Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RichOldWhiteMan wrote

That author is a dork. They are literally ok with wasting food for morale superiority. Freegan is way more moral than buying food. Using his theories of economics freegan kills less animals than buying food at the grocery store

7

yam wrote

I don't see the author arguing against freeganism, as in eating vegetarian when it's from the bin. It's strictly the corpse eating that they're objecting to, as I read it.

2

RichOldWhiteMan wrote

Freeganism is eating meat from the garbage tho

5

yam wrote (edited )

Really? Is there not a word for vegan + bin-vegetarian then?

That's arguably also within the freegan category, as it is not 100% vegan.

I think author is just arguing against meat-eating freeganism.

3

RichOldWhiteMan wrote

Freegan is free and vegan. The author has said nothing about free vegatarianism I think it's ridiculous for you to assume they would be pro it.

I know they are arguing against eating meat in the garbage. The author was pretty clear. Thet still doesn't chnage the fact that in the liberal vegans frame of mind freegan kills less animals that industrial vegan.

The author is very clear in that they think they should be responsible in killing more animals for moral superiority.

I dont believe in the sudo science that you can apply simply and demand charts to the current world with no greater context. So I'm just arguing with the authors framework. If animals are going to be killed at least use their carcasses.

The author like most vegans is just making up nonsensical reasons to shame others. For no logical reason, it's just unnecessary shaming of those who using the authors frame work kill less animals.

All food even outside of capitalism will result in many animals dying. Not to mention the significant labor and sometimes even pollution involved.

Making up random reasons to shame vegans digging through the garbage to find food to eat is truly reprehensible.

3

crabs OP wrote

Eating flesh is never okay.

2

yam wrote

It's perfectly okay to eat your own placenta.

5

crabs OP wrote

I had no idea this was a thing until just now.

5

ruin wrote

It’s been commonplace in many cultures, but has gained popularity in primarily in the home birth and natural birth communities in the west. Typically dehydrated and administered in glycerin capsules, though many people consume a portion fresh as well. We’ve done it will all of ours.

5

NeoliberalismKills wrote (edited )

So humanity needs to abandon every environment where it is impossible to forage or grow their own plants?

Edit: any opinion besides a downvote. Your making an absolutist moral statement with broad implications. As someone who is anti-civ hunting is going to be necessary for caloric intake in certain climates. We cannot house the human population in the zones where it's possible to live completely meat free. Put another way, veganism is a luxury of industrial agriculture and civilization. If you support these things, then fine. So say and say you support the forced relocation of the Inuit or that they accept your morality.

I for one am working towards veganism because I abhor the commodification of any living creature. But certain climates will require hunting to remain habitable. And considering climates where strictly foraging and permaculture alone could sustain populations will become largely uninhabitable due to wet bulb temps it isn't even feasible to relocate everyone if we were so inclined.

2

ruin wrote

So say and say you support the forced relocation of the Inuit or that they accept your morality.

Apparently some do. I had a user on this site say exactly this in response to a similar question.

I’m not sure when anarchists became ok with usurping the autonomy of indigenous people to further their personal ideological and dietary preferences but I guess that’s what it’s come to? Pretty sad.

6

yam wrote

Sounds sad but don't take it as a reason to discount veganism as such.

The good thing is that vegans usually don't do that, relocate indigenous people to veganize them. (Prove me wrong?)

4

ruin wrote

All good. I’m not discounting veganism at all.

I was merely expressing my dismay that some anarchists prioritize ideologies over the autonomy of individuals (even just theoretically) in such a sweeping moralistic manner.

5

yam wrote

prioritize ideologies over the autonomy of individuals

Ya, well, prioritizing ideologies that just so also happens to be about prioritizing the autonomy of individuals (who in this case also includes certain other class of individuals whose autonomy is often prioritized very low).

3

ruin wrote

Your decision to isolate seven words and twist the already well established context of this discussion would seem to reinforce my statement rather than than oppose it.

There’s a difference between ideas and ideologies. There is also difference in the reality of survival for people living in different circumstances.

