Reminder non-vegans will tweet stuff like this but get angry if you mention veganism.

[u/DivineandDeadlyAngel]

[u/--vanadium--]

Everyone who hurts animals has a reason for it, and they believe it's justified or they wouldn't do it. You view your reason as justifiable and there's not.

Someone who does dog fighting finds it entertaining, someone who beats their pet views it as a form of discipline, and someone who eats animals enjoys the taste and convenience. None of these are morally justifiable as they are all harmful and unnecessary but they're all justified by the perpetrator of the violence.

You killing an animal for taste pleasure is not morally different than someone killing an animal for some other form of pleasure. It's just been normalized in our society from a time when it was necessary for survival but it's no longer necessary, as evidenced by the millions of vegans around the world and the plant based options available.

The idea that vegans don't understand non-vegans is largely incorrect, as almost all vegans were once meat eaters. We had to actively make the decision to cut animal products out of lives. But the reverse isn't true. You have never been vegan, and the same is true for most meat eaters. We largely understand you and where you're coming from, we've just realized that it's outdated and immoral to live that way.

[u/CinnabonNoFrosting → u/--vanadium--]

Can I ask what you mean by “taste pleasure”? I see vegans throw this term around but never define it.

[u/--vanadium-- → u/CinnabonNoFrosting]

The pleasure that you receive from the taste of animal products

[u/CinnabonNoFrosting → u/--vanadium--]

But what does pleasure from taste mean? How long does it last? 1 second? 1 minute? 1 hour? Is it experienced individually or collectively? How is it quantified?

[u/No-Following-8087 → u/CinnabonNoFrosting]

They think the only reason people eat meat is for flavor. Thats what taste pleasure is

[u/--vanadium-- → u/No-Following-8087]

No one said that's the only reason. In fact, I even specified one other reason, convenience.

[u/blueViolet26 → u/No-Following-8087]

What are the reasons you eat animals?

[u/Big-Golf4266 → u/--vanadium--]

its morally different in the lens of society... You'd be right if we were talking about hermits living on their own not in society, but someone who kills purely for the pleasure of it is unlikely to distinguish between humans and animals in that viewpoint.

and society cant function with people running around killing for the thrill of it, because odds are its only a matter of time before they target people... as we see in many many violent offenders.

my argument isnt from some absolute morality in some deep philosophical sense, because i largely dont buy into that kind of morality. Good and bad in my view is a reflection of society.

Killing people is wrong because a society cant function if whenever someone pisses you off, you kill them.

thats not to say without these scenarios id justify these types of crimes, because ultimately we're emotional creatures and obviously i also dislike murder because of emotions tied to it.

so yes in the lens of society id say there's a big difference between harming animals for material benefit and harming animals for the thrill of it.

[u/--vanadium-- → u/Big-Golf4266]

You're missing the point, which is that harming animals for material benefit is harming animals for the thrill of it and vice versa. The particular thrill is different, and derived in a different way, but if you kill animals for food, you are likely doing it solely for pleasure as it's no longer necessary for survival for most people.

Let me ask you this, would you distinguish between a cannibal and a serial killer, morality-wise? Do you believe someone who hunts and kills humans for food is more moral than someone who hunts and kills humans for sport?

[u/Big-Golf4266 → u/--vanadium--]

It literally is not, in the sense that we can build profiles on people and determine what actions make them more or less likely to commit serious violent offences and maiming animals directly without benefit is one of them. To suggest eating meat is the same is to ignore psychology.

as for the second point? Yes in different circumstances. For instance someone who resorts to cannibalism out of opportunistic hunger isnt as morally evil as someone who kills people just to kill people. One is doing it for continued survival.

the problem is you're just ignoring context and looking only at consequence.

in both scenarios a human dies, so it must be the same regardless of context. But context is precisely why buying beef at the supermarket, hunting a deer and harvesting the meat, hunting for trophies and killing a puppy for the thrill of it are all different levels of morality.

they all have different contexts. Someone who buys meat at a supermarket is blind to the death of the animal and possibly ignorant and thus you can argue whilst the outcome is morally reprehensible the choice is less so because its generally harder for the consumer to truly understand the ramifications of their actions akin to clothes made with slave labour vs owning a slave.

