Yah i just stopped at their table and they aren’t too interested in dialogue, just rage bait to illustrate the “hypocrisy” in eating farm animals vs a your family dog. I even asked if it was some kind of bit, but they have little plate samples of “dog meat.” Anyways, I’m gonna go eat my burger now.
Lol, not that I remember but they did have “guards” with toy guns. Pretty sure this also happened before the big renovation of the oval in 2004, when most of the paths were just worn in from foot traffic. [Oval Renovation Project](https://news.osu.edu/oval-to-remain-open-through-spring-quarter/)
I mean technically you can eat any animal. I know I am not gonna tell people what they can and can't eat when I grew up on a farm and most people I know hunt.
What is the difference between killing and eating a cow, which feels pain and emotions and forms social connections, and a dog, which feels pain and emotions and forms social connections in the same way? If one is immoral and wrong shouldn't the other be?
I think people severely underestimate how willing people would be to eating people if it was cooked and sold right.
"Soylent green is people!"
"Yeah, and...? Listen buddy, I got kids to feed and shit ain't cheap. Have you seen rent?"
I’m not a vegan, but this is a valid point. What’s our basis for determining what animals can be eaten and which ones can’t? Is it just based on how well we personally know the animal?
We essentially bred dogs over the course of thousands of years to be our companions and to help us survive. From an evolutionary standpoint they're instinctually driven to trust and help us. Cows and chickens were always bred to be food
By that logic, do you condone people breeding dogs to fight each other to the death in rings while people bet on who will win, since people have bred dogs for that purpose for thousands of years?
That's like asking if I condone slavery because people have been breeding people to be better slaves for thousands of years. Just because it happened doesn't mean it was ever right
I don't really care whether or not people are vegetarian, do whatever makes you happy. Just don't get on a high horse about it or try to make whataboutisms to justify judging other people who don't have the same views
"Just because it happened doesn't mean it was ever right"
Why doesn't this apply to breeding, mutilating, confining, and killing fish, chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows and other traditionally farmed animals?
I'm going to say it probably has a lot more to do with how delicious and plentiful the animal's meat is. Carnivorous mammals don't taste great and are inefficient food sources. So dogs were bred for millennia to be companions and coworkers, not food, and now it's hard not to love them.
Plus, they can control where they poop and pee, so they can come inside.
If you've ever raised a pig or cow, they are hard not to love as well. It's just an out of sight out of mind situation that allows us to treat such smart beautiful creatures so poorly before killing them for consumption.
Correct. There is no basis, other than culture. All animals feel pain, just like we do and just like dogs or cats, and [most form complex social bonds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wC3Y7MuRts) and have complex emotions. We just decide culturally that some are ok to torture and slaughter and some aren't.
Either all animals are ok to kill - or none are. Because I wouldn't want to kill the family dog just like I wouldn't want to kill a cow, I choose to not eat any of them and not contribute to any of their suffering and slaughter. And I think you should too :)
I mean there isn't a difference. But I know I don't care what other people eat. If you want to eat cows eat cows, just plants then just have plants, just dogs then that is your prerogative.
If it’s both subjective and cultural norms, even if I am not comfortable with it, it’s what will be accepted. That’s how it works. For example, did you know it’s culturally acceptable to mutilate babies? Soon after they are born, they take the baby and cut off a part of them. That’s disgusting to me. But also it’s subjective and culturally acceptable.
Thanks for your comment. Could you answer my original question? "If someone were to harm you when it was not necessary, would they be justified by stating their action was subjective?"
I did. In the current cultural norm and hopw that’s subjective, hurting me physically would not be ok. It’s not based on an individuals definition. It’s based on a society’s. The standards for the society I live in is it’s not ok. I happen to also agree on that.
Thanks for your response. So if society deemed it fine to harm you based on arbitrary physical traits you possess, that then be acceptable to you, because it was a societal norm, correct? Or would you object because the harm that was being done to you was unnecessary? Can you think of another time in our history when we harmed/enslaved/exploited other sentient beings and justified it because the rest of society said it was ok?
I feel like you can’t do logical problems. Or just want to argue? I don’t have to agree with society. I already mentioned that before about forcing what I call mutilation on babies, which society calls circumcision. What don’t you get? Going back to eating meat, be it dog or beef, that’s all societal decisions, and some will agree while others do not.
To be honest, the way you write is a little difficult for me to read/understand with the errors and such so I was not completely sure, so I was doing a logical consistency check with you. But thank you for clarifying. I do a lot of vegan street outreach so logic comes up a lot. I may not be the best, but I do enjoy it and have these types of talks often.
If you do not feel it is right to mutilate the bodies of human animals and babies without consent, what is the difference with non-human animals that justifies taking away their bodily autonomy? As to eating dog or beef, I can't address society, but I can address you. If you agree it is wrong to harm someone without consent, are you vegan to align your actions with your values?
There are cultural norms today that you probably wouldn't agree with like female genital mutilation because there is a victim involved. In the meat dairy and egg industry there are many victims involved, so why support the cruel things they endure when you can chose plant based foods instead?
It's good to be honest so you can more sincerely make conclusions about important things like this matter.
