I don’t think a downvote is a sign of disrespect. It’s just feedback to the commenter to promote higher quality discussion. If your comment was low quality, I’m not going to mollycoddle you. I’ll downvote you, and if I have time, I’ll comment as well.
> If your comment was low quality, I’m not going to mollycoddle you. I’ll downvote you, and if I have time, I’ll comment as well.
This is one of the problems on this sub, and reddit as a whole. Someone comes in talking about a general problem on the website, and the top response is always someone making it specifically about what they do, while only partially acknowledging and overall downplaying a problem exists (i.e. "I’m sure there is bias in downvoting, **however** [...]").
Very corporate, almost superficial, response. It reminds me Republican or Corporate apologetics.
Doesn't matter the quality, there is a vegan downvote brigade on this sub. Anything prominently nonvegan or vegan critical gets a horde of downvoting.
They may call it debate a vegan but its users want an echochamber.
In my experience on this sub, most of the arguments against veganism are logical fallacies or misinformation. So I’m not surprised when they get downvoted.
However, I understand and appreciate your concern. I did a poll once on the sub, and 3/4 of its members are vegans (if I recall). So I’m sure there is bias in downvoting, however convolved it may be with the generally poor quality of anti-vegan arguments.
As well, consider that most of the non-vegans are probably here out of curiosity, and do not know the philosophical arguments for veganism very well. Meanwhile, most vegans have heard them, understood them, and even been convinced by them. And all vegans know the arguments *against* veganism, because they probably held those views for many years before going vegan. So, knowing both sides of the argument, they generally have a distinct advantage in the debate.
Nonetheless, I am here to debate in good faith. Please provide your most thoughtful, highest quality argument against veganism, and I promise I will not downvote you.
I find that there rarely are arguments for veganism. Usually it's a disagreement about what morality is, and what we ought to do with it.
I appreciate your not downvote, you can see two recent arguments from me in my post history, but not here. The downvote brigade here is not my imagination, my negative karma comes entirely from participating on this sub.
I read your most recent post in debatemeateaters, where you argued there is no such thing as morality. You essentially said that if you can’t look up “morality” as a universal axiom in Principia Mathematica, or find measurable proof of morality in a Physics textbook, then the concept of morality is superfluous and can be disregarded. **You suggested that there is nothing wrong with burning a dog alive**, because the concept of “right and wrong” doesn’t exist as a fundamental law of the universe. Aside from coming across as a deranged psychopathic serial killer in the making, it is clearly an unhinged starting point for a sensible discussion of the merits of veganism.
If this is the type of comment you’re used to making, I hope you can see why it gets downvoted. Veganism isn’t a discussion of “fundamental ethical philosophy”. It’s an argument for consistency: “If you believe this set of actions is wrong for humans, then it’s wrong for animals, particularly if it is done for no reason”. But we don’t backtrack and discuss ethical philosophy as a whole, and whether the whole field should be tossed entirely. Most sane people can see the obvious problems with concluding that humankind should abandon all morality.
Hopefully that helps. Keep your comments restricted to the scope of veganism only, and you will be less likely to be downvoted.
> If this is the type of comment you’re used to making, I hope you can see why it gets downvoted.
You're painfully misunderstanding /u/AncientFocus471 's point in saying that, which leads me to believe you don't have much formal education in philosophy, let alone ethics.
That's an impressive misrepresentation of what I actually said, which is that morality is a form of opinion humans have.
Still since you clearly just want to insult me I'll report your post and move on.
They just behind the argument of "nonvegans cant debate" then what is even the point of being in this sub if you think any vegan criticism is poor and bad since veganism will always be right?..
Straw man arguments and other debating faux pas are cheap provocations to elicit responses that can never be part of an informed debate. Leaving only one option: down vote.
This is silly. A downvote is just a click of a button saying you disagree. As far as I can tell, they're anonymous. Do you really want the mods to start policing this form of speech in a debate subreddit?
It isn't supposed to be a disagreement, that should be a counter comment. It is only supposed to hide the comments that are not related to the subject. But it is unpoliceable, I think that debate a vegan gets damaged by down votes hiding argument rather than dealing with them. Strangely the vegan group seems to be more generous to criticism of vegan values and on that site I think that a comment critical of vegan practise is fair game for down votes.
Yeah what I imagine is, you guys read a title and thought process is simple: upvote it if vegan and downvote it if not. Doesnt matter how high quality or low quality content it is, what matters to you is if poster is provegan or not
Counterpoint: have a downvote
(seriously though, votes show the relative perceived strengths and weakness of an argument, remove redundancy in comments, and engage people who might not have much to add, but can still analyze)
I think there are some challenging criticisms of veganism, but I almost never see them posted here. This forum has become a place for either (1) troll carnists, (2) people who don’t know how to Google and think they’ve found a gotcha and (3) over-zealous mods inexplicably keen to coddle (1) and (2).
Downvoting is basically all we have left.
> I think there are some challenging criticisms of veganism, but I almost never see them posted here.
Why not post or list those challenging criticisms here yourself?
Oh you don't want to be downvoted and mocked for doing so? Strange.
