We can live in a world where we hurt animals for food. Or we can live in a world where we don’t hurt animals for food.

If putting bull sperm on the end of a stick and ramming it up a cow’s vagina isn’t rape then nothing is.

Well, if you’ve ever wondered what side you would’ve been on during abolition, now you know.

People don’t go hungry because no one’s figured out how to produce enough food. People go hungry because of our current economic system. All I’m trying to show is that it is possible to feed a vegan world, and it would actually be easier. Actually creating a world where everyone is fed is a separate topic entirely and for people much smarter than myself.

When it’s calculable? You mean like when it’s a concrete number of deaths? Like what actually happens?

And “people don’t always act as the math tells them to” isn’t a counter argument. You may as well reply to me by saying “but your arguments are moot because reason doesn’t dictate my behavior”

I’m not saying we kill every pig tomorrow. I’m saying we stop raping them to balloon their populations to absurd numbers which are inherently unsustainable. You think it’s genocide not to artificially inseminate billions of pigs?

That’s some of it but not the majority. Our demand for meat is far far greater than byproducts can supply. And we really don’t need the extra calories from meat. We could grow far more food by repurposing that land.

That’s a really embarrassing way to admit you don’t understand basic statistics. Please never buy stocks.

I’m lucky in that I’m very content to pour a can of beans on rice and call it a meal. But I can sympathize with your situation. I’m very sorry to hear about your mental health. If I may offer a suggestion, if you can’t be 100% vegan, then just be as vegan as you can be. Choose the shirt made from cotton and not wool. Experiment with vegan food a little bit at a time and learn what you like. Buy the fake meat when it goes on sale. Maybe it’ll work out, maybe it won’t. But if you take it slow and gently then you probably don’t have anything to lose.

But you will. And they know that. And they base their decisions on that.

Animal agriculture is the main cause of deforestation and a leading contributor to CO2 emissions. And we don’t need to replace every acre of farm land grown for animal feed with farms for human consumption. Animal calories and protein are, at best, 15% efficient. As in it one calorie of meat requires 6 calories of crops. We only need 15% of that farm land to be useable for human edible crops and the rest can be returned to nature. And domesticated animals are selectively bred monsters. Chickens so huge that 70% of them have debilitating leg issues. Pigs are constantly hungry, so much so that pigs intended to live longer than a few weeks (i.e. for breeding) need to be denied food so they don’t eat themselves to death. This denial of food often results self multination and aggression. Extinction would be a mercy for these animals. And there should never have been billions of pigs or chickens or cows to begin with. One species of bird should not account for 70% of bird biomass. The majority of mammal biomass should not be found in factory farms.

I don’t mean it as an ad hominem. I just thought that argument was so silly you must be joking. Your argument makes hiring hitmen permissible so long as there’s at least one middle man. Unless I’ve misinterpreted you.

Good point. I don’t think it changes my argument though. If anything, allowing a creature to come into existence just so that it can be slaughtered is way more fucked up than exploiting an existing person.

So you pay the guy who pays the guy who kills the animals and that makes it fine? That’s the rule? There needs to be 2 degrees of separation? The animal is being killed because you created the demand. The guy wouldn’t have paid the guy if you weren’t going to pay him.

Edit: oh you’re a troll. And a reasonably funny troll to tbh. Edit Edit: I’m not correcting “to tbh” because it’s really funny

This is actually a very smart point and held me back from going vegan for a while. Peter Singer has the best counterargument. Suppose a farm hatches chickens in multiples of 1000 each month. So, if the demand for chicken drops by 1/mo nothing will change, but if it drops by 1000/mo then they will hatch 1000 fewer chickens next month. Well, then if a thousand people go vegan, one will be the straw that broke the camel’s back and they will have saved 1000 chickens. So, in other words, you have a 1 in 1000 chance of saving a 1000 chickens. Which means that each vegan saves one chicken on average. So, for all intents and purposes, you can consider yourself to have spared all of the animals you don’t eat.

Buying meat is paying for animals to be killed. Just like buying flour is paying for wheat to be grown.

Veganism is the logical extension of abolitionism and feminism. If you’ve ever wondered what side of history you would’ve been on, now you know.

“Animal Liberation” may sound more like a parody of other liberation movements than a serious objective. The idea of “The Rights of Animals” actually was once used to parody the case for women’s rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, her views were widely regarded as absurd, and before long an anonymous publication appeared entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. The author of this satirical work (now known to have been Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher) tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft’s arguments by showing that they could be carried one stage further. If the argument for equality was sound when applied to women, why should it not be applied to dogs, cats, and horses? The reasoning seemed to hold for these “brutes” too; yet to hold that brutes had rights was manifestly absurd. Therefore the reasoning by which this conclusion had been reached must be unsound, and if unsound when applied to brutes, it must also be unsound when applied to women, since the very same arguments had been used in each case…

Animal Liberation, Peter Singer

Yeah maybe but the infohazard got to us. We know too much and now we can only really choose between being a guilty meat eater or a depressed vegan.

Please think about why this makes you so angry.

Veganism isn’t difficult. And yeah my tofu exploits people in the third world, but the beef I used to eat was fed soy anyways. You’re just removing a one really horrible and unnecessary step from the food supply chain.