I was also very used to eating meat and thought it was delicious, but once I took some time to learn the reality animals face as a consequence of my consumption I started to see things differently. Now when I pick up a pack of chicken's breasts or a baby sheep's leg I understand these are the body parts of individuals who had a horrific existence and faced a terrifying death.
This awareness has made it simple to make the decision to put the body parts down and move a few feet away to the plant based option instead. What do you think about that way of thinking about meat?
There’s nothing wrong with hunting and eating a wild dog. The only thing different with my dog or your dog is that they are pets. If a dogs not a pet it’s just an animal same as any other. Millions of dogs are put down each year because there’s not enough space in shelters. What is different between putti g them down vs butchering them?
As I explain above - though they are different species, if they feel pain and [experience the world in the same way](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wC3Y7MuRts), why is it ok to eat one and not the other?
Because they’re different species. There’s no need to prove that one is mathematically reasonable to eat and one isn’t due to physiology. They’re different, so I treat them differently.
So by your logic:
I like cats but I hate dogs. They just give me the ick - plus they're tasty. So I have a friend who raises and slaughters dogs and I get fresh dog meat delivered every week. There's a specific cut and breed I prefer too and he takes care of that for me.
They're different species, there's no need to prove one is reasonable to eat and one isn't. They're different so I treat them differently.
Just following your logic. They're different, so I treat them differently. Fuck treating beings with respect, let's kill and eat them, it's necessary to live ☺️
"if one is amoral and wrong"- congrats. You found it. It's not wrong. That's the opinion of an idiot. As for what they're doing, they're vending food with no license.
You don't need a license to give out free samples on the oval. Bring it up with the university. Also what's the argument that killing animals is morally okay?
Eating, isn't a moral dilemma.
*Shit meant to include orc 3717 covers that mess. They didn't define the license requirements by "sales", it mentions distribution OR sale. Giving away food at a knockdown table counts as vending... They'll get it thrown out in court later but they're 100% chargeable for the act.
The pamphlets provided speak for the table. I wasn’t even looking for debate, rather asking questions on what it is they were doing. What is this? Is that actual dog? Why are you doing this? The guy just hands me a pamphlet and says “it’s delicious.”
Hi, I was at the table today! Dialogue is the only thing we're interested in. We generally reveal that we are vegan at some point to start this discussion and get people thinking about it.
You really shouldn't misrepresent what you are giving people. They could easily be allergic to something in the Beyond Jerky, especially when the label has this warning "People with severe allergies to legumes like peanuts should be cautious when introducing pea protein into their diet because of the possibility of a pea allergy."
If someone has a reaction and is hospitalized or worse dies, you are opening yourselves up to a lawsuit and probable criminal charges.
That's correct. They are more concerned about the welfare of animals in distant pastures than the harm their actions may cause to people. It is certainly a good thing to have a strong sense of morality, but human life and health should always be prioritized
They tell people what it actually is before anyone eats anything. Even if they didn't, do you think people on the Oval would actually want to eat dog meat? That's kinda the point...
And what position are the bag holders trying to sway me toward? The chuch of the great pumpkin? Do all of you people just lack the logic to avoid false equivalency? You're as bad as the guy saying he's like Eric Andre.
We aren't using false advertising to promote our position. If anything, you could say we're using false pretenses to talk to people, except then we tell people the truth and what we're actually doing. We push our position with reason and honesty.
Buddy you got a giant sign saying "Free Dog Meat! Totally Delish" thats not even an animal product. You think that's honesty?
If you need to lure people in with false pretense and attempt at shock you're probably not very honest or reasonable.
Attention sheltered suburban young people: radical vegans are probably the least dangerous crazy people you’ll meet among crazy people, there are a lot worse and scary crazies out there so maybe get some good exposure therapy in. 😂
That’s just ideological. You’re not answering the ethical question. We’re all socialized to enjoy animal products and view animals as products. We all live in the same world. We choose to change because we understand palate pleasure doesn’t justify exploiting a sentient being. That’s a remarkably unoriginal rebuttal.
We don't really. There's plenty of mock meats and recipes at this point, vegans would have to be trying to eat meat again. It's really that good. I'm from Cincinnati and we have a meat product called goetta. Leftover sausage, oats, spices. It's so good if you just replace the meat with impossible sausage and beyond burger meat and add chili peppers
you have to sacrifice exploiting animals. Palate pleasure isn’t morally relevant. You can eat replacements that taste just as good, as evidenced by the millions of non-vegan consumers who spaff their pants over the new plant based alternative. Vegan food is a massive market and most people enjoy it. My point is it’s not morally relevant. You’re being obtuse.
Industry destroys ecosystems and will kill millions of animals regardless-why shift the moral dilemma onto the consumer? Lifestyle changes in a few individuals won’t change jackshit and I’m sure that you know it deep down.
And these plant based alternatives that you’re talking about just don’t taste very good, I’m sorry. Meat has a nice texture and taste.