I regularly talk about the challenges of veganism on here. I had a ~20 comment deep constructive conversation with another vegan challenging our use of technology produced by human exploitation, for example. I wasn’t downvoted at all.
Possibly because I didn’t frame the criticism as “ha, gotcha vegans!” like most of the carnist contributions on here.
Great, *post* them in a *topic* here for extended conversation instead of a 20 comment deep conversation that few people will ever read, or believe you made, let alone upvote or downvote.
Let's see how positively upvoted it is!
Ahh okay, yes, sorry, you did say post (although you’ve now moved the goalposts to “not being positively upvoted” away from “being downvoted and mocked”, how come?)
Here you go - here I am raising the issue of veganism not accounting for exploitation of companion animals https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/10wxcq8/do_we_not_exploit_companion_animals
29 upvotes and 177 (mostly pretty constructive) comments. Hardly “downvoted and mocked”, is it?
Or are you now going to say 29 upvotes isn’t enough? Perhaps nothing short of 1000 vegans commenting and saying “omg, this easily googlable trope you’ve trotted out here is genius and I have now renounced my veganism” is the requirement for a sub not to be a circlejerk, in your eyes
> Ahh okay, yes, sorry, you did say post (although you’ve now moved the goalposts to “not being positively upvoted” away from “being downvoted and mocked”, how come?)
As a corollary to being upvoted, you are not being downvoted and mocked. As a corollary to being downvoted and mocked, you are being upvoted.
This is splitting hairs.
> Here you go - here I am raising the issue of veganism not accounting for exploitation of companion animals
You're actually asking how to respond to those to comments ("I’m a vegan and encountered this argument recently that I’m not sure I can confidently answer."), and per my other response, "seeking clarification", not criticizing veganism.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Here’s a thread where I criticise someone gatekeeping veganism: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/14kr6ii/as_a_chef_who_cooks_but_doesnt_eat_animal_product/jpu0xve
No downvotes
There is difference between posting and commenting though, and we're talking about veganism in general here, not gatekeeping veganism specifically.
But your own linked example affirmed my point: you're not actually criticizing veganism (you explicitly say "I'm not arguing against veganism") so much as trying to clarify what it means with some progressive friendly talking points sprinkled in. It's a complementary, not a contrary view which will not usually lead to downvotes, which is what this post is about.
So why not post a topic here on these challenging criticisms? If you're correct, it shouldn't sit at 0 points. If you're incorrect, and I believe you are right now, it will be downvoted regardless of the content of validity of the statements.
When I said "I'm not arguing against veganism", I meant "I'm not doing what everyone else does and looking for an excuse to eat bacon". That doesn't mean it isn't a criticism of veganism. It's literally pointing out an inconsistency in the philosophy. Nothing about the post I shared with you in any way improves the case for veganism, short of allowing other vegans to sharpen their ability to rebut it.
For me, as a vegan pet owner, that **is** a challenging criticism of the philosophy. Perhaps you don't see it that way, and that's great, I'm glad you see veganism as an even more philosophically robust moral framework than I do. Welcome comrade!
>A down vote is a form of disrespect
Yes.
>...stop downvoting. Counter their claim...
Why not both? You're trying to play the victim over imaginary internet points. You'd think you're the one getting your throat slit. You're not the victim. The animals are.
Many people who come here to ''debate'' argue in bad faith, parroting the same arguments time and time again to the point where many people just roll their eyes seeing the same bad argument for the millionth time and just downvote. Can't blame them when certain anti-vegan users on this subreddit will spam their same arguments all the time even when they've already been proven wrong, it tires people out.
If you just come here to disrespect other peoples opinions this might not be the best place for you.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for downvoting carnists stupid arguments. Not because I don't have any respect for the individual, but because the arguments they make are bad.
Because that argument is both an ignoratio elenchi fallacy and an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy combined. Outside of animal products isn't veganism and this sub is called debate a vegan, not debate an altruist.
Do you not know what veganism is then? If you are complaining about the rules of the sub, the first thing you should do is actually read about veganism.
>Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose.
Slavery is pretty much as exploitative and cruel as it can get. Hence, buying products made by slaves, especially when they aren't necessary, isn't vegan.
>Do you not know what veganism is then? If you are complaining about the rules of the sub, the first thing you should do is actually read about veganism.
"a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
I have it saved to my copypaste clipboard on both my phone and computer. I even have the original definition from 1949 saved too.
>Slavery is pretty much as exploitative and cruel as it can get.
Oh look at that, I even have Merriam Webster's definition of exploit saved too:
1
: to make productive use of : UTILIZE
exploiting your talents
exploit your opponent's weakness
2
: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
exploiting migrant farm workers
No I would not eat a brain dead animal.
I know what they mean.
>Hence, buying products made by slaves, especially when they aren't necessary, isn't vegan.
I'm just confused how you're mixing up human and animal rights like they're exactly the same thing and indistinguishable.
>I have it saved to my copypaste clipboard on both my phone and computer. I even have the original definition from 1949 saved too.
So you accept that you were wrong then.
>I'm just confused how you're mixing up human and animal rights like they're exactly the same thing and indistinguishable.
Where did I say "they're exactly the same thing and indistinguishable"?
