, cutlery, cups, glasses, and an array of things that are not
natural. There are other natural things we avoid, such as killing members of our own species
and forcibly impregnating females, because nature is a violent place. Some diseases and health problems are
natural, but we do whatever we can to get cured.
Our civilisation is largely focused on reducing suffering rather than in staying aligned with nature. In
many cases, we strive to avoid the dangers of nature. We should do what’s ethical, not
what’s natural. Killing animals when we don’t need to is unethical, period.
5. Humans are omnivores
This is still debated in the scientific community. There’s a substantial amount of evidence pointing towards
us being herbivores, or at least scavengers (like rats, who eat meat after the animal’s
been killed by other predators). This
article by William C. Roberts, MD argues that humans must be plant eaters because only herbivores
develop atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries).
Technically though, we’re omnivores by definition just because we can digest meat. But this is irrelevant
because we can be completely healthy as vegans, and eating meat causes harm to animals.
Having the ability to do something doesn’t mean it’s right to do so. Human beings can carry out many
atrocities, and some do, but those that do face punishment because their actions are wrong.
Having canine teeth or the ability to digest meat doesn’t justify eating animals in the same way having a
fist doesn’t justify beating someone up.
6. Most people eat meat
This is an “appeal to popularity” fallacy which holds no true logical value. Most people in the past thought
slavery was acceptable and that women shouldn’t vote. Most people usually agree with
a certain oppression and it is a small group of people that fight to change the status quo.
7. Our ancestors ate meat
Our ancestors did many things that we’d find disturbing, including
killing each other, and don’t do many things we do today that improve our lives. Basing our ethics
on cavemen is not going to
take us very far. Our knowledge has improved, and our ethical behaviour should improve accordingly.
8. Eating meat helped us evolve
It doesn’t matter if it did, because we live in a very different world and different things today will make
us evolve other than eating meat. Also, that something helped us evolve doesn’t mean
that such behaviour is ethical or acceptable today. Early homo sapiens used rape as a strategy for
gene-promotion when they could not get access to consensual sex. This helped the human species
evolve to where we are today, we cannot then say that sexual violence is in any way acceptable.
In addition, most scientists agree that it wasn’t meat, but
cooking foods, that made our brains evolve. This would explain why we’re the smartest animals and
the only animals that cook, while
other more carnivorous animals like cats are less intelligent than us. The hypothesis is that cooking
allowed humans to get more energy from the same volume of food, and to spend less time chewing,
which meant this extra energy helped fuel brain growth.
9. Eating meat is healthy
We can be completely healthy eating a non-vegan diet, as long as we limit our intake of meats with high
saturated fat and cholesterol and eat enough fruits and vegetables to get essential
micronutrients. Many meat eaters live long and healthy lives. The vegan argument doesn’t say that veganism
is right because we can’t be healthy otherwise, it merely states that given the choice
of being healthy as a vegan or a non-vegan, we should choose the former since it’s more ethical.
10. Farmed animals are bred to be killed
Bringing an animal into existence for the purpose of abusing, using and harming them is not ethical under
any circumstance. If we breed dogs for dogfighting, the harm inflicted on the dogs by
the fight is still not morally acceptable. If we breed bulls for bullfighting, the suffering inflicted on
them is never justified.
The animals that are being used and killed do not care about why they were bred, they just want to live and
avoid suffering. It is not our right to go against those interest just because we brought them into
existence.
11. Farmed animals would go extinct
Farmed animals have been selectively bred and modified by humans to be profitable. They suffer all kinds of
health problems because they are bred to be much bigger than their natural ancestors.
Continuing to breed them serves no purpose, even if everybody was vegan there would be no logical reason to
keep breeding these animals, knowing they will suffer health problems due to the manner
of their selective breeding.
But if we really wanted to keep pigs, chickens, cows and the animals we eat alive, we can conserve them in
the same way endangered species are, i.e. not by killing them. There are many animal
sanctuaries that exist today where farmed animals are rescued and enjoy the rest of their lives, so they
wouldn’t go extinct.
12. Farmed animals would overpopulate
The animals we eat, wear and experiment on have been artificially bred to meet the demand for animal
products. If the demand decreases, the number of animals brought into existence will decrease
too. There was no problem with overpopulation of cows, chickens and pigs before humans started messing with
their bodies. If we stop breeding them out of control, they wouldn’t overpopulate.
13. Farmed animals would be killed in the wild
Vegans don’t want all domesticated animals to be released into the wild. What vegans want is for animals to
stop being bred. It isn’t a question of either they get eaten by wild animals, or by us.
We don’t need to be breeding and eating them in the first place.
14. Animals don’t understand morality
Most animals do have at least a basic understanding of right and wrong because this is an evolutionary
advantage. Altruism often results in something positive in return, and bad actions usually
result in negativity. If a dog doesn’t kill other dogs, they’re less likely to be killed by other dogs.
Regardless, animals aren’t morally valuable because of their ability to understand morality, they’re
valuable because of their sentience (ability to experience pain and pleasure). Some humans,
like babies, sometimes cannot discern right from wrong, but they still have a right to life because they’re
sentient.
15. Animals would eat you if they could
What logical conclusion follows from this? If an animal would like to eat us, does that mean we should base
our morality on less intelligent animals and eat other animals too? The interesting
thing is that people use this argument to justify eating herbivorous animals that can’t eat us, like pigs
and cows, but they don’t use it to justify eating cats, lions and bears, that could.
16. Humans are superior to animals
In some ways, yes. We’re superior in intelligence. We’re not superior in our ability to fly or see in the
dark. It could be argued that some humans are superior to other humans in certain areas.
Some humans are smarter, faster, stronger, better looking and so on. By this logic, the “superior” humans
could in theory abuse the “inferior” ones.
Superiority doesn’t grant us a right to abuse other sentient beings. In fact, this line of thinking is what
justified many atrocities in the past, like The Holocaust, black segregation,
disenfranchisement of women, and so on. Of course, nobody wants animals to have the same rights as humans,
like the right to vote, because this doesn’t make sense. What does make sense,
however, is to grant them the right to life because their sentience means they have an interest to live,
just like us.