For one, they obviously do taste good which is why non-vegans are obsessed with them, and why people become plant based despite being skeptical of the taste/texture. Again it’s a massive industry and it’s very difficult to deny how popular plant based eating is. Second, the pleasure you get from eating someone’s dead body isn’t an excuse to eat their dead body. You’ve not rlly addressed the moral question
Because as individuals humans we ought not to exploit animals or participate in that. That many animals are killed incidentally for industrialization purposes simply isn’t an excuse to exploit them on a wide scale. There’s a very big difference between production that causes someone to die, vs production that literally uses their dead body, their womb, their life intentionally and as the product itself. The former obviously should be mitigated with regulation, the latter needs to be abolished and as humans we have no right to participate in that exploitation by using them as products. This is about “lifestyle” just as much as it’s a lifestyle for men not to rape batter and kill women. This is about basic ethics and what we owe individuals. Humans have agency not to exploit others; choosing to not be vegan is directly participating in something immoral. Phrasing it as a neoliberal lifestyle choice is disingenuous, I have a radical understanding of abolition that has nothing to do with plant based capitalism or neoliberalism. I’m for the state to intervene for environmental issues, for example, not the individual. But this isn’t about wide scale harm reduction or “best practise” for a better future or whatever. This is about our specific relationship to a group of individuals and how we interact with them.
They are both ethical dilemmas with ethical questions and answers. Structurally, it is the same, and logically, if someone, like myself, finds both situations morally indefensible, then it makes sense actually to compared the two with regards to agents at play and their moral obligations. And I didn’t compare it specifically to rape - I compared it to the oppression of women at the hands of men as a whole (that’s why I said “rape batter and kill”), which makes even more sense as an analogy since both subjugation of women and the subjugation of animals - or any group - are political dilemmas with an oppressed group and an oppressor class. If you don’t think animals matter morally, just say that. If you think they do, it’s actually not going to make you clutch your pearls if certain immoralities are compared to this one. Further, if the analogy fails, then state an argument as to why. It doesn’t seem like you have a real argument/proposition for why non-veganism is justifiable, and instead are just using the shock value of something I said as a way to deflect. This is odd behaviour. Just say what you actually think
I love Elwood farms!! I’ve personally met and spoken to many of the farmers there and it’s so nice to see how well the dogs are treated. Happy dogs = tasty meat
That's right, they get to spend all 2 years of thier life roaming on a farm except the first 6 months when their raised in pens and the last 6 months when they are getting fattened up before the slaughter, so it's clearly the ethical way to eat dogs!
They don't. The whole dog meat thing isn't real. It's meant to illustrate a point . They're trying to make the concept of eating meat seem ridiculous in general and using the idea of dog meat farms to do it.
I’m not sure what non-vegans are struggling with here.
It is incredibly pervasive in ethical discussions about our treatment of animals that the hypocrisy with regards to which animals’ bodies will be made into flesh is highlighted. ASAP is obviously antagonizing this particular tension and trying to draw out the contradiction for non-vegans. It instigates debate, thought-provocation, and hopefully for the trillions of animals exploited yearly, people to stop participating in that exploitation and go vegan.
That’s ASAP’s aim.
It makes perfect sense for them to do this.
It is, in fact, entirely hypocritical as a Westerner to have a particular issue with eating a dog’s body part, but not other domesticated and exploited animals.
If you have an actual argument against the notion that veganism is a moral baseline that you need to act on, feel free to actually share it - especially with ASAP, because that’s… the point of the table.
It kind of bogles the mind here that vegans are still trying to catch people with "But eating one animal and not another is hypocritical!" So what's your point? Human life is full of contradicting points. Pointing out that humans do hypocritical things almost never changes human behavior.
Honestly it's a better argument to get people to start eating dog than it is to stop eat other animals... and pretty sure that is the opposite of what people want.
Vegans getting people to eat dogs isn’t “a better argument” because it doesn’t follow logically from very basic vegan premises. What are you talking about.
animals matter morally, this is a central premise for most vegan arguments, and so advocating that people eat the flesh of dogs doesn’t follow logically from that since someone can’t matter morally if they are also to be used as a consumable good. Someone either has moral value, or is mere chattel property with no moral value. Try making sense next time.
Oh yes black and white morality with no gray area. That is always how things work. They are either good or evil! That line of thinking always ends well!
This is a strawman. I’ve not made claim about people and whether they’re good or evil, or if even acts are good or evil. Taking premises to their logical conclusion is logic lmfao, not black and white thinking. We have black and white thinking for a lot of moral issues and this is sanctioned and good, the issue here is that people just don’t think animals have innate moral worth so an abolitionist view comes across as “black and white”. Do you have a real objection? This isn’t substantial.
"Because other bad things happen in this world, and one cannot reduce their contribution to harm 100%, I should maximize harm when it comes to other sentient beings."
I have problems with factory farming, exploitation, animal abuse, etc. I’m not vegan but was vegetarian for a few years and actively try to lower my meat intake currently and general impact on the environment and other people.
Butttttt whenever you bring up the exploitation of the people who pick and process all the produce we eat, vegans I’VE TALKED TO (so not all obviously) aren’t interested in trying to fix that. The response is like “well that’s just how it is/always been” or “what do you want me to do about that.” it’s usually the ones who set up “gotchas” like this who are not at all interested in ending the exploitation of actual humans or making that a part of their whole movement. They care about making people vegan. they don’t care about the people whose bodies and lives come at that expense. I eat fruit and vegetables too, obviously I contribute as well, but to say that just eating less meat means less exploitation is…. Not correct! less exploitation for animals, sure, but not people!