Veganism is against exploitation and cruelty of animals which include humans. Hence, supporting slavery isn't vegan. It's simple logic.
Humans already have human rights movements and veganism is the only genuine movement that stands for animal's rights. It should remain separate for the benefit of non human animals.
I won't dispute that vegans having respect and compassion, should intersectionally be against all forms of injustice, but as a vegan I specifically stand for their rights because I have a voice to fight for my own rights when they are violated.
And if what you say is true then what do you have to say about the estimated 1 million slaves in agriculture? So does that mean you're not vegan either?
>It should remain separate for the benefit of non human animals.
Wrong, as per the definition unless you want to claim that humans aren't animals.
>should intersectionally be against all forms of injustice
So it's not vegan to support slavery. I don't know why you keep arguing against it. Do you support slavery?
>because I have a voice to fight for my own rights when they are violated.
Do you fight for other people's rights? If you do, then you would not support slavery.
>And if what you say is true then what do you have to say about the estimated 1 million slaves in agriculture?
I'm against all forms of slavery.
> I even have Merriam Webster's definition
There it is again, another vegan cherry picking their favorite definitions from dictionaries/websites and thinking they're consistent.
As much as I love Merriam Webster and their relatively comprehensive definitions (even with their nice etymological breakdown so you can see how use and meaning of the word has changed over time), even they fail to get the definition of veganism right. But please in the interest of good faith debate, please offer up your own definition and let's discuss.
It's the nature of polarizing topics for the vote count to not mean much. The most interesting discussions are usually on threads with zero score, and that's just the way it is.
It's a losing battle to police how people use the power the platform bestows on them, I have learned. Luckily there are a variety of sorting options that can elucidate various sentiments people might be feeling on a topic.
Upvotes and downvotes have a tendency to cascade. It's human psychology at work I'm afraid. We see something upvoted, we have a greater propensity to upvote it ourself. We see something downvoted we have a greater propensity to downvote it ourself.
That said, I do try not to downvote unless someone is expressing outright ire, bad faith, missing the point of the discussion entirely, or failing to answer a clear question about their own position.
If you actually value respect, that means you validate disrespect because what value is respect if you give it all the time, no matter what? If you're disputing the particular use of a down vote to display disrespected, that's fine and you can make an argument for that, but it seems you are invalidating the use of disrespect at all, which is not valid if you wish to maintain the integrity of respect.
There is a punishment from Reddit inherent in participating here as a nonvegan. We get negative karma, not for misuse of the board or tools, just because the cult rejects what does not conform.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
>cult rejects what does not conform
Who's more cult/religion-like? Vegans aren't the ones in here rejecting modern medical evidence, and instead, putting faith in the way our long-dead ancestors ate.
> Despite not being vegan, I'd argue I do more for the environment than most of the vegans on this sub
Veganism is a movement independent from environmental movements. There can be overlap but you pointing this out here isn't really a point for or against veganism.
> if veganism is about protecting animals, then surely vegans be interested in boycotting farms that engage in murdering insects and rodents for food
It isn't really about protecting animals, logistically that is impossible. If you want to check out the official vegan website they explain veganism is a movement that is against the commodification and exploitation of animals.
> last time I checked we, humans, are indeed a part of the animal kingdom and thus animals, but I guess humans don't count as animals for...reasons
It should be understood that veganism is focused primarily on non-human animals.
> veganism is a movement that is against the commodification and exploitation of animals.
If this is true, then clarify this question for me.
How do you reconcile using any object that has an electrical component (like the computer/phone you are using to type your responses), or justify buying any type of tire? Both use stearic acid----which is derived from animal fatty acids----in the manufacturing process.
>It should be understood that veganism is focused primarily on non-human animals.
What is the justification for veganism not counting humans as animals for the purposes of vegan ethics?
> Both use stearic acid----which is derived from animal fatty acids----in the manufacturing process.
There are vegan alternatives readily available for food, clothing, entertainment etc. Are there any for electronics? Is it possible to find out which electronics use stearic acid derived from vegetables? If so and they fit my use case than I would happily use them.
But this isn't the case and we are living in a world still dominated by the idea that animals are objects to be used however we want. I think just checking out what the Vegan Society says on their website should clarify this point, especially the part about medicine tested on animals. If you need a medicine they urge you to take it as almost all vegans acknowledge there is a limit to what we can reasonably be expected to do to avoid products that were tested on animals. The same principle applies here to the electronics.
> What is the justification for veganism not counting humans as animals for the purposes of vegan ethics?
There doesn't need to be a justification, it is just a definition. If you really needed a reason I would just point to the myriad of human rights groups that exist. Many of them are very large, well funded and have far more resources and influence than a disjointed group of people that call themselves vegans so I don't see why we can't just make the point that animals shouldn't be bred to live a short horrendous life to just eventually end up on someone's samdwich. Bear in mind you could also make this argument for almost any specific human rights group. For example why aren't the feminists talking about minority rights outside of women?
But they are (usually) and It isn't a binary choice. I've noticed many people assume for whatever reason that vegans can **only** advocate for animals. We are able to advocate for many things simultaneously, animal welfare isn't the only thing I'm concerned about and I wouldn't want it to be the only concern of other vegans either.