17. The animals are already dead
Yes. But veganism is not about saving the dead animals in the supermarket, it is about reducing the demand
for animal products to prevent further animals from being bred and killed.
This is the basic Supply and Demand theory from economics. If we demand more animal products, the businesses
that produce them will supply more, therefore killing more animals. We have
the power to vote with our money, and every time we pay for an animal product we’re indicating we want more
of it.
18. I eat every part of the animal so they don’t go to waste
Animals don’t care what we do with their bodies after their death, they care about staying alive. If we’ve
already committed the unethical, unnecessary action of killing an animal,
what we do after doesn’t make it any better. By this logic, American cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer should have
received a shorter sentence, because he used nearly every part of his victims’
bodies. He ate various parts of them and even turned some body parts into household items.
19. God put animals here to eat
No religion mandates meat-eating. We don’t have to eat animal products to be a devout Christian, Muslim,
Jew, Hindu, etc. Therefore, we can be vegan and religious, just like we can
recycle and be religious, or just like any other modern lifestyle choice we make which is not explicitly
mentioned in religious texts but is also not prohibited.
Plus, why would a wise and omniscient God give pain receptors to animals and then tell us to kill them?
Surely God would approve of us being vegan, therefore causing the least amount
of harm possible to animals and the environment, both of which are God’s creations.
20. The dairy industry doesn’t harm animals
Cows in the dairy industry, arguably, live more miserable lives than cows raised for meat. This is because
they are exploited throughout their lives for their milk and then killed.
Given that cows only produce milk only when they’re pregnant, the process begins with forced
artificial insemination of cows. Farmers insert their arms into the sexual orifice of cows
and pump bull semen into them. This is a necessary step for milk production and occurs in small family farms
all the way to factory farms.
Once the cow gives birth, two things may happen. If the baby is male, he’s of no use for the farmers since
he’ll never produce milk. Therefore, the baby is either
killed at the farm,
or sold to the veal industry for meat. If the baby is female, then she’ll endure the same future as her
mother, going through several cycles of emotional and physical abuse. In both cases,
the calves get taken away soon after birth, and mother cows tend to cry for days after their baby is stolen.
After about two or three milking cycles, the cow’s milk production rate becomes unprofitable, so the cow is
killed. At this stage, the cow is usually six years old. The natural lifespan
of a cow is around twenty years.
This video summarises the dairy industry:
Dairy Is Scary.
21. The egg industry doesn’t harm animals
In the egg industry, only females are required since males cannot lay eggs. So at the hatcheries, male and
female chicks are separated as they pass through a conveyor belt.
Males are considered useless so they are either killed at the hatchery (either by being macerated alive,
drowned or suffocated) or thrown into the bin alive. Females are painfully
de-beaked and sent off to farms, where they will lay a painful 300+ eggs per year due to genetic
manipulation (as opposed to a wild chicken’s 20 or so per year). This process happens
on any farm, regardless of it being free-range, organic or whatever.
After hens stop producing eggs at a profitable rate, they are sent to slaughter, which involves being thrown
into an electric bath to be stunned, then hoisted up upside down and going
along a conveyor belt to have their throats slit. Many chickens will remain fully conscious after their
throats are slit and will be boiled alive in the de-feathering tank afterwards.
Their slaughter happens at around two years of age. The natural lifespan of a chicken is eight years.
22. People would lose their jobs
Yes, this is a sad reality. But as consumers, we aren’t responsible for keeping all industries in business.
When we go to the supermarket, we don’t buy every single product they sell
to make sure nobody goes out of business. As consumers, we choose where our money goes and pay for the
products we want to see more of, and we don’t buy those we dislike. We all
understand this, which is why when someone quits smoking or drinking alcohol, people don’t tell them they’re
putting people in the tobacco and alcohol industries out of jobs.
However, it is important to realise that jobs aren’t lost, only displaced. If we’re not buying milk we’d be
buying soy milk instead, therefore creating jobs in the plant-based milk industry.
While it is true that dairy farmers will have a tough time, for example, it is also true that there is a
growing demand for other crops like rice, soy and oats which is putting more
people into jobs in those industries, which is only for the best.
23. It’s legal to eat animal products, there are laws to protect animals
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. Less than 200 years ago, slavery was legal in the
United States.
The laws in place to “protect” farmed animals still allow significant harm to be inflicted to them.
Organisations like the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) claim
to work to prevent unnecessary harm to animals. But since we know that
eating animal products is unnecessary, isn’t all the harm caused in the meat, dairy
and egg industries unnecessary?
This is an excerpt of what the
Humane Slaughter Association deems a “humane”
way to kill an animal:
“Infant lambs, kids and piglets can be humanely killed by delivering a heavy blow to the head. This must
only be used if no other method is immediately available.
1. Hold the animal by the back legs and deliver a firm blow to the back of the head with a blunt
instrument, e.g. an iron bar or hammer.
2. Hold the animal by the back legs and swing it through an arc to hit the back of its head with
considerable force against a solid object, e.g. a brick wall or metal stanchion.
With both methods, it is essential that the blow is delivered swiftly, firmly and with absolute
determination. If there is any doubt that the animal has not been killed effectively,
the blow should be immediately repeated.”
This clearly shows there’s is nothing humane about the way we treat and kill animals. Under UK law, chickens
can still be debeaked, male calves can be castrated, pigs can have their
teeth pulled out, and more. Needless to say, the best way to stop most animal abuse from happening is to end
animal agriculture altogether.
24. You buy products from sweatshops
Trying to invalidate veganism by saying vegans still cause harm by buying from sweatshops is a form of the
“al tu quoque” fallacy. The truth of a statement or philosophy not determined
by the individuals who believe in it. If a murderer says it’s wrong to commit murder, that doesn’t make
murdering people right. If a vegan says it’s wrong to kill animals for food,
but causes some harm elsewhere, that doesn’t make killing animals right. It is impossible to cause zero
harm, and no vegan claims perfection, but we’re trying to reduce our impact as far as practicable and
possible.
Plus, buying animal products is not helping workers in unfair conditions. Being vegan and buying from
sweatshops is better than not being vegan and still buying from sweatshops.
But what if we saw the argument the other way round? In other words, that the logical conclusion, if you’re
against slave labour, is that you’re against all oppression, including animal oppression.
