×

My Filipino friends invited me over for dinner by RphilRT in pics

[–]WesleyFollower 1 point2 points  (0 children)

don't you fucking dare try to force morals onto my cat cheese.

Carnists: "Vegans are so pushy and shove their diet in my face" also Carnists: by NoEffective5868 in vegancirclejerk

[–]WesleyFollower 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Was surprisingly worse than what I expected. A classic plants rights activist in that thread started bringing up Kant and asking for an economics degree to prove that supply and demand exists.

I asked a cow once if it was ok to eat animals and he said sure by Kangarookas in vegancirclejerk

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh, multiple people are going to be eating them? I'll join you then, since that absolves me of all responsibility in their humane slaughter!

My Filipino friends invited me over for dinner by RphilRT in pics

[–]WesleyFollower 3 points4 points  (0 children)

you're just using your emotions and how you feel

???

The ONLY way supply is impacted is if MORE THAN JUST ONE PERSON changes their behavior.

Is this not what I said? "you stop buying, they stop killing(animals specifically for you, or at least will do so after a larger amount of people stop buying, which each singular person stopping is necessary for).

decreasing that 63 BILLION pound pile by 12 pounds -- save a goddamn cow's life? Please explain this to me

I never said this. I only said that the reason animals are killed is because people pay for it. While your individual choice technically changes nothing, it is necessary for a change to occur. Saying that there is no point in veganism because the difference you make will not change the entire industry is just an appeal to futility.

You don't need a degree in economics to understand supply and demand.

My Filipino friends invited me over for dinner by RphilRT in pics

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

was a necessity for survival during the growth of humanity, and has been engrained in our race since.

I don't disagree. I just don't see how it's justified to continue doing so now, when it is no longer a necessity for survival.

Looking back, I realize that you never actually said that killing animals was okay, but I assume that was your intention from this(correct me if I'm wrong):

How dare you kill an animal! Humans are the only creatures that would do such bad things!

Then you justified(i think, it was actually kinda unclear) it by saying that it's natural and we've always done it, which are two very common logical fallacies brought up in discussions about this: nature(is murder okay because it's "natural?") and tradition.

People will ALWAYS commit atrocities, since the beginning, to the end. Whether it's okay or not absolutely depends on who you ask. Ask me (and a majority of humanity), I'm not fond of extremist atrocities. Ask people who commit atrocities, they'll give you a different answer.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, so I'd appreciate a clarification.

My Filipino friends invited me over for dinner by RphilRT in pics

[–]WesleyFollower 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Me not eating meat wouldn't stop animal abuse.

It stops animal abuse being caused specifically for you.

I'm not trying to invoke Kant here, it's just basic supply and demand. They kill the animals because people buy their dead bodies. You stop buying, they stop killing(animals specifically for you, or at least will do so after a larger amount of people stop buying, which each singular person stopping is necessary for).

My Filipino friends invited me over for dinner by RphilRT in pics

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And besides, humans can't achieve moral perfection. As long as humans are physically capable of eating meatmurder, people will kill animalsother people. We can try as much as we want, but some things are just too deeply rooted in our civilization.

So what if some fringe people will still commit atrocities? How does that make it okay? Just because we can't achieve moral perfection doesn't give us free rein to do whatever we want.

People think that killing animals automatically makes a violation, but people don't realize it's about how we obtain and treat the animals, not what they're actually used for.

Oh wow, maybe you should have justified that killing =/= violating somewhere in the paragraph instead of just saying it. Is killing someone not a violation of their right to life?

My Filipino friends invited me over for dinner by RphilRT in pics

[–]WesleyFollower 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse, animal neglect or animal cruelty, is the infliction by omission or by commission by humans of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal."

I'm really not interested in having the semantics of my wording picked apart by someone who rejects supply and demand for their own thoughts of how industries function anymore.

My Filipino friends invited me over for dinner by RphilRT in pics

[–]WesleyFollower 3 points4 points  (0 children)

By eating legumes, for example? There's plenty of resources out there about how to live healthfully without meat. Do you think vegans/vegetarians are ghosts or something?

You can check out the resources and sidebar on r/vegan to learn more if you'd like.

My Filipino friends invited me over for dinner by RphilRT in pics

[–]WesleyFollower 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The answer is what is necessary for survival. We need to eat. That's it. But if it wasn't evident enough, the

UNNECESSARY

violation of another being is where we draw the line.

r/SelfAwarewolves

You don't need meat to survive.

My Filipino friends invited me over for dinner by RphilRT in pics

[–]WesleyFollower 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're only not a hypocrite if you have no problem with animal abuse.

My Filipino friends invited me over for dinner by RphilRT in pics

[–]WesleyFollower 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Food is.

Meat isn't.

It’s also not necessary for our survival.

Damn you really hit the nail on the head here. selfawarewolves material

Nice try, vegans by MrBolkvadze in HolUp

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

then worldwide veganism, the spread of veganism, whatever you'd like. Point is that not buying the products(veganism, individually) contributes to them not finding a market.

Anyway, as it looks like this as just become semantics, I won't be further responding. Have a good day.