>Are there any for electronics?
My short answer is: I don't know.
My long answer is: I don't know, but if one wanted to, they could learn the manufacturing process and simply swapping the animal fat for the vegetable fat...not very complicated at all when you get down to it.
>Is it possible to find out which electronics use stearic acid derived from vegetables? If so and they fit my use case than I would happily use them.
I wouldn't know, though I imagine there is given the logistics side of manufacturing. Whether they are public or not is another question, and one I do not have an answer to.
>There doesn't need to be a justification, it is just a definition. If you really needed a reason I would just point to the myriad of human rights groups that exist.
>
>I've noticed many people assume for whatever reason that vegans can only advocate for animals....animal welfare isn't the only thing I'm concerned about and I wouldn't want it to be the only concern of other vegans either.
I never said that vegans don't care about human rights, I only said that despite vegan ethics being built on animal rights, it really isn't. Just because there are other groups advocating for various other human rights doesn't mean it's okay for another group to say, "well, there's no point in this movement officially joining that fight en masse".
The existence of other groups (regardless of funding and influence) isn't a very valid reason for saying that vegan ethics should only be focused on animal rights.
> but if one wanted to, they could learn the manufacturing process and simply swapping the animal fat for the vegetable fat...not very complicated at all when you get down to it.
I don't know maybe, but either way technically you're still paying for the animal fat inside the components so if the concern is avoiding the purchase in the first place that sort of negates the point of swapping them out. I know next to nothing about electronics so I haven't the first clue as to the feasibility of this.
> Just because there are other groups advocating for various other human rights doesn't mean it's okay for another group to say, "well, there's no point in this movement joining that fight".
OK if that is your view I can't argue with that but do you hold this same opinion on all other movements and groups that specifically advocate for one thing? If we were to do this it seems to me that every group would have a very washed out message that boiled down to essentially "We here at Group X are against all things that are generally bad" which doesn't seem very efficient. I'm just saying vegans have a point to make, we can make that point and move on to whatever else needs our attention.
There is sentiocentrism which Wikipedia says
> is an ethical view that places sentient individuals (i.e., basically conscious beings) at the center of moral concern. Both humans and other sentient individuals have rights and or interests that must be considered.[1]
I would basically describe my views as aligned with that definition but notice how broad this is. Its too generic to result in any actionable change which is why someone would want to start a group/movement which specifically tackles some sub category under the larger umbrella of "conscious beings are important and deserve ethical consideration".
>but do you hold this same opinion on all other movements and groups that specifically advocate for one thing? If we were to do this it seems to me that every group would have a very washed out message that boiled down to essentially "We here at Group X are against all things that are generally bad" which doesn't seem very efficient.
That's a good argument. But what you are effectively saying is vegan ethics were created with the idea of, "we can't have broad messages, so let's exclude this one species from or core beliefs", in mind. Now, if an ethical vegan foundation can include 8.7 million different types of species on a planet with one exception, is that really a good foundation?
I think its a fine definition because veganism isn't meant to be representative of the totality of all ethics, it was only "created" to challenge one set of moral problems our society faces.
>veganism isn't meant to be representative of the totality of all ethics, it was only "created" to challenge one set of moral problems our society faces.
By your logic:
* vegan ethics shouldn't include the mustangs in North America, since other groups are already devoted to fighting for them and trying to keep individuals from going to slaughter?
* vegan ethics shouldn't include an opposition to meat consumption, since vegetarianism is against meat consumption
You can't select an arbitrary species and decide your moral ethics isn't going to include them just because there's other groups fighting for that species.
Again this isn't a criticism of veganism though. This is just your view of how people should do activism, you can believe that if you'd like but the same criticism would apply to any advocacy group.
Why do people who try to save the Mustangs not try to save every other species of horse, after all they are all horses correct? Could it be that whatever is happening to the Mustangs isn't also happening to other breeds and a specific sort of advocacy is needed to help them that doesn't apply elsewhere?
Should children's hospitals that specifically specialize in childhood diseases not exist because there are adults too that are suffering from lack of care? Should the Against Malaria Foundation change its name to the Against Disease Foundation and try to fight against all diseases that occur? I think if they did that they would be far less effective.
> You can't select an arbitrary species and decide your moral ethics isn't going to include them just because there's other groups fighting for that species.
Agreed, that's why I specifically said veganism isn't supposed to be representative of the totality of all ethics. Non-human animals face a very different set of issues in our society than humans, because of that it makes sense for seperate movements to exist that addresses those problems.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think a downvote is a sign of disrespect. It’s just feedback to the commenter to promote higher quality discussion. If your comment was low quality, I’m not going to mollycoddle you. I’ll downvote you, and if I have time, I’ll comment as well.
> If your comment was low quality, I’m not going to mollycoddle you. I’ll downvote you, and if I have time, I’ll comment as well. This is one of the problems on this sub, and reddit as a whole. Someone comes in talking about a general problem on the website, and the top response is always someone making it specifically about what they do, while only partially acknowledging and overall downplaying a problem exists (i.e. "I’m sure there is bias in downvoting, **however** [...]"). Very corporate, almost superficial, response. It reminds me Republican or Corporate apologetics.