25. You can’t be 100% vegan
Nobody can be strictly 100% vegan. That is unless we grew our own food, didn’t accidentally step on insects,
and accounted for every way we could cause animal suffering. But does this
mean we shouldn’t be 99% vegan? In other words, does this mean we should not try our best to avoid harm to
animals? Absolutely not.
In reality, the meat, dairy, egg, wool, fur, and leather industries alone probably account for 99% of all
animal abuse. In our modern world, it is impossible to exist without coming
into contact with some sort of animal-derived ingredient. So the fastest and most practical way to end
animal abuse is by boycotting the big producers of animal abuse.
The main reason we find animal by-products in so many things is because of the scale of animal industries.
They produce so much waste (ligaments, bones, brains, intestines, etc),
that it makes economic sense to use it elsewhere. Decreasing the production of animal products, by avoiding
the main industries, would make the use of these waste products impractical.
26. Going vegan doesn’t make a difference
Veganism is both a matter of principle and a practical solution to animal abuse. If we’re against paying
others to torture and kill animals, then we shouldn’t do it, regardless of
whether we will actually change something. However, being vegan also has real effects because of supply and
demand. If someone buys vegan alternatives to meat products, every day,
three times a day, for a year, they would’ve reduced the demand for meat quite significantly for one person.
If we combine the thousands of millions of vegans in the world, this
represents a serious drop in demand. The UK has seen a
360%
increase in vegans in the last 10 years, and other indicators also show veganism is on the rise. If
we want a large number
of vegans to have an impact in the world, then we need to begin by becoming part of the group.
27. The whole world will never go vegan
It is very hard for the whole world to do anything. The world will always have some sexism, racism,
homophobia and violence. That doesn’t mean we must tolerate these things when we
see them and that we mustn’t fight to eradicate violence. Even though there will always be people that abuse
animals, we should still try to end animal abuse as much as possible.
The existence of people in the world doing something unethical is no reason for us to copy them. We have
control over our decisions and we can choose to be ethical regardless of what others do.
28. I only buy locally grown, free-range, organic meat
In all farms, regardless of how the lives of animals are before slaughter, animals die at a fraction of
their lifespan. Farmed animals get killed as soon as their purpose is served,
or as soon as they reach a profitable size. The definition of grass-fed, organic and free-range animals is
very loose and can vary wildly. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the animals
have any quality of life, it just means the farm has to meet some arbitrary requirements to earn that title.
29. Humane slaughter
We can, in theory (and not at the large scale required to feed 7 billion humans), kill an animal without any
pain. However, this does not make the act of killing morally acceptable.
Killing animals, thus depriving them of their right to life, for no necessity, is wrong. The
definition of the word “humane” is: “having or
showing compassion or benevolence”.
Synonyms include “compassionate”, “kind” and “considerate”. Therefore, “humane” and “shooting animals”, are
not compatible. No humane person would want to take the lives away from animals for no necessity.
30. Animal products are tasty
Animal products are a result of the suffering and killing of animals. If we can justify eating animals and
their secretions by merely saying that we like the taste, this implies
we believe that unethical actions can be justified by the personal pleasure we derive from them. This is
clearly problematic. Using this line of thinking, we could justify stealing,
for example, because it feels good to have more money. Harming another sentient being for our own pleasure
is immoral.
31. Vegan food is tasteless
Most of the food humans eat is already vegan. Fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, pasta,
bread, potatoes and soy, to name a few things. We enjoy these foods every day
and don’t think they’re unpalatable. In fact, the main way we condiment our food to make it delicious is by
using salt, sugar, herbs and spices (all plants!). There are award winning
vegan food products and restaurants all over the world. We can easily find online recipes to veganise all of
our favourite meals.
But even if vegan food was tasteless (it’s not), morality trumps personal pleasure. An animal’s desire to
live will always be greater than our desire to eat a steak, and deep down we all know this.
32. It’s a personal choice
Personal choices, by definition, only affect the individual making the choice. With eating animal products,
there are other sentient beings involved. It is not a personal choice to
harm animals for trivial and unnecessary pleasures. Our personal choice ends where someone else’s choices
begin.
33. Vegans are so judgmental
Yes, some vegans are. There are all kinds of people in every movement, and veganism isn’t an exception. But
the personality of adherents to a movement doesn’t determine the validity
of the ideology behind it. For example, if someone against racism is a bad person, that doesn’t mean we can
justify racism because some non-racist people are mean. If we don’t like
judgmental vegans, becoming a vegan and being the counter-example is the best we can do.
34. Morality is subjective
Advocates of subjective morality wouldn’t tolerate such subjectivity if they were the victims. If someone
kills a human, or an animal, and truly believes there’s nothing wrong with this,
subjective morality states that this wouldn’t be unethical. Morality must be based on facts and reason, it
can’t be completely arbitrary, or else anyone can justify any atrocity by
stating that their morality is subjective. We must have at least some objective measurement of what is and
isn’t ethical. Agreeing that killing beings for pleasure or convenience isn’t
ethical is a good place to start to prevent violence towards humans and animals. Veganism follows from this.
Even if we believe morality is subjective, it’s likely that most people would agree that animals have
some moral value and shouldn’t be harmed for no reason. So by this subjective morality,
we can agree that veganism is right because harming animals unnecessarily (we don’t need to eat them to live
healthily) is wrong.
35. Not everyone can be vegan
There are certain, extremely rare circumstances where people cannot be vegan due to uncommon medical
conditions or living conditions. But vegans argue that everyone that can be vegan, should.
If someone can’t there is nothing that can be done about it. Veganism is about doing what is practicable and
possible to end animal exploitation. Most people reading this have access to a computer,
which probably means they can decide to stop paying industries that harm animals right now.
36. Focus on more important issues / Human rights are more important
Veganism is a non-action. We don’t need to actively do anything time consuming to live vegan. Once you spend
some time initially figuring out what to
buy at the grocery store and what’s
suitable for vegans, most people won’t spend additional time thinking about food than they did before. As
such, we can continue to fight for human rights or other “more important” causes
while eating a veggie burger or bean burrito instead of a steak. We don’t need to harm animals while we
fight against human oppression.