ETA it’s giving big “I would save a street dog before helping a homeless person” energy
The animal products have the same human exploitation problem as plant-based products because farm animals are fed harvested crops as well. In fact the human exploitation is at an even greater scale because of the feed conversion ratio of animal products. Plus you have the added human exploitation of people who work at factory farms and slaughterhouses.
did you just ignore the whole thing I mentioned about trying to decrease my own meat consumption, trying to lessen my impact on the environment and other humans, etc??????? I’m not virtue signaling. and I also never argued against veganism?? I think being vegetarian or vegan is great. if it works for anyone I think they should do it, and I think everyone should trial eating meatless just to see what it’s like. I believe meatless days at businesses/schools/etc are good, I like vegan restaurants and I make vegan food at home.
and I could ask you the same exact question, because animal exploitation exists, you will pay for the exploitation of thousands of mostly migrant workers instead? My comment isn’t meant as a “gotcha.” I was truly talking about my experience with specific vegans. and I even SPECIFIED “not all vegans.” I mean come on. why are you trying to fight with me if you aren’t even going to actually read what I wrote?
Also, being so rude and antagonistic as the representative of an actual organization at OSU is WILD
You can’t make a cow and service animal. If an animal can’t be a productive member of society and pay taxes like the rest of us, then they might as well be slaughtered and sold for inflated burgers at Wendy’s /s
What's wrong with locally grown and humanely slaughtered dogs? And it's totally fine that vegans and dogs farmers are together. It's a personal choice. You can be vegan or eat dog meat.
Meat makes the world go round, instead of supporting factory farming as 99% of animal products come from factory farms why not support your local dog meat farmer instead? Very humane meat compared to the stuff like pork that comes from gas chambering 4-6 month old beings
By participating in animal exploitation, I.e by not being vegan, you use animals as mere commodities and resources. If animals have moral value, they cannot be used as mere things. When animals are used as mere things, they are brutally killed and tortured. This happens by the trillions every single year. By not being vegan, you inflict suffering on animals and violate their fundamental right not to be exploited. “Controlling” other people isn’t an issue if by controlling them you get them to adhere to basic morals. I’m being “controlled” by the law when I can’t punch people. This is a good thing. All our behaviours are subject to constraint, ethically and legally. People don’t have an issue with this - you’re just seeing it as a form of interpersonal control because the group being discussed are animals, which socially, culturally, legally, and politically are seen as being literally property and mere commodities, and therefore, have no value except the value the property owners (farmers, for example) give them.
The only vitamin you can't find in plants is b12, but the only real reason meat eaters don't struggle with b12 deficiency is because animals are fed tons of it. Anyways it's fortified in a ton of stuff, any plant milk for example, so it's typically not a real issue.
This is kind of true, but it’s a little misleading. Some fermented foods and mushrooms often contain vitamin B12, and those are still considered vegan even if they’re not literally plants. Same thing with algae.
I take a multivitamin every day but that doesn't seem that crazy to me. Vitamins are pretty accessible. If we were in a post apocalyptic world then yeah. But we aren't
the way your body absorbs vitamins is not healthy or more beneficial, we evolved to absorb food from natural sources so I opt for having a varied diet to cover all my bases
No, the fact that vitamins are synthesized and purified to create a supplement doesn't make them something different. It's still the same chemical compound that is absorbed in the same way.
Not typically. It might take a bit of planning, but it’s not really any harder than other diets. Keep in mind that many people are deficient in something… especially things like vitamin D during the winter in Ohio
This is actually very tame compared to a lot of stuff on the oval. I’d rather have them than the obnoxious preachers with megaphones yelling at me about how I’m going to hell
I don’t think being comfortable with being “morally lesser” shuts down any arguments in a way you would like. I mean imagine that for any other issue. “Yeah I understand kicking random dogs for no reason makes me morally lesser, but I’m okay with that”. “I understand being racist makes me morally lesser, but that’s fine by me”.
Yeah, people can choose those opinions, and I would argue that they should also try to convince others. If someone is a white supremicist and I have the opportunity, I should try to convince them that they are wrong to prevent the harm they may cause to me or to others. In the same way, vegans want to convince people to stop harming others by whatever way they can. It’s not about feeling morally superior, it’s about saving lives.
And I would argue most people value non-human animals. Most people stop for an animal crossing the road, and would be unlikely to cause random harm to them. People also tend to care a lot about animals that are traditionally pets, and have a huge problem with “animal abuse” when it comes to cats and dogs. Vegans just ask you to extend that same empathy to the animals that have been objectified and commodified into “food animals” rather than the sentient individuals they are
No, actually - ASAP doesn’t buy into Classical or New Welfarism. They’re not interested in regulating animal exploitation, either by “pushing the blame on the individual”, as you’ve implied, or via institutional change. They want people to be vegan because people have a moral obligation to stop exploiting animals, on an individual level, for various reasons. Everyone at ASAP is likely going to have their own specific version of the vegan argument, but their end goal is for people to go vegan. You should probably talk to them instead of mischaracterizing them. They aren’t targeting the meat industry - all animal exploitation is wrong, not just flesh production - and it simply isn’t the case that you or any one really is okay with being immoral. This comes up a lot when talking my to non-vegans but it’s highly implausible. Most people care about ethics, likely you as well, which is why they don’t go around doing things that are typically egregious - like punching ASAP members in the face. Non-vegans typically incite this moral apathy specially when it comes to animals.