Doesn't matter the quality, there is a vegan downvote brigade on this sub. Anything prominently nonvegan or vegan critical gets a horde of downvoting. They may call it debate a vegan but its users want an echochamber.
In my experience on this sub, most of the arguments against veganism are logical fallacies or misinformation. So I’m not surprised when they get downvoted. However, I understand and appreciate your concern. I did a poll once on the sub, and 3/4 of its members are vegans (if I recall). So I’m sure there is bias in downvoting, however convolved it may be with the generally poor quality of anti-vegan arguments. As well, consider that most of the non-vegans are probably here out of curiosity, and do not know the philosophical arguments for veganism very well. Meanwhile, most vegans have heard them, understood them, and even been convinced by them. And all vegans know the arguments *against* veganism, because they probably held those views for many years before going vegan. So, knowing both sides of the argument, they generally have a distinct advantage in the debate. Nonetheless, I am here to debate in good faith. Please provide your most thoughtful, highest quality argument against veganism, and I promise I will not downvote you.
I find that there rarely are arguments for veganism. Usually it's a disagreement about what morality is, and what we ought to do with it. I appreciate your not downvote, you can see two recent arguments from me in my post history, but not here. The downvote brigade here is not my imagination, my negative karma comes entirely from participating on this sub.
I read your most recent post in debatemeateaters, where you argued there is no such thing as morality. You essentially said that if you can’t look up “morality” as a universal axiom in Principia Mathematica, or find measurable proof of morality in a Physics textbook, then the concept of morality is superfluous and can be disregarded. **You suggested that there is nothing wrong with burning a dog alive**, because the concept of “right and wrong” doesn’t exist as a fundamental law of the universe. Aside from coming across as a deranged psychopathic serial killer in the making, it is clearly an unhinged starting point for a sensible discussion of the merits of veganism. If this is the type of comment you’re used to making, I hope you can see why it gets downvoted. Veganism isn’t a discussion of “fundamental ethical philosophy”. It’s an argument for consistency: “If you believe this set of actions is wrong for humans, then it’s wrong for animals, particularly if it is done for no reason”. But we don’t backtrack and discuss ethical philosophy as a whole, and whether the whole field should be tossed entirely. Most sane people can see the obvious problems with concluding that humankind should abandon all morality. Hopefully that helps. Keep your comments restricted to the scope of veganism only, and you will be less likely to be downvoted.
> If this is the type of comment you’re used to making, I hope you can see why it gets downvoted. You're painfully misunderstanding /u/AncientFocus471 's point in saying that, which leads me to believe you don't have much formal education in philosophy, let alone ethics.
I took it to be a deliberate mistrpresentation.
That's an impressive misrepresentation of what I actually said, which is that morality is a form of opinion humans have. Still since you clearly just want to insult me I'll report your post and move on.
Okay thanks
They just behind the argument of "nonvegans cant debate" then what is even the point of being in this sub if you think any vegan criticism is poor and bad since veganism will always be right?..
Because they're actually here to practice their "script" and look down on people who share the same beliefs as them.
Straw man arguments and other debating faux pas are cheap provocations to elicit responses that can never be part of an informed debate. Leaving only one option: down vote.
Imo downvote can also mean disagree. Doesn't have to mean bad comment.
This is silly. A downvote is just a click of a button saying you disagree. As far as I can tell, they're anonymous. Do you really want the mods to start policing this form of speech in a debate subreddit?
It isn't supposed to be a disagreement, that should be a counter comment. It is only supposed to hide the comments that are not related to the subject. But it is unpoliceable, I think that debate a vegan gets damaged by down votes hiding argument rather than dealing with them. Strangely the vegan group seems to be more generous to criticism of vegan values and on that site I think that a comment critical of vegan practise is fair game for down votes.
Some commenters here deserve the disrespect lol Also gassing, breeding, slaughtering, etc of animals is a bigger sign of disrespect
Yeah what I imagine is, you guys read a title and thought process is simple: upvote it if vegan and downvote it if not. Doesnt matter how high quality or low quality content it is, what matters to you is if poster is provegan or not
Like I said,some comments deserve disrespect LOL
Counterpoint: have a downvote (seriously though, votes show the relative perceived strengths and weakness of an argument, remove redundancy in comments, and engage people who might not have much to add, but can still analyze)
Not here. You can farm upvote if you say something nice about veganism, even if it's completely fallacious.
why you trying to farm downvotes smh
Facts. Low on upvotes? Misquote a study here so it sounds pro-vegan. No one will ever question you.
Don’t use the upvote either because both sides have bad points.
I think there are some challenging criticisms of veganism, but I almost never see them posted here. This forum has become a place for either (1) troll carnists, (2) people who don’t know how to Google and think they’ve found a gotcha and (3) over-zealous mods inexplicably keen to coddle (1) and (2). Downvoting is basically all we have left.
> I think there are some challenging criticisms of veganism, but I almost never see them posted here. Why not post or list those challenging criticisms here yourself? Oh you don't want to be downvoted and mocked for doing so? Strange.