It is also worth putting the animal suffering problem into perspective. Worldwide,
56 billion land animals are killed every year for food.
Animal agriculture is the
leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water
pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and Amazon deforestation
. Nowhere in the world are humans being exploited in the magnitude and severity
as non-human animals are. If they were, there would be global unrest and the issue would be addressed
immediately.
Also, in many cases, animal abuse can cause human suffering. High meat and dairy diets are responsible for
some of the United States’ leading killers, like heart disease and strokes.
In areas where new slaughterhouses are set up, the
rates of domestic
violence and crime increase
. Many human rights violations occur in factory farms because of the high production rate required to meet
the demand for meat. For example,
some US factory
farm workers wear diapers to work due to a lack of bathroom breaks.
Shouldn’t we think the animal rights issue is at least as important as some human rights issues? And even if
not, shouldn’t we be vegan by default to avoid causing extra suffering while we focus on solving human
rights violations?
37. Plants feel pain
Let’s think about this in two ways. First, do plants actually feel pain in any way similar to an animal or
human? Most honest people would agree that there is a huge difference between
cutting a leaf from a tree and killing a dog. In fact, a human’s experience of suffering is closer to
the animal’s experience of suffering than the animal’s experience of suffering is
to any potential “suffering” in plants.
This common sense experience is backed by scientific evidence, too. We know for a fact that plants lack
brains, a Central Nervous System, and anything else that neuroscientists know to
cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no
study suggests plants have sentience or any ability to feel emotions or pain as
we understand it. We can clearly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a pig.
Second, let’s say we discovered that plants actually have something akin to what we understand as
“sentience”. In this case, the crucial difference is that we need to eat plants to survive,
but we don’t have to eat animals. Furthermore, more
plants are used for meat production than for
vegetable production
because the animals we eat are fed plants, and they can eat way more than us.
So if we truly care about plants, it is better to minimise plant usage by feeding humans directly with them,
rather than feeding many more plants to animals to then eat ourselves.
38. Animals die in crop harvesting
This is true, and no vegan claims to cause no harm to animals. Vegans try to avoid animal deaths with
practical solutions i.e. boycotting these industries. But an argument against veganism
that uses this fact is an argument several times stronger against eating meat. We require about 10 times
more crops to feed
56 billion farmed animals per year than if only 7
billion humans
ate some of those crops directly. So if we’re truly concerned with minimising animal deaths from crop
harvesting, we should be vegan. That way we minimise the torture and abuse in the meat,
dairy and egg industries and also reduce the accidental deaths in crop harvesting.
We could argue that we could exclusively eat grass-fed animals who do not require grain, therefore not
killing small animals in crop harvests, but this is impractical. First, most “grass-fed”
animals are not actually fed 100% grass, and second, it’s definitely not sustainable to feed 7 billion
people with grass-fed beef. There just isn’t enough space available in the world,
and we can’t really sustain a healthy lifestyle eating nothing but meat.
39. You take medication that has been tested on animals
The definition of veganism is: “Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible
and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose”.
It is not practicable and possible to die or get ill because we don’t take medication we need. It is the law
in the US, the UK and Europe that all medicine must be tested on animals before
being released to the market, so vegans cannot practically avoid this since there aren’t any non-tested
medicines.
But this is a different situation to eating animal products for pleasure and convenience when there are
plenty of other options available at the supermarket. We’re not putting our health at
risk when deciding to avoid animal products. Also, it is worth mentioning that buying the medicine is not
actually increasing demand for animal testing since the medicine was tested before
entering the market and never again, whereas animal products require animal deaths every time.
40. Hitler was a vegetarian
Historians are still unsure about this, and there is compelling evidence to suggest he wasn’t a vegetarian.
But it is actually irrelevant if he was. Using this argument implies that everything
that Hitler did was wrong and we must do the opposite. But this isn’t a sound argument. Hitler liked dogs,
took showers, brushed his teeth, ate and slept. Should we avoid doing these things because he did? Of course
not!
In addition, why should we solely focus on Hitler when talking about veganism? If we look at all dictators,
murderers, serial killers, rapists, and terrorists throughout history,
the vast majority are meat-eaters. So if we’re going with the argument that the diets of criminals should be
avoided, why are we eating meat?
41. Veganism is expensive
Veganism can be expensive, but it is by no means a necessity. As with any eating pattern, a vegan diet can
be as expensive or as cheap as we want it to be. Generally, however,
a plant-based diet is substantially cheaper than most diets out there, given that the staple foods in a
vegan diet (and coincidentally also staples in impoverished societies) are things like
rice, beans, lentils, potatoes, bread, tofu and so forth. For most of the world, meat is a luxury, expensive
item. It’s only cheap in developed countries because the government subsidises the industry.
42. Veganism is unsustainable
Quite the opposite, actually. Eating meat is highly unsustainable. The
United Nations
has been urging us for years to move towards a plant-based diet because “lesser consumption of animal
products is necessary to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change”. This is because
animal agriculture is
responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions, about 18%, than all
the transport systems combined in the world, around 13%
. It is also the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones and several other environmental
degradation indicators.
In fact, we could feed more people with less land, water and resource usage if everyone was vegan than if
people ate meat. A
Cornell
University article
states that the US alone could feed
about 800 million more people “if all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were
consumed directly by people”.
More information on this can be found here.
43. Protein
Protein is an incredibly bio-available nutrient. We can get all the protein we want from plant sources
without the potential health risks of eating meat, dairy and eggs (some forms of cancer,
diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, strokes, etc). The
largest study ever done
on vegan nutrient profiles show vegans on average get almost the same amount of protein as
non-vegans without supplementation (see Figure 1
here
). This is because all whole plant foods contain some protein and when we eat enough calories of a variety
of these we can easily meet all
our protein needs. Protein deficiency is only really seen in people with chronic under-eating. Even then, it
is more likely that someone dies of fat deficiency than protein deficiency in a state of starvation.
If we were to eat 2000 calories of pure white rice, for instance, we’d get
41 grams of protein
. This is already the recommended daily intake for sedentary women that eat 2000 calories per day.