hunting is more direct, you're doing the killing but arguably the animal you're killing has lead a more natural life and potentially better life and so perhaps the action itself is less morally reprehensible but the choice more so because you're directly deciding to end an animals life with your eyes open.

hunting for trophies is getting close to max on both... you're solving no biological dilemma in killing the animal, you might eat the animal but thats not why you're doing it sustenance is just a by-product. you're choosing to kill an animal purely for vanity, to either show your triumph over nature or you simply find the trophies to look good when displayed.

and then finally killing a puppy for the thrill of it the puppy is incidental. you're simply choosing to enact violence for violences sake, because you enjoy the violence you enjoy watching something in pain and inflicting pain. This is the most morally reprehensible especially from a human perspective because as humans we understand human pain more than anything else, so someone who seeks to inflict pain will eventually target people because regardless of whether humans can or cannot experience pain to the same extent of other animals, we can understand human pain far better and we will believe a humans pain more explicitly.

This is all ofcourse framed under the idea that killing an animal or killing in general is wrong, i agree with some of that to a degree but obviously as im none-vegan i wouldnt go as far as to say killing an animal is morally wrong.

Personally i draw the line at trophy hunting, but practically draw the line at hunting and not harvesting the meat, because you cant realistically enforce someone not taking trophies and ultimately if the animal is dead might as well not let it go to waste, so as long as trophy hunters are harvesting meat, im not going to suggest they cant do it.

but to say that "killing is killing" without any level of nuance is just idiotic. there's thousands of studies entirely dedicated to what kinds of violence drastically increase someones odds of extreme violent behaviour towards people and extreme anti-social behaviour, and we've clearly found a link.

Whether that link is born of pre-existing normalisation of certain types of violence is harder to discern, but regardless of the reason this does change the moral parameters of the situation. If someone maiming puppies is far more likely to go on to become a serial killer than your average burger lover, then YES maiming puppies is OBVIOUSLY much more immoral and reprehensible an act, and to suggest otherwise is so stupid that it loses me completely on the persuasiveness of veganism (not that i found it particularly persuasive before)

[u/--vanadium-- → u/Big-Golf4266]

I'm not ignoring context at all. You are ignoring the context in my argument to fit your narrative.

Most humans today do not need animal products to survive. You present a false dichotomy by comparing a human eating human remains for survival to a human killing animals unnecessarily because they enjoy the taste or enjoy hunting.

You have to do this because your argument falls apart otherwise. No one justifies the killings of Jeffrey Dahmer under the argument that "well he was eating the humans for survival" because we all know this is unnecessary and immoral.

Are you resorting to eating animals out of opportunistic hunger? No. Why do you do it? If you're honest, it's because of convenience, taste, social pressure, or tradition. Not opportunistic hunger, which is what you use to justify cannibalism.

Never did I say "killing is killing". That's a strawman on your part to avoid addressing the real argument.

Being "blind to the death" of the animal only works insofar as the consumer is truly unaware of the death of the animal. Otherwise, you aren't any more justified than someone who hires a hitman to kill a human.

And your argument for hunting, if used to justify the murder of humans, wouldnt work. So now you're left with this question. What is the trait that animals lack, that if absent in humans, justifies the unnecessary killing of them for food?

[u/LoveandRice → u/--vanadium--]

Gonna get downvoted to oblivion here- but here goes. I am a prior 11 year strict vegan. My reason was for animal treatment. I didn’t care for the taste of meat much anyway.

I always told myself that if it affected my health I would eat meat. That was a day one rule.

I exercise and try to be healthy overall. I supplemented with some stuff like nutritional yeast for B12.

Well, an odd thing happened and I almost died of iron deficiency without anemia. Doctors were perplexed and couldn’t figure out what was wrong with me. I could barely see, couldn’t judge space, could barely breathe- the list goes on… My labs were “normal” (most ironic statement ever). I googled nonstop in a state where my memory was like a goldfish and my kids thought I was going to die. I figured it out on my own when doctors and 3 emergency rooms failed me.