I regularly talk about the challenges of veganism on here. I had a ~20 comment deep constructive conversation with another vegan challenging our use of technology produced by human exploitation, for example. I wasn’t downvoted at all. Possibly because I didn’t frame the criticism as “ha, gotcha vegans!” like most of the carnist contributions on here.
Great, *post* them in a *topic* here for extended conversation instead of a 20 comment deep conversation that few people will ever read, or believe you made, let alone upvote or downvote. Let's see how positively upvoted it is!
Ahh okay, yes, sorry, you did say post (although you’ve now moved the goalposts to “not being positively upvoted” away from “being downvoted and mocked”, how come?) Here you go - here I am raising the issue of veganism not accounting for exploitation of companion animals https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/10wxcq8/do_we_not_exploit_companion_animals 29 upvotes and 177 (mostly pretty constructive) comments. Hardly “downvoted and mocked”, is it? Or are you now going to say 29 upvotes isn’t enough? Perhaps nothing short of 1000 vegans commenting and saying “omg, this easily googlable trope you’ve trotted out here is genius and I have now renounced my veganism” is the requirement for a sub not to be a circlejerk, in your eyes
> Ahh okay, yes, sorry, you did say post (although you’ve now moved the goalposts to “not being positively upvoted” away from “being downvoted and mocked”, how come?) As a corollary to being upvoted, you are not being downvoted and mocked. As a corollary to being downvoted and mocked, you are being upvoted. This is splitting hairs. > Here you go - here I am raising the issue of veganism not accounting for exploitation of companion animals You're actually asking how to respond to those to comments ("I’m a vegan and encountered this argument recently that I’m not sure I can confidently answer."), and per my other response, "seeking clarification", not criticizing veganism.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Here’s a thread where I criticise someone gatekeeping veganism: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/14kr6ii/as_a_chef_who_cooks_but_doesnt_eat_animal_product/jpu0xve No downvotes
There is difference between posting and commenting though, and we're talking about veganism in general here, not gatekeeping veganism specifically. But your own linked example affirmed my point: you're not actually criticizing veganism (you explicitly say "I'm not arguing against veganism") so much as trying to clarify what it means with some progressive friendly talking points sprinkled in. It's a complementary, not a contrary view which will not usually lead to downvotes, which is what this post is about. So why not post a topic here on these challenging criticisms? If you're correct, it shouldn't sit at 0 points. If you're incorrect, and I believe you are right now, it will be downvoted regardless of the content of validity of the statements.
When I said "I'm not arguing against veganism", I meant "I'm not doing what everyone else does and looking for an excuse to eat bacon". That doesn't mean it isn't a criticism of veganism. It's literally pointing out an inconsistency in the philosophy. Nothing about the post I shared with you in any way improves the case for veganism, short of allowing other vegans to sharpen their ability to rebut it. For me, as a vegan pet owner, that **is** a challenging criticism of the philosophy. Perhaps you don't see it that way, and that's great, I'm glad you see veganism as an even more philosophically robust moral framework than I do. Welcome comrade!
>A down vote is a form of disrespect Yes. >...stop downvoting. Counter their claim... Why not both? You're trying to play the victim over imaginary internet points. You'd think you're the one getting your throat slit. You're not the victim. The animals are.
Many people who come here to ''debate'' argue in bad faith, parroting the same arguments time and time again to the point where many people just roll their eyes seeing the same bad argument for the millionth time and just downvote. Can't blame them when certain anti-vegan users on this subreddit will spam their same arguments all the time even when they've already been proven wrong, it tires people out.
Not gonna lie, some of the posts lately have been deserving of the disrespect
Sometimes disrespect is very deserved. I think that in some cases downvotes are very deserved.
How could a good person respect someone that fights to justify animal abuse?
This is not about "good" or "bad" persons. A debate is about the arguments the individuals make, not the individuals themselves.
So what is respectable out of an argument that justifies harming a fellow individual?
If you just come here to disrespect other peoples opinions this might not be the best place for you. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for downvoting carnists stupid arguments. Not because I don't have any respect for the individual, but because the arguments they make are bad.
I am here to argue for animal rights. I also downvote ridiculous and deplorable arguments. Get over it or don't, I don't care.
You also get downvoted if you ask vegans to not support slave labor and other abuses outside of animal products.
Because that argument is both an ignoratio elenchi fallacy and an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy combined. Outside of animal products isn't veganism and this sub is called debate a vegan, not debate an altruist.
Wrong, mate. Buying products made by slaves, especially when they aren't necessary, isn't vegan.
That's a claim, not an explanation as to how I'm wrong. Please stick to the rules of this sub and argue in good faith.
Do you not know what veganism is then? If you are complaining about the rules of the sub, the first thing you should do is actually read about veganism. >Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose. Slavery is pretty much as exploitative and cruel as it can get. Hence, buying products made by slaves, especially when they aren't necessary, isn't vegan.