And rice is considered to be a low protein food, so if we add vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, pasta and
tofu, we’re going to get more than enough. Even in the extremely rare case that someone
wants to get an amount of protein that is not achievable eating solely plants (which is probably not healthy
anyway), plenty of affordable vegan protein powders are available worldwide.
Rice Nutrition Information
44. Calcium
Calcium is in no way exclusive to animal products. There are entire cultures who’ve never consumed cow’s
milk that don’t have a higher incidence of osteoporosis than the developed world.
Producing cow’s milk required humans to learn how to domesticate animals, which was achieved relatively
recently in human history. So it is illogical to think that humans evolved to require
nutrition from a fluid that they could not get in nature until centuries later.
Humans are mammals. Like all mammals, we consume milk during infancy, and after the weaning process, adults
do not require their mother’s milk. If we really needed milk afterwards, wouldn’t
it make more biological sense to continue drinking milk designed for our own species? If that sounds
strange, consider that we’re drinking milk from someone else’s mother, and not even from
our own species.
Good vegan sources of calcium include dried herbs, sesame seeds, figs, tofu, almonds, flax seeds, Brazil
nuts and kale. Most vegan milks are fortified with calcium, so we could just consume
those as we would do any cow milk.
45. Iron
Vegans and vegetarians don’t actually have a greater incidence of anaemia than meat-eaters. Read this quote
from a study done by the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:
“An appropriately planned well-balanced vegetarian diet is compatible with an adequate iron status.
Although the iron stores of vegetarians may be reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency
anemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in omnivores.”
The
largest study ever done on vegan
nutrient profiles states the following:
“In strict vegetarians low dietary intakes of vitamin B12 and D, calcium, and omega-3 fatty acids, in
addition to iron and zinc, have often been of concern
25. In the present
study, mean
intakes of these nutrients were above minimum requirements
26 in strict
vegetarians.”
In
table 3
of the same study, we can see vegans get 31.6mg of iron per day, and meat-eaters get 32.9mg, both way above
the minimum daily requirement of 8-15mg.
Good sources of plant-based iron are nuts, beans and dark leafy green vegetables. The type of iron found in
meat (heme-iron) is the type your body cannot regulate properly and forces its
way into the bloodstream. This encourages the production of
free
radicals, which can damage DNA and increase cancer risk. So it is safer as humans that we consume
plant-based sources of iron (non-heme iron).
46. B12
It is a common misconception that animals produce B12. In reality, it is bacteria found in animals,
excrement, unwashed vegetables and dirty water that produces it. B12 is not exclusive to animal products.
Having said this, in today’s world vegans must supplement B12 with an oral supplement or by eating
fortified foods, but this doesn’t invalidate veganism. Stating that because we can’t get B12
naturally from plants implies a vegan diet is bad is a version of the logical fallacy called “
appeal to nature
“. Not only is it a fallacious argument, but most people that live in modern society
supplement their diets in one way or another.
Most of the bread, milk, morning cereals and fruit juices we buy are fortified with vitamins during
manufacturing. Table salt often has iodine added, and tap water is fortified with fluoride in
some places. All these things are fortified because the vast majority of people fail to get adequate
nutrition without them. Even more interesting, a B12 supplement is
injected into
livestock
before slaughter to keep their levels up due to the soil being too intensively used and lacking in certain
nutrients.
So the question becomes: would we rather take a B12 supplement and be vegan, or supplement animals with B12,
and then kill them to obtain the same B12? The former choice is clearly more desirable.
47. Omega-3
We can get omega-3 fatty acids from ground flaxseeds, hemp seeds, canola oil, walnuts, algae and other
plant-based sources. If someone can’t get enough omega-3 or their body can’t absorb it, an
algae-based DHA supplement will solve this. Eating plant sources of omega-3 is actually superior to eating
fish to get DHA. This is because fish is riddled with heavy metals such as mercury and PCBs,
which damage the brain and counteract the positive effects of eating the omega-3 in fish.
A
study that looked at 33 fish species and its impact
on brain development concluded that “for most fish species the adverse effect of MeHg on the IQ score
exceeded the beneficial effect of DHA.”
Read more about why it is preferable to get omega-3 from plants
here.
48. Vitamin D
Our body produces vitamin D, a hormone, when exposed to sunlight. We need about 20 minutes of sunlight
exposure per day to get our daily amount of vitamin D. Most people don’t get this, which is
why the UK government recommends that
everyone takes a vitamin D supplement. This is because
“limited amounts of the vitamin are found in foods such as oily fish, eggs and fortified cereals”.
49. Iodine
The best sources of iodine are sea vegetables (seaweed, kelp, and dulse). Alternatively, iodised salt or
supplements are also an option.
Truth:
There's little evidence of humans meant to eat meat, more evidence that we were supposed to consume plants,
we don't see dead animals and go hungry like omnivores or carnivores, we would rather help other sentient
beings that have been injured unlike other meat eating animals.
We have no special genetic, anatomical, physiological adaptations to eating meat
however with plants we have jaws that grind side to side instead of rip and swallow, we sweat from our pores
instead of panting, and we have way longer intestines to help us digest plant matter, our stomach ph is
lower than obligate carnivores that have the capacity to digest rotting flesh.
Humans can also get atherosclerosis by eating too much cholesterol which only appears
within herbivores unlike purely meat-eating obligate
carnivores.
However, even if we were omnivores, it doesn't undermine the fact that it's been proven
humans can thrive solely on plants alone.
Plants can sustain human life and it's been proven with science so there's no need in killing animals,
meaning that slaughtering animals is merely gluttonous.
https://katch4n.github.io/vegantips/home.html#3
In the end just because we can do something does not mean we should go out and seek it, I have two fists but
of course we shouldn't go around starting fights. Might doesn't make right.
It's said that meat helped our brains grow, while it can be argued it played a factor in our evolution it
was
mainly cooking foods,
releasing glucose/carbohydrates etc, spending less time chewing and getting more
calories,
it also explains why lions aren't rocket scientist when they eat the most meat, and also why we are the only
smartest species and the only one knowing how to cook.
You don't have to compare animals to humans, it's comparing animal lives with human taste buds.
For us it's a few moments of sensory pleasure that we will likely forget about the next day,
for the animals it's their whole life of suffering and pain.