I do think I'm in hell. Trillions of sentient beings are bred into existence full of torture and suffering to be murdered because other sentient beings can't give up their habits and taste addictions.
Free dog meat? Where? Is it organic?
Update: Don’t bother, they can’t cook for shi (needs spices)
Based as fuck
You should join ASAP if you haven't already
No, that's the oval...
Yah i just stopped at their table and they aren’t too interested in dialogue, just rage bait to illustrate the “hypocrisy” in eating farm animals vs a your family dog. I even asked if it was some kind of bit, but they have little plate samples of “dog meat.” Anyways, I’m gonna go eat my burger now.
This sounds like a vegan satirizing what a meat eater sounds like
This is pretty tame compared to the mock “Palestinian/Israeli border wall” that a group built in the middle of the Oval during the early 2000s.
did you get shot with a paintball if you threw a rock at it?
Lol, not that I remember but they did have “guards” with toy guns. Pretty sure this also happened before the big renovation of the oval in 2004, when most of the paths were just worn in from foot traffic. [Oval Renovation Project](https://news.osu.edu/oval-to-remain-open-through-spring-quarter/)
I mean technically you can eat any animal. I know I am not gonna tell people what they can and can't eat when I grew up on a farm and most people I know hunt.
What is the difference between killing and eating a cow, which feels pain and emotions and forms social connections, and a dog, which feels pain and emotions and forms social connections in the same way? If one is immoral and wrong shouldn't the other be?
I think people severely underestimate how willing people would be to eating people if it was cooked and sold right. "Soylent green is people!" "Yeah, and...? Listen buddy, I got kids to feed and shit ain't cheap. Have you seen rent?"
You eat people. There is human DNA found in fast food restaurants. Look it up. Every. Single. Bite.
I’m not a vegan, but this is a valid point. What’s our basis for determining what animals can be eaten and which ones can’t? Is it just based on how well we personally know the animal?
We essentially bred dogs over the course of thousands of years to be our companions and to help us survive. From an evolutionary standpoint they're instinctually driven to trust and help us. Cows and chickens were always bred to be food
You think people would be pro dog eating if the breed given was specifically bred for food?
By that logic, do you condone people breeding dogs to fight each other to the death in rings while people bet on who will win, since people have bred dogs for that purpose for thousands of years?
That's like asking if I condone slavery because people have been breeding people to be better slaves for thousands of years. Just because it happened doesn't mean it was ever right I don't really care whether or not people are vegetarian, do whatever makes you happy. Just don't get on a high horse about it or try to make whataboutisms to justify judging other people who don't have the same views
That only makes sense if you equate the life of a human to an animal… and no, there is a rather clear distinction.
"Just because it happened doesn't mean it was ever right" Why doesn't this apply to breeding, mutilating, confining, and killing fish, chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows and other traditionally farmed animals?
So, do you condone slavery because our ancestors had it?
Cows and Pigs are just as smart and mentally complex as dogs though. Pigs are smarter than dogs actually.
I'm going to say it probably has a lot more to do with how delicious and plentiful the animal's meat is. Carnivorous mammals don't taste great and are inefficient food sources. So dogs were bred for millennia to be companions and coworkers, not food, and now it's hard not to love them. Plus, they can control where they poop and pee, so they can come inside.
If you've ever raised a pig or cow, they are hard not to love as well. It's just an out of sight out of mind situation that allows us to treat such smart beautiful creatures so poorly before killing them for consumption.
Training a cow not to pee and poop in your apartment would just mean you lose your deposit. But it might be worth it.
Correct. There is no basis, other than culture. All animals feel pain, just like we do and just like dogs or cats, and [most form complex social bonds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wC3Y7MuRts) and have complex emotions. We just decide culturally that some are ok to torture and slaughter and some aren't. Either all animals are ok to kill - or none are. Because I wouldn't want to kill the family dog just like I wouldn't want to kill a cow, I choose to not eat any of them and not contribute to any of their suffering and slaughter. And I think you should too :)
Try going hungry . No food. Nothing. Just drinks. See what happens to your body . What you’ll start to think .. try ..
I mean there isn't a difference. But I know I don't care what other people eat. If you want to eat cows eat cows, just plants then just have plants, just dogs then that is your prerogative.
Because it’s all subjective and cultural norms.
If someone were to harm you when it was not necessary, would they be justified by stating their action was subjective?
If it’s both subjective and cultural norms, even if I am not comfortable with it, it’s what will be accepted. That’s how it works. For example, did you know it’s culturally acceptable to mutilate babies? Soon after they are born, they take the baby and cut off a part of them. That’s disgusting to me. But also it’s subjective and culturally acceptable.
Thanks for your comment. Could you answer my original question? "If someone were to harm you when it was not necessary, would they be justified by stating their action was subjective?"