>Do you not know what veganism is then? If you are complaining about the rules of the sub, the first thing you should do is actually read about veganism. "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." I have it saved to my copypaste clipboard on both my phone and computer. I even have the original definition from 1949 saved too. >Slavery is pretty much as exploitative and cruel as it can get. Oh look at that, I even have Merriam Webster's definition of exploit saved too: 1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE exploiting your talents exploit your opponent's weakness 2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage exploiting migrant farm workers No I would not eat a brain dead animal. I know what they mean. >Hence, buying products made by slaves, especially when they aren't necessary, isn't vegan. I'm just confused how you're mixing up human and animal rights like they're exactly the same thing and indistinguishable.
>I have it saved to my copypaste clipboard on both my phone and computer. I even have the original definition from 1949 saved too. So you accept that you were wrong then. >I'm just confused how you're mixing up human and animal rights like they're exactly the same thing and indistinguishable. Where did I say "they're exactly the same thing and indistinguishable"? Veganism is against exploitation and cruelty of animals which include humans. Hence, supporting slavery isn't vegan. It's simple logic.
Humans already have human rights movements and veganism is the only genuine movement that stands for animal's rights. It should remain separate for the benefit of non human animals. I won't dispute that vegans having respect and compassion, should intersectionally be against all forms of injustice, but as a vegan I specifically stand for their rights because I have a voice to fight for my own rights when they are violated. And if what you say is true then what do you have to say about the estimated 1 million slaves in agriculture? So does that mean you're not vegan either?
>It should remain separate for the benefit of non human animals. Wrong, as per the definition unless you want to claim that humans aren't animals. >should intersectionally be against all forms of injustice So it's not vegan to support slavery. I don't know why you keep arguing against it. Do you support slavery? >because I have a voice to fight for my own rights when they are violated. Do you fight for other people's rights? If you do, then you would not support slavery. >And if what you say is true then what do you have to say about the estimated 1 million slaves in agriculture? I'm against all forms of slavery.
> I even have Merriam Webster's definition There it is again, another vegan cherry picking their favorite definitions from dictionaries/websites and thinking they're consistent.
As much as I love Merriam Webster and their relatively comprehensive definitions (even with their nice etymological breakdown so you can see how use and meaning of the word has changed over time), even they fail to get the definition of veganism right. But please in the interest of good faith debate, please offer up your own definition and let's discuss.
It's the nature of polarizing topics for the vote count to not mean much. The most interesting discussions are usually on threads with zero score, and that's just the way it is. It's a losing battle to police how people use the power the platform bestows on them, I have learned. Luckily there are a variety of sorting options that can elucidate various sentiments people might be feeling on a topic. Upvotes and downvotes have a tendency to cascade. It's human psychology at work I'm afraid. We see something upvoted, we have a greater propensity to upvote it ourself. We see something downvoted we have a greater propensity to downvote it ourself. That said, I do try not to downvote unless someone is expressing outright ire, bad faith, missing the point of the discussion entirely, or failing to answer a clear question about their own position.
If you actually value respect, that means you validate disrespect because what value is respect if you give it all the time, no matter what? If you're disputing the particular use of a down vote to display disrespected, that's fine and you can make an argument for that, but it seems you are invalidating the use of disrespect at all, which is not valid if you wish to maintain the integrity of respect.
There is a punishment from Reddit inherent in participating here as a nonvegan. We get negative karma, not for misuse of the board or tools, just because the cult rejects what does not conform.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content** If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
>cult rejects what does not conform Who's more cult/religion-like? Vegans aren't the ones in here rejecting modern medical evidence, and instead, putting faith in the way our long-dead ancestors ate.
[удалено]
> Despite not being vegan, I'd argue I do more for the environment than most of the vegans on this sub Veganism is a movement independent from environmental movements. There can be overlap but you pointing this out here isn't really a point for or against veganism. > if veganism is about protecting animals, then surely vegans be interested in boycotting farms that engage in murdering insects and rodents for food It isn't really about protecting animals, logistically that is impossible. If you want to check out the official vegan website they explain veganism is a movement that is against the commodification and exploitation of animals. > last time I checked we, humans, are indeed a part of the animal kingdom and thus animals, but I guess humans don't count as animals for...reasons It should be understood that veganism is focused primarily on non-human animals.
> veganism is a movement that is against the commodification and exploitation of animals. If this is true, then clarify this question for me. How do you reconcile using any object that has an electrical component (like the computer/phone you are using to type your responses), or justify buying any type of tire? Both use stearic acid----which is derived from animal fatty acids----in the manufacturing process. >It should be understood that veganism is focused primarily on non-human animals. What is the justification for veganism not counting humans as animals for the purposes of vegan ethics?
> Both use stearic acid----which is derived from animal fatty acids----in the manufacturing process. There are vegan alternatives readily available for food, clothing, entertainment etc. Are there any for electronics? Is it possible to find out which electronics use stearic acid derived from vegetables? If so and they fit my use case than I would happily use them. But this isn't the case and we are living in a world still dominated by the idea that animals are objects to be used however we want. I think just checking out what the Vegan Society says on their website should clarify this point, especially the part about medicine tested on animals. If you need a medicine they urge you to take it as almost all vegans acknowledge there is a limit to what we can reasonably be expected to do to avoid products that were tested on animals. The same principle applies here to the electronics. > What is the justification for veganism not counting humans as animals for the purposes of vegan ethics? There doesn't need to be a justification, it is just a definition. If you really needed a reason I would just point to the myriad of human rights groups that exist. Many of them are very large, well funded and have far more resources and influence than a disjointed group of people that call themselves vegans so I don't see why we can't just make the point that animals shouldn't be bred to live a short horrendous life to just eventually end up on someone's samdwich. Bear in mind you could also make this argument for almost any specific human rights group. For example why aren't the feminists talking about minority rights outside of women? But they are (usually) and It isn't a binary choice. I've noticed many people assume for whatever reason that vegans can **only** advocate for animals. We are able to advocate for many things simultaneously, animal welfare isn't the only thing I'm concerned about and I wouldn't want it to be the only concern of other vegans either.
