OBJECTION!

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic but if not, then I’m about to blow your fucking mind

STOP EATING RICE!

NAME YOUR DAUGHTER SARAH, IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THE AMAZON! AND WHATEVER YOU DO…

…DO NOT NAME THEM TRISTEN

If we shut down flights to Antarctica, inflation would’ve been solved yesterday.

No veganism isn’t a moral stance. It CAN BE a personal moral stance as well as a dietary one, but morality is not required and may not factor into it. It may be for YOU, but perhaps a person’s stomach just handles meat poorly in some fashion and therefore they choose not to partake. Don’t claim that everyone must ascribe to your moral stance. They do not.

That simply isn’t what the word means. If you think veganism is a diet, then do you think vegan leather is meant to be eaten?

Oreos used to use lard, in the 90’s, they changed the recipe to use vegetable oil to make it kosher, and also, coincidentally, vegan. I suppose this hypothetical “vegan purely for taste” person just happened to hate Oreos right up until then, even though they taste the same. They must have the most sensitive tongue in the world. “The Princess and the Pea” has nothing on them.

You suggest that someone’s stomach “handles meat poorly,” but that would just lead them to be a vegetarian. Does their stomach also “just happen” to handle dairy, eggs, lard, gelatin, etc poorly too? Does wearing leather give them a rash? If animals are harmed in the production of something, but no part of the animal made it into the finished product, do they, what, get assailed by malevolent spirits?

You are simply wrong about this, and your position on what veganism is is completely incoherent and nonsensical if you stop and think about it for 10 seconds, let alone actually read anything about it.

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products—particularly in diet—and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.

I am begging lost Redditors to read literally the first sentence of Wikipedia about a subject before trying to speak as an authority on it.

Do you mean:

If you want to be vegan because you enjoy it? Go for it. That is inarguable.

If you want to be vegan because you feel it’s healthier? Rock on. Go you. You may be right if you carefully monitor your diet. I would argue against it being better than vegetarian however.

Because neither of those is an argument for veganism. Veganism is not a diet, it’s a moral stance. Every case of considering it from the perspective of being a moral stance, as it is, you’re opposed to. So all of your arguments are against veganism, as it actually is.

Of course, the garbage that you pass off as “logic” is just, “It’s wrong to apply your morals to other people,” which is a completely laughable position. You “apply your morals to other people” if you think its acceptable to punish murder. You “apply your morals to other people” if you tell people it’s wrong to apply your morals to other people. But sure, it’s only “logically unsound arguments” that you’re opposed to, which is why you employ them.

I did not argue against veganism. 7 months ago, I did argue in favour of plants as plants are awesome.

The lie detector search function determined that was a lie.

If you want to be vegan because you don’t like factory farms? That’s not a logical jump to make. There are plenty of smaller suppliers you can procure from that do not have those issues; the smarter jump is to just not use bad providers no matter what the product.

If you want to be vegan because it’s eliminating suffering? Nope. You’re just making substitutions for things you’re comfortable with. Bad logic. Bad argument. You’re also applying your own morals (because this is a moral standpoint) to other people, which is stupid no matter who is doing it. From anti-abortion activists to Muslim extremists, your morals apply to you and only you. Do not try to enforce them on the outside world.

If you want to be vegan because it eliminates death? That’s also a moral argument. In fact, in the short term and per unit of death, being vegan adds MORE deaths, they’re just not a style you choose to recognize. Not to mention that increasing the crop yields to make up for the caloric deficit created by meat vanishing would also potentially kill the planet at this stage of human occupation. Crops that are easy to grow, less destructive to the land so they can grow it again immediately after, low maintenance, and cast-offs from other production are where animal feed comes from. This stuff could not be fed to humans or are excess.

Those certainly look like arguments against veganism to me! What would you call them?

The Strawman comment is you claiming I’m somehow screaming “1984” because of the ban. I am not.

That’s not a “strawman,” it’s a parody.

My original post here was made out of confusion, not malice.

The lie detector My ability to read the rest of this thread determined that was a lie.

Perhaps you guys could/should elevate this issue to the lemmy.world admin team.

That was kind of what I was attempting to do here.

So you’re attempting to escalate the issue to the admins… but not because you’re upset or anything. Right. In that case, why are you trying to waste their time?

All the rest of your points are completely irrelevant and I don’t care about them at all.

So, to be clear, you’re saying that you are not a vegan and you did argue against veganism, and are upset that you got kicked from a vegan space, but at the same time, saying that you’re not a vegan and argued against veganism and are upset that you got kicked from a vegan space is a “strawman,” somehow.