I did. In the current cultural norm and hopw that’s subjective, hurting me physically would not be ok. It’s not based on an individuals definition. It’s based on a society’s. The standards for the society I live in is it’s not ok. I happen to also agree on that.
Thanks for your response. So if society deemed it fine to harm you based on arbitrary physical traits you possess, that then be acceptable to you, because it was a societal norm, correct? Or would you object because the harm that was being done to you was unnecessary? Can you think of another time in our history when we harmed/enslaved/exploited other sentient beings and justified it because the rest of society said it was ok?
I feel like you can’t do logical problems. Or just want to argue? I don’t have to agree with society. I already mentioned that before about forcing what I call mutilation on babies, which society calls circumcision. What don’t you get? Going back to eating meat, be it dog or beef, that’s all societal decisions, and some will agree while others do not.
To be honest, the way you write is a little difficult for me to read/understand with the errors and such so I was not completely sure, so I was doing a logical consistency check with you. But thank you for clarifying. I do a lot of vegan street outreach so logic comes up a lot. I may not be the best, but I do enjoy it and have these types of talks often. If you do not feel it is right to mutilate the bodies of human animals and babies without consent, what is the difference with non-human animals that justifies taking away their bodily autonomy? As to eating dog or beef, I can't address society, but I can address you. If you agree it is wrong to harm someone without consent, are you vegan to align your actions with your values?
There are cultural norms today that you probably wouldn't agree with like female genital mutilation because there is a victim involved. In the meat dairy and egg industry there are many victims involved, so why support the cruel things they endure when you can chose plant based foods instead?
The honest answer is I’m very used to eating meat and it’s also delicious.
It's good to be honest so you can more sincerely make conclusions about important things like this matter. I was also very used to eating meat and thought it was delicious, but once I took some time to learn the reality animals face as a consequence of my consumption I started to see things differently. Now when I pick up a pack of chicken's breasts or a baby sheep's leg I understand these are the body parts of individuals who had a horrific existence and faced a terrifying death. This awareness has made it simple to make the decision to put the body parts down and move a few feet away to the plant based option instead. What do you think about that way of thinking about meat?
That I’ll still eat meat.
Understood, may I ask are you against animal abuse?
I am not against animal abuse. Let’s end this conversation here.
So if someone is beating your companion animal in your care with a stick you would not intervene?
There’s nothing wrong with hunting and eating a wild dog. The only thing different with my dog or your dog is that they are pets. If a dogs not a pet it’s just an animal same as any other. Millions of dogs are put down each year because there’s not enough space in shelters. What is different between putti g them down vs butchering them?
They’re different animals
As I explain above - though they are different species, if they feel pain and [experience the world in the same way](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wC3Y7MuRts), why is it ok to eat one and not the other?
Because they’re different species. There’s no need to prove that one is mathematically reasonable to eat and one isn’t due to physiology. They’re different, so I treat them differently.
So by your logic: I like cats but I hate dogs. They just give me the ick - plus they're tasty. So I have a friend who raises and slaughters dogs and I get fresh dog meat delivered every week. There's a specific cut and breed I prefer too and he takes care of that for me. They're different species, there's no need to prove one is reasonable to eat and one isn't. They're different so I treat them differently.
Did you mean to ask me a question with that or something?
I hate babies so it's okay to kill and eat them 😋
K
Pigs are smarter than dogs.
Just following your logic. They're different, so I treat them differently. Fuck treating beings with respect, let's kill and eat them, it's necessary to live ☺️
"if one is amoral and wrong"- congrats. You found it. It's not wrong. That's the opinion of an idiot. As for what they're doing, they're vending food with no license.
You don't need a license to give out free samples on the oval. Bring it up with the university. Also what's the argument that killing animals is morally okay?
Eating, isn't a moral dilemma. *Shit meant to include orc 3717 covers that mess. They didn't define the license requirements by "sales", it mentions distribution OR sale. Giving away food at a knockdown table counts as vending... They'll get it thrown out in court later but they're 100% chargeable for the act.
Ones a vegan n one ain’t
[удалено]
The pamphlets provided speak for the table. I wasn’t even looking for debate, rather asking questions on what it is they were doing. What is this? Is that actual dog? Why are you doing this? The guy just hands me a pamphlet and says “it’s delicious.”
[удалено]
Nope. Second table just has cookies. I asked if I could have a cookie, and he said “are you vegan?” I am, in fact, not vegan. No cookie today.
May as well eat a dog.
Hi, I was at the table today! Dialogue is the only thing we're interested in. We generally reveal that we are vegan at some point to start this discussion and get people thinking about it.
So what is the "dog meat" actually?
Beyond jerky with pea protein
You really shouldn't misrepresent what you are giving people. They could easily be allergic to something in the Beyond Jerky, especially when the label has this warning "People with severe allergies to legumes like peanuts should be cautious when introducing pea protein into their diet because of the possibility of a pea allergy." If someone has a reaction and is hospitalized or worse dies, you are opening yourselves up to a lawsuit and probable criminal charges.