I’m not trying to argue that you or anyone shouldn’t be a vegan, or promote veganism for that matter.

I only suggest that individuals (anarchists especially) should consider whether they should make choices for others that they haven’t the faintest knowledge of or engagement with in any aspect of their life.

3

yam wrote

I only suggest that individuals (anarchists especially) should consider whether they should make choices for others that they haven’t the faintest knowledge of or engagement with in any aspect of their life.

Exactly. The dilemma being either making a choice about what someone should eat or making a choice that someone else should be eaten. I'm not sure a "don't make choices for others" position exists.

3

ruin wrote

I agree. It may not exist.

My position is that making the choice based on abstractions reified as truths is lazy and dull in addition to being rather authoritarian.

It’s much easier to proselytize with some good/evil binary, but such a framework is near useless in life.

4

yam wrote

It’s much easier to proselytize with some good/evil binary, but such a framework is near useless in life.

Yup, 100% this.

I think this good/evil binary can confuse non-vegans about veganism, as in "Are you then not allowed to kill a mosquito?" and all that.

My friends got some rescue chickens in their garden. After a few weeks they grew their feathers back. They're very sociable. My friends eat the eggs that those chickens lay.

I don't eat those eggs myself (because I've come to dislike the idea of eating eggs myself) but am I going to say anything about them "not being vegans" for cooking those eggs? No way, because it looks to me like the chickens are having a good time. Their living standards are likely amongst the top 0.0000001% of chickens.

Where I think a somewhat firm binary is occasionally helpful is in resistance to "humane-washing", like "free range" or "welfare slaughtered".

(I think there are parallels to the discussion about authority / anarchism with, say, Chomsky being arguably less binary with this idea of justified authority.)

3

ruin wrote

I think this good/evil binary can confuse non-vegans about veganism, as in "Are you then not allowed to kill a mosquito?" and all that.

It confuses everyone.

Sounds like your friends and the chickens have a nice symbiotic relationship going on.

As far as the anarchism/authority balance, I’d tell Chomsky to fuck off. To refer to him an antiauthoritarian or anarchist would be analogous to marketing free range or humane slaughter corpses.

Thanks for adding to the discussion. It’s been enjoyable.

3

Lulia wrote

I think you missed the point of the italicisation. The other classes of individuals who are prioritised lowly are the animals. The idea that animal bodily autonomy is ideology and that you're not making a choice for those animals by murdering them is some weird carnist logic.

1

ruin wrote

I can see that. I was reading it in the specific context of indigenous people, as that was the discussion at that point.

You could also say that the idea of autonomy doesn’t assume the complete removal of the risk of physical harm in anything but a utopian world view. If we’re to reject anthropocentrism and speciesism and that were the case, we’d paint predatory species as denying the autonomy of their prey.

I appreciate your point though. I’m interested in how and why individuals feel justified in making these value statements in addition to where they choose to draw the line for others.

3

RichOldWhiteMan wrote

In a perfect world the Inuit people would have the ability to move to an area where they have a less exploitative relationship to the ecosystem.

I think it would be hard to find anyone pro forcing the Inuit people to relocate. Empowering individuals to make more moral decisions is a far greater method. I'd even condone the forced relocation of the Inuit people due to them relying on meat.

I'm fine with trade so there is no reason people cannot produce food just buy the extra food they need. Tho I think such a question is kinda trivial. In the modern day my life is full of immoral acts that I have a greater priority in caring about.

In the current day I dont really care that the Inuit people eat meat. It's less than ideal so if they have the ability to live their life in a more moral way that would be great.

The little I know about the Inuit people I think they are doing a hell of a lot better than me in terms of morality. More of a group that I can look up to. That doesnt stop me from analyzing ways I think they could do better. Striving for a better world is a good idea.

2

yam wrote

You'd at least agree that eating bought flesh is never okay then?

2

NeoliberalismKills wrote

If you can genuinely pursue (food deserts exist) a vegan diet and aren't working towards eliminating industrial, domesticed animal products from your diet then I agree you're willfully contributing to the oppression of animals.