Are you strawmanning yourself? Wtf are you talking about?

When you’re not a vegan and argue against veganism online and the vegans don’t want to let you into a vegan space

As a vegan tankie, I’m more than happy to welcome anyone who is passionate about justice and equality. If you think for yourself rather than just following and upholding arbitrary social norms, you’re going to get pushback from the people who believe in those norms. Whether the norms in question are the needless industrialized mass slaughter of animals, or the needless industrialized mass slaughter of the victims of US imperialism. And it’s much easier to have meaningful, higher level discussions among people who share certain common values, so you’re not having to constantly refute the same shitty low effort talking points over and over.

Please, keep pushing your vegan users our way.

Well, I guess I’m just not sure why you’re trying to give us advice about something you have zero experience with.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say that you don’t actually care what kind of approach is more convincing, and you’re just trying to tell us to shut up, or say things in a way that makes us easy to ignore.

You have no idea what you’re talking about at best, and realistically, you don’t even want us to be successful. So, thank you for your unsolicited advice on which tacts are unhelpful, but, just so you know, I will be promptly tossing it into the trash.

That’s called Reductio Ad Absurdum and is a valid, classic form of argumentation. If you take their premises to their logical conclusion, the result is absurd, so their premises must be false.

You don’t get to arbitrarily limit where a premise gets applied in order to pick and choose which conclusions to stand by. It isn’t a strawman to show that someone’s premises lead to conclusions that they would disagree with, that’s literally the point.

Out of curiosity, how many people have you convinced to go vegan?

This logic doesn’t make sense in any other context. Like, if I say we should try to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere, you could point out that emitting CO2 is a fundamental part of human life, so something something virtue signaling blah blah blah. Just because something is unavoidable to a certain degree doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to minimize it.

I have a bunch of cats I feed vegan diets to, but to anyone concerned that I’m doing animal abuse, don’t worry - occasionally, I wring one of their necks and chop it up to feed to the others, so clearly I’m not abusing them.

Seriously though, I do not understand how non-vegans are all getting on their high horse about “animal abuse” when their preferred course of action is just abusing different animals. Cats do not hold a higher moral standing than other animals just because they look cute. You know they feed cows literal shit? Do you think that’s part of their “natural diet?”

I don’t have any cats or other pets, but even if the worst claims are true, the people doing it would be no worse than what carnists do every day. It’s simply that abuse against certain categories of sentient beings is so normalized that people don’t even recognize it as abuse, no matter how bad it is.

Surprise surprise non-vegans don’t particularly like being told that are on the same moral footing as children beaters. If it puts you right with your god I give you permission to compare me to one again. I won’t be convinced but hey you got my permission to do it. Unlike one of us in this conversation, I can tolerate people who don’t agree with me.

The purpose of the analogy was to establish the difference between disagreements and preference and disagreements about morality, not to put you on “the same moral footing as children beaters” which is an intentional, bad faith mischaracterization. If you’ll look at what I actually said:

Vegans don’t view it as the type of question that’s like, “Do you like Kirk or do you like Picard?” but rather as the type of question that’s like, “Is it ok to beat your children?"

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, I take it.

But what about disagreements that aren’t just about preferences, but about right and wrong? Vegans don’t view it as the type of question that’s like, “Do you like Kirk or do you like Picard?” but rather as the type of question that’s like, “Is it ok to beat your children?” The proper way to live is to not beat children and all other ways are wrong and awful. Framing the question as merely about individual preferences and not about morality is assuming the conclusion.

I won’t deny that there are farmers who abuse their animals, that is a problem that can be dealt with through the legal system, but you can’t sell me a sack of lies claiming that I abused the cows I milked growing up.

The legal system has no interest in addressing the vast majority of animal abuse, and there’s a lot of money in it which means enough political influence to ensure that never changes. The vast majority of produced goods relies on abusive conditions. It is possible to produce animal products without abuse, but removing abuse from the system means less will be produced, which means a reduction in consumption is still necessary.

Because brains are wired to avoid 1) changes to habits and 2) admission of wrongdoing. Encountering a vegan makes the brain start running cover and looking for ways to discredit arguments. Often, the mental framework for dismissing “uppity” advocates already exists. There’s also the force of money and industry propaganda which should be acknowledged, but in my experience people are more than capable of coming up with justifications on their own.

It’s very difficult to overcome these psychological forces, but simply making the switch can remove a lot of cognitive dissonance and expose certain BS arguments for what they are.