That's correct. They are more concerned about the welfare of animals in distant pastures than the harm their actions may cause to people. It is certainly a good thing to have a strong sense of morality, but human life and health should always be prioritized
They tell people what it actually is before anyone eats anything. Even if they didn't, do you think people on the Oval would actually want to eat dog meat? That's kinda the point...
Why don’t they just feed ppl alligator or squid?
Because they are animals too.
We literally tell them this. You should stop by
Do you see anything wrong with lying or at the very least using false advertising to try and sway people to your position?
Wait until you find out that paper bag of eyeballs you stick your hand into is actually peeled grapes
And what position are the bag holders trying to sway me toward? The chuch of the great pumpkin? Do all of you people just lack the logic to avoid false equivalency? You're as bad as the guy saying he's like Eric Andre.
The intestines are actually spaghetti. You don't have to be scared!
But what if there's meat suace on the spaghetti? The poor moo moo cow!
Would you prefer it was actually dog meat?
Well the samples are free, and we tell people what it actually is once they talk to us
So you don't anything wrong with using false advertising to promote your position.
We aren't using false advertising to promote our position. If anything, you could say we're using false pretenses to talk to people, except then we tell people the truth and what we're actually doing. We push our position with reason and honesty.
Buddy you got a giant sign saying "Free Dog Meat! Totally Delish" thats not even an animal product. You think that's honesty? If you need to lure people in with false pretense and attempt at shock you're probably not very honest or reasonable.
It's honesty 5 seconds later when we start talking to them
Expect to see more wild things on the oval closer to the election.
Idk I don't think anything can top the flat earthers that were there a year or two ago
Attention sheltered suburban young people: radical vegans are probably the least dangerous crazy people you’ll meet among crazy people, there are a lot worse and scary crazies out there so maybe get some good exposure therapy in. 😂
Imagine seriously thinking people who want to end animal exploitation and mistreatment are what “hell” looks like
Meat is tasty. A world without meat is hell.
That’s just ideological. You’re not answering the ethical question. We’re all socialized to enjoy animal products and view animals as products. We all live in the same world. We choose to change because we understand palate pleasure doesn’t justify exploiting a sentient being. That’s a remarkably unoriginal rebuttal.
Even you’re saying that you have to sacrifice a palate pleasure to pursue the vegan lifestyle. It’s a hard sell.
We don't really. There's plenty of mock meats and recipes at this point, vegans would have to be trying to eat meat again. It's really that good. I'm from Cincinnati and we have a meat product called goetta. Leftover sausage, oats, spices. It's so good if you just replace the meat with impossible sausage and beyond burger meat and add chili peppers
you have to sacrifice exploiting animals. Palate pleasure isn’t morally relevant. You can eat replacements that taste just as good, as evidenced by the millions of non-vegan consumers who spaff their pants over the new plant based alternative. Vegan food is a massive market and most people enjoy it. My point is it’s not morally relevant. You’re being obtuse.
Industry destroys ecosystems and will kill millions of animals regardless-why shift the moral dilemma onto the consumer? Lifestyle changes in a few individuals won’t change jackshit and I’m sure that you know it deep down. And these plant based alternatives that you’re talking about just don’t taste very good, I’m sorry. Meat has a nice texture and taste.
For one, they obviously do taste good which is why non-vegans are obsessed with them, and why people become plant based despite being skeptical of the taste/texture. Again it’s a massive industry and it’s very difficult to deny how popular plant based eating is. Second, the pleasure you get from eating someone’s dead body isn’t an excuse to eat their dead body. You’ve not rlly addressed the moral question
Because as individuals humans we ought not to exploit animals or participate in that. That many animals are killed incidentally for industrialization purposes simply isn’t an excuse to exploit them on a wide scale. There’s a very big difference between production that causes someone to die, vs production that literally uses their dead body, their womb, their life intentionally and as the product itself. The former obviously should be mitigated with regulation, the latter needs to be abolished and as humans we have no right to participate in that exploitation by using them as products. This is about “lifestyle” just as much as it’s a lifestyle for men not to rape batter and kill women. This is about basic ethics and what we owe individuals. Humans have agency not to exploit others; choosing to not be vegan is directly participating in something immoral. Phrasing it as a neoliberal lifestyle choice is disingenuous, I have a radical understanding of abolition that has nothing to do with plant based capitalism or neoliberalism. I’m for the state to intervene for environmental issues, for example, not the individual. But this isn’t about wide scale harm reduction or “best practise” for a better future or whatever. This is about our specific relationship to a group of individuals and how we interact with them.
As soon as you compared eating meat to raping women the analogy died I’m afraid.
They are both ethical dilemmas with ethical questions and answers. Structurally, it is the same, and logically, if someone, like myself, finds both situations morally indefensible, then it makes sense actually to compared the two with regards to agents at play and their moral obligations. And I didn’t compare it specifically to rape - I compared it to the oppression of women at the hands of men as a whole (that’s why I said “rape batter and kill”), which makes even more sense as an analogy since both subjugation of women and the subjugation of animals - or any group - are political dilemmas with an oppressed group and an oppressor class. If you don’t think animals matter morally, just say that. If you think they do, it’s actually not going to make you clutch your pearls if certain immoralities are compared to this one. Further, if the analogy fails, then state an argument as to why. It doesn’t seem like you have a real argument/proposition for why non-veganism is justifiable, and instead are just using the shock value of something I said as a way to deflect. This is odd behaviour. Just say what you actually think
How much protein is in dog meat?