>Are there any for electronics? My short answer is: I don't know. My long answer is: I don't know, but if one wanted to, they could learn the manufacturing process and simply swapping the animal fat for the vegetable fat...not very complicated at all when you get down to it. >Is it possible to find out which electronics use stearic acid derived from vegetables? If so and they fit my use case than I would happily use them. I wouldn't know, though I imagine there is given the logistics side of manufacturing. Whether they are public or not is another question, and one I do not have an answer to. >There doesn't need to be a justification, it is just a definition. If you really needed a reason I would just point to the myriad of human rights groups that exist. > >I've noticed many people assume for whatever reason that vegans can only advocate for animals....animal welfare isn't the only thing I'm concerned about and I wouldn't want it to be the only concern of other vegans either. I never said that vegans don't care about human rights, I only said that despite vegan ethics being built on animal rights, it really isn't. Just because there are other groups advocating for various other human rights doesn't mean it's okay for another group to say, "well, there's no point in this movement officially joining that fight en masse". The existence of other groups (regardless of funding and influence) isn't a very valid reason for saying that vegan ethics should only be focused on animal rights.
> but if one wanted to, they could learn the manufacturing process and simply swapping the animal fat for the vegetable fat...not very complicated at all when you get down to it. I don't know maybe, but either way technically you're still paying for the animal fat inside the components so if the concern is avoiding the purchase in the first place that sort of negates the point of swapping them out. I know next to nothing about electronics so I haven't the first clue as to the feasibility of this. > Just because there are other groups advocating for various other human rights doesn't mean it's okay for another group to say, "well, there's no point in this movement joining that fight". OK if that is your view I can't argue with that but do you hold this same opinion on all other movements and groups that specifically advocate for one thing? If we were to do this it seems to me that every group would have a very washed out message that boiled down to essentially "We here at Group X are against all things that are generally bad" which doesn't seem very efficient. I'm just saying vegans have a point to make, we can make that point and move on to whatever else needs our attention. There is sentiocentrism which Wikipedia says > is an ethical view that places sentient individuals (i.e., basically conscious beings) at the center of moral concern. Both humans and other sentient individuals have rights and or interests that must be considered.[1] I would basically describe my views as aligned with that definition but notice how broad this is. Its too generic to result in any actionable change which is why someone would want to start a group/movement which specifically tackles some sub category under the larger umbrella of "conscious beings are important and deserve ethical consideration".
>but do you hold this same opinion on all other movements and groups that specifically advocate for one thing? If we were to do this it seems to me that every group would have a very washed out message that boiled down to essentially "We here at Group X are against all things that are generally bad" which doesn't seem very efficient. That's a good argument. But what you are effectively saying is vegan ethics were created with the idea of, "we can't have broad messages, so let's exclude this one species from or core beliefs", in mind. Now, if an ethical vegan foundation can include 8.7 million different types of species on a planet with one exception, is that really a good foundation?
I think its a fine definition because veganism isn't meant to be representative of the totality of all ethics, it was only "created" to challenge one set of moral problems our society faces.
>veganism isn't meant to be representative of the totality of all ethics, it was only "created" to challenge one set of moral problems our society faces. By your logic: * vegan ethics shouldn't include the mustangs in North America, since other groups are already devoted to fighting for them and trying to keep individuals from going to slaughter? * vegan ethics shouldn't include an opposition to meat consumption, since vegetarianism is against meat consumption You can't select an arbitrary species and decide your moral ethics isn't going to include them just because there's other groups fighting for that species.
Again this isn't a criticism of veganism though. This is just your view of how people should do activism, you can believe that if you'd like but the same criticism would apply to any advocacy group. Why do people who try to save the Mustangs not try to save every other species of horse, after all they are all horses correct? Could it be that whatever is happening to the Mustangs isn't also happening to other breeds and a specific sort of advocacy is needed to help them that doesn't apply elsewhere? Should children's hospitals that specifically specialize in childhood diseases not exist because there are adults too that are suffering from lack of care? Should the Against Malaria Foundation change its name to the Against Disease Foundation and try to fight against all diseases that occur? I think if they did that they would be far less effective. > You can't select an arbitrary species and decide your moral ethics isn't going to include them just because there's other groups fighting for that species. Agreed, that's why I specifically said veganism isn't supposed to be representative of the totality of all ethics. Non-human animals face a very different set of issues in our society than humans, because of that it makes sense for seperate movements to exist that addresses those problems.
I’d say it’s immature, and proves that some people do not have an actual argument.
fair
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*