If it tastes good then do you think sensory pleasure can justify violent actions?
I would like to think that the majority of people would agree no amount of
sensory pleasure you recive from a violent action can justify said action.
The 'humans are superior' logic is how all oppression starts. Peace on earth starts on the dinner table.
This 'appealing to group'
logic is how slavery happened, why women/gays/other minorities had to fight for their rights. It's the logic
of
(one group of individuals thinking they are better than another group of individuals).
every human has a good heart when we grow up, put a baby in a cot with an apple and a bunny, the baby would
never eat the bunny and play with the apple, it just shows that us humans are naturally compassionate, we
would
rather help others rather then be cruel. As we grow up we are taught to hate, all forms of oppression is a
leaned behaviour, when we were kids we wouldn't even care about the skin colour of others. We get fed the
misinformation that we should protect some but not others, care for 'pets' but slaughter pigs, when in fact
all
these creatures suffer the same.
We've always been learning from our past mistakes. We
shouldn take example from other atrocities throughout history so that we can assess current violent
actions. I compare other atrocities to make analogies so people understand the connection between the
immoral acts since it's normal to abuse farm animals in today's society, but of course what's normal doesn't
necessary mean it's right, you can probably think of a lot of things throughout history that were once
normal/cultural/legal that now we realise are wrong.
Smoking doesn't have a direct victim, it's a personal choice, however when an action affects
other sentient beings it's no longer a personal choice but a moral imperative, just like paying for victims (animals)
to be killed in slaughterhouses.
What's in nature doesn't make something good or bad. There's diseases that are
natural but we try kill them, earthquakes that are in nature but we all know they are devastating. Rape and
killing could be considered natural because all animals have an urge to do it.
This is considered an 'appeal to nature fallacy'.
"And were not talking about babies or coma patients, they're so different...We are talking about animals"
That's what slave owners and Nazis said "we're talking about (x), (x) are different from (y) so we(y) can
treat them different". This is the logic that 'one group is seen to be better than another group so the
group that dominates can do whatever to the weaker group', this is the basis for all oppression.
Why value pets and not farm animals? What's the difference intrinsicly
between them to deserve the difference in treatment? Since all animals feel the same suffering and have a
will to live, a child is a dog is a pig in their ability to suffer.
What's more forceful, calling someone out for eating meat, or forcing animals (that had no say in the
matter) into slaughterhouses to face their deaths.
what's more 'forceful', people trying to educate people to stop paying for animals to have their heads
chopped off or people paying for animals to be forced into slaughterhouses that didn't have a say in the
matter, just to have their lives robbed from them, then advertisements force misinformation about protein
and calcium from animal products so that consumers can force dead bodies down their throats.
Holocaust
definition - slaughter or destruction on a mass scale.
Comparing the animal holocaust to the holocaust of WW2 not to undermine
the Holocaust victims but to really
show
how immoral our current farming situation really is, if you swap farm animals with Jews in concentration
camps or slaughterhouses and vice versa you have a holocaust no matter whos the victim. Plus the magnitude
of the animal holocaust is way larger, 70 billion land animals a year
compared to the 14 million approx in
WW2. And also conveying to people animals are slaves because they certainly aren't free.
Animal holocaust explanation - https://youtu.be/GPHPVvKoZDI
"Come on you need to get out in the real world, grow some fruit and vegs without animals destroying them.
Won't happen." granted there are going to be accidental deaths however the thing is 'non-destructive'
farming already is happening/developing, like indoor farming, vertical farming, vegan permaculture, etc.
https://veganorganic.net/plant-based-permaculture/
"poisonous traps, spraying pesticides, shooting wild animals" Those types of killing mentioned are the
worst of the worst of plant agriculture but it's still better than animal agriculture where 70billion land
animals and 1-2trillion marine animals are slaughtered every year. Those practices are also used in growing
crops for animals too if you compare the same level of plant to animal farming. It's unfair to compare the
worst plant farming to the best animal farming practices.
Yes, I know the world isn't perfect right now but why continue on making it worse when we can work towards a
more sustainable, peaceful future? Plus there is a clear insentive difference between killing animals for food and
harvesting crops, one is exploitative of sentient beings and the latter is moving to a more sustainable/less
harmful type of farming.
if people claim to care about animals but at the same time pay for animals to be killed then it's pure
hypocrisy.
PETA is only a messenger, what they do is very out there and loud but it doesn't minimize the message of
animal cruelty, people should judge the message (animal cruelty is wrong, etc) instead of attacking the
peaceful messenger.
actually plants can feed the world, we are actually using more plants currently because it takes more plants
to raise livestock, about 15 pounds of crops to produce 1 pound of beef, more crops can be grown with less
land too compared to animal agriculture.
Sustainability of meat-based and
plant-based diets and the environment
"how are you going to fertilize those massive indoor mono cropping facilities, ah! more phosphorus mining
will work" again, the world currently isn't perfect but plant farming is way less intensive compared to
animal farming anyways.
One of the most extensive research studies looking at the relationship between current farming practices and
the envirnment: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987
Why not work towards a more sustainable way of farming instead of continuing with what we have right now? We
need to move towards a plant-based diet to reduce our land, water, energy use anyway.
UN also urges people to go plant-based for our future:
Guardian
a choice stops being a personal choice when that action has a victim, I'm all for personal choice but when
someone pays for the slaughter of innocent animals that have done nothing wrong, then there's an issue.
Maybe fish feel different pain from humans be we should still give sentient creatures that have brains,
nervous systems, pain receptors the benefit of the doubt, I don't know if you personally feel pain like I do
but I give everyone the benefit of the doubt so that I don't end up hurting anyone unnecessarily.
Just put yourself in their position for a second and you'll see how barbaric that sounds, there's no
'humane' way to kill someone that doesn't want to die, it's simply an oxymoron. No matter how quick or
painless an immoral action is it's still wrong, just put it in the context of any other injustice and you'll
see the similarities.
But what if there was a human that couldn't talk or show emotion. Would it be ok to kill them for food?
Why take any morals from animals that don't have moral agency, when they don't understand right or wrong,
it's illogical to copy actions from primitive beings that don't even live in modern civil society.