4

yam wrote

Yea, exactly.

I've seen supermarkets in UK that don't sell any fresh veg at all - potatoes, onion, apples, nothing - although sometimes delicious accidentally vegan frozen snacks. I wonder if that could be considered borderline food desert?

I think I would say the pursuit is to do what's best under the circumstances, while also working to improve those circumstances.

I like the idea of ban on advertisements for meat (just like tobacco advert ban in many countries, notably except Germany). That would probably be seen as "reformist" on this forum, and that's arguably true, but I'd just love to see that as a start.

All-or-nothing thinking approach can be harmful, like that you'd have to go 100% no-honey no-bin-dived-donuts vegan all the time or you might as well go back to McDonalds and order caged egg bagel with fried skin. Or that if not everyone everywhere in the whole world aren't all able to go 100% vegan (because food deserts somewhere), that you might as well then be fine with pig trucks and that whole billion scale animal transports, decimating of the ocean floors.

5

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

I don't think this type of moralism really accomplishes anything in terms of building an actionable social community that can reduce the harm that comes to animals as a result of human activity.

2

isvarahparamahkrsnah wrote

I'm a vegan who doesn't understand what all the fuss is about.

Perhaps my IQ is too high for nonsense arguments.
LOL
jk

4

crabs OP wrote (edited )

It’s unreasonable how this vegan forum has so many non-vegans. It must be because it’s featured to new users..?

3

bloodrose moderator wrote

Crazy is an ableist term. I believe what you were trying to say is it was surprising or hard to believe. Please edit your comment to convey your meaning without ableism.

9

crabs OP wrote (edited )

I have updated my comment. Thank you for using this moment to educate me rather than being rude. :^)

10

lastfutures wrote (edited )

It's because this is a small site where most users just comment on whatever comes up on /f/all.

8

ruin wrote

That’s what I tend to do. If it looks interesting I’ll engage. I don’t typically even look at what forum it’s in.

Is this bad form? I’m new to this stuff and not up on the etiquette side of things.

7

lastfutures wrote

No, that's what most people do. It's how the site's supposed to be used.

8

___A wrote

In some ways i'd say if something becomes used in a way enough that becomes the way it is supposed to be used, i've found that this is one of the more polite corners of the internet, and while im interested in picking up the social ettiquite here a bit more before activly posting, it does seem like whatever is going on here is working and posts do generate pretty healthy conversation generally. Although i would say that a few comments here rubbed me the wrong way, unlike in other forums where i feel responding to things in a caustic way as i do on the corporate platforms, i feel like most posts here are done in good faith and so deserve more thoughtfull replies...

3

existential1 wrote

Yeah, the term "vegan" seems to be something people feel inclined to speak on irrespective of their engagement with the set of ideas the identity proposes on a day-to-day basis.

6

Vulgar_Soda wrote

Just because I don't adhere to your version of food morality (that is seemingly being used to gate keep) does not mean I can't engage with vegan centered ideas and practices. Expecting perfection from people is a good way to alienate those that might have otherwise been open to whatever you're peddling. I eat vegan on most days. Is that not enough on a planet full of meat eaters?

5

crabs OP wrote (edited )

Animals aren’t ours to use for any reason. Vegans don’t have “cheat days”.

5

yam wrote (edited )

I have sometimes after going vegan, eaten pastries from the bin that may not have been perfectly vegan. I think there's a difference between grabbing a jelly donut from the rubbish, even though might have egg in it, and then sticking your teeth in someone's cadaver. "Cheat bin cake"?

3

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

You are morally correct, but it's important to remember we should be seeking a vegan planet and not a vegan club.

The goal isn't to make the omnivores feel like shit, it's to convince them to change.

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

Veganism has a precise definition, refusing to dilute its meaning isn't "gatekeeping".

You'd be right to say that you follow a plant-based diet most of the time.

4

RichOldWhiteMan wrote

I would appreciate it you would refrain from using ableist language in place of negative descriptions. Thanks

4