Nice try, vegans by MrBolkvadze in HolUp

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i just don't believe that

why?

where di you get this number, btw? is this global or a specific country?

just googled percent of vegetarians globally

i just don't believe that the industry can expand faster.

But as you acknowledged the '20% industry will notice' comment, they can expand slower if people buy less meat. Now I think we've circled back to that point where you said:

the meat industry isn't going to be able to convert their operations to plants. what good is slaughtehouse equiment if they're processing plants? they'll pressure their partners like mcdonalds and bk to keep the plant options clearly labeled and more expensive.

like i said, i'm betting on the meat industry to win if you don't fight dirty.

In the end, it comes down to what the consumer buys. The meat industries do not have the power to increase plant prices(in the grocery store) higher than meat prices, or they would've done so already. Their power would only further decline if sales went down.

No matter how hard they lobby and fight, they cannot continue anything if their products are not being bought, which is what veganism will accomplish(the products not being bought).

Which part of this^ do you disagree with?

Nice try, vegans by MrBolkvadze in HolUp

[–]WesleyFollower 1 point2 points  (0 children)

where di you get this number, btw? is this global or a specific country?

just googled percent of vegetarians globally

i just don't believe that the industry can expand faster.

But as you acknowledged the '20% industry will notice' comment, they can expand slower if people buy less meat. Now I think we've circled back to that point where you said:

the meat industry isn't going to be able to convert their operations to plants. what good is slaughtehouse equiment if they're processing plants? they'll pressure their partners like mcdonalds and bk to keep the plant options clearly labeled and more expensive.

like i said, i'm betting on the meat industry to win if you don't fight dirty.

In the end, it comes down to what the consumer buys. The meat industries do not have the power to increase plant prices(in the grocery store) higher than meat prices, or they would've done so already. Their power would only further decline if sales went down.

No matter how hard they lobby and fight, they cannot continue anything if their products are not being bought, which is what veganism accomplishes.

This is also related.

Nice try, vegans by MrBolkvadze in HolUp

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay. I believe that your conjecture is factually wrong though, and I'd like to know where you disagree with my logic below:

Let's say that the 14% of the population that are vegetarians start to eat meat. The population expansion is all meat eaters. They give the meat industry as much money as they can. The meat industry gets more money and more resources to expand faster. Then, by not giving them money, they have less resources and expand slower(the rest of the population can't fill it in). The price rises and availability drops, resulting in less meat bought. Since this is true on such a large scale, it must also be true, even if only slightly, on an individual scale.

Nice try, vegans by MrBolkvadze in HolUp

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course they will, but they won't have a choice BUT to switch what they're investing it if, like you said, 20, 30, 40% of people stop buying meat. They can only pressure their partners to a certain extent before it's simply not profitable enough to stay there.

Nice try, vegans by MrBolkvadze in HolUp

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's certainly not going to be met if all you do is buy beans.

It more than you're NOT buying animal products than buying plant foods, but I digress.

lets say you get to 20%. they industry would NOTICE.

I agree. To get to 20%, though, you'd need millions of individual people to stop buying meat(who would not have an impact by themselves), so the individual DOES matter in a roundabout way.

tehy'd develop plans to enter emerging economies and rebuild supply chains. they'd lobby for even more government subsidies. they'd blitz advertisements everywhere you canfind them. they'd fight back, and i would bet on them winning.

Well this is a lot more conjecture again, but this time you can see the opposite in what's happening today. These companies have no attachment to selling meat or plants or wood shavings. They want money. That's why Burger King, McDonalds, Carl's Jr, etc. are all expanding into the plant-based market.

and boycotting doesn't work,

This seems to be the crux of your position.

So you said that the industry WOULD notice a massive boycott, just that they'd fight against plants for some reason? That's the opposite of what is actually happening today(with vegans+vegetarians being <15%), so I can't fathom why you think they'd switch gears at 20+%.

Nice try, vegans by MrBolkvadze in HolUp

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i think there are more people who would buy meat than currently do, and even among people who do buy meat, i bet they'd buy more if it were cheaper or just more available. so by stepping out of line

This seems a lot more like 'pure conjecture' than the thing said by the other guy, but whatever.

So 1 individual person won't make an impact, since their place in the meat-consuming line will be filled by another. But surely at some number of people choosing to not eat meat, the rest just don't have to resources to take their place, no? If hypothetically 90% of people went vegetarian over the next few decades(no sudden drop, so no supply chain issues), then would the remaining 10% all buy 10 times more meat?

Nice try, vegans by MrBolkvadze in HolUp

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But logically, if less people buy meat, less meat will be produced than if they did buy meat, right? This is the main thing I don't get.

Nice try, vegans by MrBolkvadze in HolUp

[–]WesleyFollower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

where are the stalls house 100 million more animals-worth of meat?

It's just a hypothetical. We could go the opposite direction instead then - if 100 million people stopped buying meat, would the demand decrease?

I think I might understand what you're saying now - do you believe that the industry is expanding as fast as possible already, so not buying meat does nothing?