Appeal to nature, what's in nature doesn't mean it's good or bad, there are diseases we try to get rid of,
earthquakes that cause devastation. Animals in nature often kill each other. Plus, what everyone sees as
'normal' doesn't make something right too, it was once normal to own slaves, to treat women/gays worse.
Currently, it is still normal to treat women poorly in the middle east, slaughter dolphins in Japan. What's
cultural and traditional doesn't make it moral
What do you think is more important, being against animal cruelty and stop funding it, or your convenience
and habit?
"are we supposed to let them all go once we do wasting money on all the food protection and
services to the animals" well, as much as I want a vegan world to happen overnight, it's not, it's going to
be a gradual process, as more people become vegan less animals will be breed into existance and more farmers
will shift to animal agrictulture, to solve instances of injustice we must always look at the victims point
of view and never the oppressors. It was easy to say back in history that slave owners would be losing their
profits if slavery was abolished but of couse this doesn't take into consideration the victims.
"natural way of things as a society goes the population gets bigger" appeal to nature again, as I said what
is considered 'natural' or 'normal' is not necessarily moral. Actually the reason why we have world hunger
is because of animal agriculture, it's killing the animals, earth, and humans, because it's so energy
demanding nearly all of the worlds crops are for livestock, we take crops from the poorest areas of the
world and feed them to animals. If we grew crops directly for humans, we could theoretically end world
hunger and also use less water/land/energy since it's way more efficient to grow vegetation than filtering
our nutrients through animals, the animals are literally the middle men of our nutrients: instead of
sun->plants->animals->humans the more efficient process would be sun->plants->humans.
"we don’t need phones but we still collect minerals and create plastic that creates pollution...try to make
up for them wood we plant 5 trees for every tree cut down" technically yes, we don't need phones to survive
but it would be very impractical. However with meat, we 100% don't need it to survive, since it's been
proven we can be healthy and happy on a well planned vegan diet. Indeed we humans have polluted the earth
very badly and veganism is far from perfect too but it's a step in the right direction. However why continue
destroying the planet, animals and humans when we can try better the world as a whole. Better the wellbeing
for everyone and try strive to a more eco and compassionate future.
"we are not naturally compassionate...we could eat only plants but that’s only in the perfect world that’s
unachievable" we are compassionate people haha, hatred in it's purest form is a learned behaviour, when we
grow up playing with others, we would care less about the skin colour or the backgrounds other children came
from. Indeed, we could eat plants and it would solve a lot of issues along the way, it's not the end goal or
perfect but why not try work towards a perfect world instead of appealing to 'futility' and saying nothing
will work. Back when slavery was around it seemed like things weren't going to change but they actually did
with the help of activism and spreading the message of peace, then it took 400 years to make that happen and
abolish slavery. So yes, right now it's not perfect but we can try move towards a better world for the
benefit of everyone on this planet.
"not everyone could afford a vegan diet" everyone can afford a vegan diet if you live in a well developed
area with abundance of plants alternatives, there's literally no excuse if you live in the west too,
surrounded by mock meats, also the cheapest foods on the market like rice, beans, lentils, vegetables,
fruits, etc. Are you saying rice is too expensive for you?
"I love meat" do you love meat more than you hate animal abuse? What's more important an animals life of the
sensory pleasure you get from eating their bodies. Do you think sensory pleasure can justify violent
actions?
"babys they can’t go ravenous" babies won't change the world, but people like you and me can try educate
others. Parents can teach children to start respecting all kinds of life no matter how big and small, since
these children that understand would never try hurt another in the same species.
"babys can’t have apples they have breast milk" it was a hypothetical to show you that humans are naturally
caring for animals, we would never hurt animals when we were young. We are just tought to love some kill
others when we grow up.
"if you were also alone on island with wild pigs you were starving you will naturally try to hunt the pigs"
if I was starving on an island I would probably do anything to survive, but thankfully we aren't in that
situation. I'll ask you a hypothetical, if you were on an island with an abundance of vegetables and fruits
would you still kill animals?
"in your perfect world" it's a 'perfect world' for everyone to be against all animal abuse? I think you'll
find it we are already moving in the direction of a more compassionate world already with the massive
increase of veganism. "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you
win."-Ghandi
"why do you keep bringing up slavery" because slavery and past issues of injustice relate to what is
happening right now with farm animals. They certainly aren't free
"people who own those animals usually love them" you don't love someone and send them off to be slaughtered,
that literally doesn't make sense. They only care for them because they have an interest in the profits
these animals make for them. They only care for them enough to make money from them, it's never in the
animals best interest but rather the farmers.
"victims?!" yes, they are victims of our oppression, they are commodified, living beings turned into objects
that we own, slaves that can't excape the factory farms.
"We have to give them food water shelter" only the bare minimum sometimes just until the point they are fat
enough to be killed for money. It's never in the best interest of the animals, farmers only do this to earn
money - exploiting other sentient beings to make profit. Bare in mind vegans don't hate farmers, we hate
what they do currently but we want them to change to vegan farming to supply plant foods.
"slaughter safely the FAA USDA FDA etc make sure those animals are treated right before and during
slaughter" even if slaughter was quick and painless would you accept it if it was you in the animal's place?
those organisations don't really care about animal welfare, it's all in the interest of making money from
innocent beings, do you really think slaves are treated kindly? How do you 'humanely' kill a sentient being
that doesn't want to die. How do you treat a living being 'right' when it's in the animals interest to live?
"we don't have world hunger" I didn't say we don't have world hunger, I said the reason we have world hunger
is because they are using crops from these countries to feed to livestock in the west. If those areas are in
survival situations then they must do what they need to do to survive, but that doesn't excuse people that
have access to plant foods to not be vegan. People that have expensive electronics can probably afford all
the nutricious plant alternatives and go vegan.
"you take vitamin supplements" meat eaters take supplements to so idk what's your point, taking supplements
is an inconvience so that justifies stabbing animals in the throat? Everyone is advised to take some
supplements like vitamin D because a lot of places lack sun. Plus B12 is supplemented into animals anyways
so why not just take the supplements directly and be more ethical to stop harming animals.
"very impractical" you know what's even more impractical, deforesting land, planting crops, then feeding
those crops to animals and killing them instead of just using less land/water to grow crops for humans. It's
way more intensive to produce meat than vegetables.