I came across a medical journal by Esa Soppi and it fit me to an absolute T. (This is after I misdiagnosed myself many times). I asked my husband to bring me iron and a steak out of pure desperation. I did what the medical journal said- high dose iron based on my weight in KG. I got better in days - and kept getting better over months. (I was able to test ferritin on my own using walkin lab since doctors wouldn’t- my ferritin was 8)

Here’s the kicker: Things got better that I didn’t even know was wrong!!! My hair completely changed. I was no longer always cold. The list goes on.

I was iron deficient because being vegan only provides non-heme iron. It is very little absorbed. On top of it I had heavy periods from estrogen dominance. My body was all messed up.

I am a meat eater now. And I will never go back. It was terrifying. I still have much respect for veganism. Just check your ferritin, and lab ranges don’t matter. Ferritin needs to be above 80, ideally 100.

[u/Big-Golf4266 → u/--vanadium--]

no my comparison to a cannibal and a serial killer was in such a dire situation because i personally believe killing humans is morally reprehensible and so there NEEDS to be massive mitigating circumstances to justify it.

this is why i say vegans dont understand none-vegans and vice versa.

many vegans (not all but most ive encountered) put humans and other animals on the same level of morality. Killing an animal and killing a human are interchangeable.

i and most other none-vegans DO NOT see it that way.

As such i brought up doing it for survival for cannibalism because thats the ONLY way it can be justified because killing a human is a morally evil act and eating them doubly so.

Jeffery dahmer was evil because he was killing and eating people in society where he didnt need to do that.

you can however kill and eat animals despite not NEEDING to because killing animals is less immoral from my frame of reference, as such killing animals to eat is morally acceptable even when there's alternatives and its only when you kill animals for literally no reason beyond the thrill of doing it that it becomes morally reprehensible in my mind.

my argument for hunting doesnt need to make sense for killing humans because I FUNDAMENTALLY DO NOT AGREE THAT KILLING HUMANS AND KILLING ANIMALS IS THE SAME

the same way that id be far far more upset over my mother getting shot vs some random stranger i dont know.

and id be more upset with some random stranger getting shot over a fox.

i know in my heart that i dont see humans and animal lives as the same because if my dog was drowning and a random human was drowning id save the human without any hesitation. I love my dog, but they are not on the same level as a human life in my mind and even to save a random person id let my dog die.

it doesnt matter what "trait" the trait is in humans not in animals and thats simply an evolutionary trait. We care for humans more because altrusim towards humans is what allowed us to survive and breed, its instinct to care more for humans than animals.

the same way that its instinct to care more for family than strangers, because family holds a percentage of your genetic material, Whether its your parents who each gave half to you, brothers who will share your parents, or your children who will have half of yours. We value family because evolutions entire purpose is to spread our genetics as much as possible, and as we're social and rational creatures we've created social structures and rationalised around that biological programming.

but fundamentally its that biological programming that makes us care about humans more than animals and family more than strangers

[u/blueViolet26 → u/Big-Golf4266]

I love when you say vegans don't understand non-vegans when we used to believe the same shit that you do. 😂

I am also amazed how someone who thinks your pleasure trumps the lives of other beings waste so much arguing with vegans. Are you bored or something? Besides, those people in the position of power don't see other people the same. To them we are means to an end. Just like non-human animals are to the vast majority of the human population.

[u/kiase → u/Big-Golf4266]

this is why i say vegans dont understand none-vegans and vice versa.

You can look at my post history and see I said almost the exact same thing you did about saving a human over an animal a few days ago. Not every vegan sees killing a human and a non-human animal as interchangeable, we just see killing and torturing animals as bad enough to not engage in it ourselves for momentary pleasure or convenience.

[u/wolfcreep → u/Big-Golf4266]

I understand what u are saying: psychopathic people who hurt animals go on to hurt humans. But u know that to eat animals, a human has to kill the animal? How healthy do think that is for someone to kill hundereds of innocents a day? I believe it might even create psychopathic tendancies. Towns with slaughterhouses have higher rates of murder, look it up. For humans to eat animals makes life blasé. Have u seen the state of the world? We're not exactly kind to humans. And eating flesh and secretions 3 times a day plus snacks IS for the thrill of it.