"if your saying eating plants will solve world hunger peace on earth your insane" and why is this insane?
the logic is simple, more food can be obtained if we ate the plants directly instead of filtering our
nutrients through more resourse intensive animal farming. Also, if we teach more people to respect all life
then people would be less inclinded to oppress other sentient beings since they would understand everyone is
the same in the sense we all just want to live our lives free from exploitation, we all want food/water,
seek shelter/companionship, avoid pain and enjoy our freedom to move about.
"fear from nuclear annihilation" and we wouldn't have this if we all truly respected each other, no
attrocities would take place if we all understood everyone's feelings.
"that is hatred" it's only hatred if you don't forgive them and move one, there's no point in lingering in
past mistakes. We all hate only if we learn how to do so, but this has nothing with unecessaryily enslaving
animals/oppressing others, since when you buy meat/be racist there's a direct victim with your action. I
think we can both agree that unnecessary murder, rape, racism is all wrong, speciesism is no different
because it is just another form of abitrary discrimination - it's actually the root of all oppression if you
think about it. People that grow up to be racist of discriminatory first learn to hate animals - love some
species but kill others.
"if your truly trying to benefit everyone in the world then leave people alone" that's like saying we should
just leave injustice alone and let people conduct immoral actions. Society has never progessed with this
mindset, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King were all radical law breakers of their time and lots of
people hated them at the time, it's only now that we look back and say that they were actually heros
standing against injustice. We don't get anywhere if we don't question current immoral actions.
"in general your cause is noble but your annoying" again, vegans are trying to fight for what's right and be
on the right side of history. We don't evolve as a society without annoying some people, that's bound to
happen.
"what you consider "animal abuse"" I call it what it actually is, euphemisms like 'humane havesting' is just
trying to hide the truth of what actually happens within slaughterhouses.
"a meal that I like and lawfully can have" do you like the taste more than you are against the suffering of
animals? What's more important to you when you look back in life and consider what you stood for - being
against all animal cruelty or taking 10 minutes of pleasure in the consumption of dead animal flesh? What's
lawful doesn't necessary make it moral, it was once lawful to own slaves or treat women poorly.
"I'd rather not get shot in a house than commit a violent action against another person" yeah I'd rather not
have that done to me as well, idk what you are answering to though.
"with hunting your preventing animals from spreading disease" well, there could be more ethical ways to deal
with situations like this instead of only resorting to killing, I agree if it becomes a really bad problem
then killing would be a last resort. This doesn't justify why we kill animals for food though.
idk what's your point with bullying lol, that's just a bullying problem not related to how we kill animals
for food and teaching people to respect all life. Self defence justifies certain violence btw, it's like if
someone was attacking you then of course you would have the right to defend yourself but this doesn't
justify unnecessaryily oppressing other sentient beings.
"your in a remote place you can't wait for a harvest" again, if you are in a survival situation then you
gotta do what you gotta do to survive but we aren't in that situation nowadays when people have an abundance
of plant alternatives in huge supermarkets and all the vegetable nutricion you need.
"which is why we used our mind to make clubs and spears to kill" execpt we aren't in these situations where
we need to hunt to survive anymore. We have expanded as a society with supermarkets with all of our needs.
And we can get all of the things we need to survive from the plants harvested all year from at these
markets.
"we are taught in this day and age and thousands of years aho we value some animals more than others" and
why is this do you think? do you think there any intrinsic differences between all these animals and their
will to live? just because we have been doing something for a long time doesn't mean we should keep doing
it. We have still been killing each other and raping for a long time, obviously these actions are wrong.
"the answer was yes" even if you had all the plants for you to survive you would still harm innocent
animals? why? even if you didn't have to take supplements and all the plant foods covered your needs? so
because you need to take mabye one supplement that then justifies stabbing animals in the throat? Would you
even accept this if you were the victim, if you were in the animals place? Again, all people are suggested
to take supplements, if you thing supplements are 'bad' because they are 'unnatural' keep in mind we do lots
of 'unnatural' things anyways, we drive cars, use electronics, force breed billions of animals into cramped
places and fatten them up to the point where we can slaughter them for meat.
What's legal or normal doesn't necessarily make something moral, it's was on legal to own slaves, currently
still legal to treat women poorly in the middle east and also slaughter dolphins in japan.
Vegans just want a world where we aren't unnecessarily torturing and killing animals for food or any other
purpose when we have other sustainable alternatives, it's been proven that we can survive off a well planned
vegan diet, I agree there are some cases that does not apply but if you can go vegan then it's a moral
imperative to do so, all vegans do is align our morals that we already believe in (animal abuse is wrong)
and our actions. Veganism follows from universal human rights.
We're far from 'anti-human' since we are promoting peace and compassion around the world for all animals instead of some (and humans are animals), of course I
condeme violence to anyone no matter who it is.
Using the term Holocaust
-------------------------------
•Being an activist itself is by definition offensive - challenging the way some people act
•Facts don't care about your feelings, when something is accurate by definition, it's accurate irrelevant to how you feel about it
•Veganism is always about the victims and never about pandering to the oppressors feelings
•If shown a better way to advocate for animals we will all copy that way, in the meantime don't police vegan activists if you aren't an activist yourself
•If you only listen to prominent Jewish people just consider the following Jewish Vegan activists that have made connections to the Holocaust: Alex Hershaft, Lifting Vegan Logic, Ask Yourself, etc. Jewish Nobel Laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer said, “in the animal’s eyes, every man is a Nazi and every day is Treblinka,”
•You can use the term 'holocaust' without taking away from the WW2 Holocaust, they aren't mutually exclusive just like using rape to describe cows in the dairy industry doesn't take anything away from rape victims or the Rape of Nanking, just like using genocide doesn't doesn't take away from genecide victims, 'slavery' not taking anything away from Egyptian, Roman, African American slaves and so on...
•If there was a mass slaughter of humans somewhere else on this world, we would call it a holocaust, this language censorship really highlights the specisism that people have against animals, even though they suffer the most with 70+billion animals slaughtered a year, it shows that people don't see animals as 'worthy' of receiving this word.
Holocaust explaination