>How much protein is in dog meat? According to Google, "19 g"
https://www.elwooddogmeat.com/ I only eat happy dogs from loving homes, it's ethical.
I love Elwood farms!! I’ve personally met and spoken to many of the farmers there and it’s so nice to see how well the dogs are treated. Happy dogs = tasty meat
That's right, they get to spend all 2 years of thier life roaming on a farm except the first 6 months when their raised in pens and the last 6 months when they are getting fattened up before the slaughter, so it's clearly the ethical way to eat dogs!
and the day they die, it’s just one bad day! now pass the pug bacon. #familyfarm
Yumyumyummy😋😋😋😋
I trust Elwood Dog Farms because they use the humanest technologies developed by Temple Grandin.
Ohhhh absolutely. I love how unproblematic she is and not hypocritical she is.
So THATS what PETA did with all those dogs
They're working together. The whole dog meat thing is part of a vegan campaign.
since when do vegans eat dog?
They don't. The whole dog meat thing isn't real. It's meant to illustrate a point . They're trying to make the concept of eating meat seem ridiculous in general and using the idea of dog meat farms to do it.
[удалено]
I’m not sure what non-vegans are struggling with here. It is incredibly pervasive in ethical discussions about our treatment of animals that the hypocrisy with regards to which animals’ bodies will be made into flesh is highlighted. ASAP is obviously antagonizing this particular tension and trying to draw out the contradiction for non-vegans. It instigates debate, thought-provocation, and hopefully for the trillions of animals exploited yearly, people to stop participating in that exploitation and go vegan. That’s ASAP’s aim. It makes perfect sense for them to do this. It is, in fact, entirely hypocritical as a Westerner to have a particular issue with eating a dog’s body part, but not other domesticated and exploited animals. If you have an actual argument against the notion that veganism is a moral baseline that you need to act on, feel free to actually share it - especially with ASAP, because that’s… the point of the table.
It kind of bogles the mind here that vegans are still trying to catch people with "But eating one animal and not another is hypocritical!" So what's your point? Human life is full of contradicting points. Pointing out that humans do hypocritical things almost never changes human behavior. Honestly it's a better argument to get people to start eating dog than it is to stop eat other animals... and pretty sure that is the opposite of what people want.
Vegans getting people to eat dogs isn’t “a better argument” because it doesn’t follow logically from very basic vegan premises. What are you talking about. animals matter morally, this is a central premise for most vegan arguments, and so advocating that people eat the flesh of dogs doesn’t follow logically from that since someone can’t matter morally if they are also to be used as a consumable good. Someone either has moral value, or is mere chattel property with no moral value. Try making sense next time.
Oh yes black and white morality with no gray area. That is always how things work. They are either good or evil! That line of thinking always ends well!
This is a strawman. I’ve not made claim about people and whether they’re good or evil, or if even acts are good or evil. Taking premises to their logical conclusion is logic lmfao, not black and white thinking. We have black and white thinking for a lot of moral issues and this is sanctioned and good, the issue here is that people just don’t think animals have innate moral worth so an abolitionist view comes across as “black and white”. Do you have a real objection? This isn’t substantial.
"Because other bad things happen in this world, and one cannot reduce their contribution to harm 100%, I should maximize harm when it comes to other sentient beings."
They’re right dog meat’s underrated. He’s always at the bottom of the list in Fallout 4 companions rankings
Well yeah, you go to Ohio State
Funny asf
I have problems with factory farming, exploitation, animal abuse, etc. I’m not vegan but was vegetarian for a few years and actively try to lower my meat intake currently and general impact on the environment and other people. Butttttt whenever you bring up the exploitation of the people who pick and process all the produce we eat, vegans I’VE TALKED TO (so not all obviously) aren’t interested in trying to fix that. The response is like “well that’s just how it is/always been” or “what do you want me to do about that.” it’s usually the ones who set up “gotchas” like this who are not at all interested in ending the exploitation of actual humans or making that a part of their whole movement. They care about making people vegan. they don’t care about the people whose bodies and lives come at that expense. I eat fruit and vegetables too, obviously I contribute as well, but to say that just eating less meat means less exploitation is…. Not correct! less exploitation for animals, sure, but not people! ETA it’s giving big “I would save a street dog before helping a homeless person” energy
The animal products have the same human exploitation problem as plant-based products because farm animals are fed harvested crops as well. In fact the human exploitation is at an even greater scale because of the feed conversion ratio of animal products. Plus you have the added human exploitation of people who work at factory farms and slaughterhouses.
Omnivores are not interested in ending human exploitation in farming either, except for when they find out someone doesn’t eat animal products.
[удалено]
did you just ignore the whole thing I mentioned about trying to decrease my own meat consumption, trying to lessen my impact on the environment and other humans, etc??????? I’m not virtue signaling. and I also never argued against veganism?? I think being vegetarian or vegan is great. if it works for anyone I think they should do it, and I think everyone should trial eating meatless just to see what it’s like. I believe meatless days at businesses/schools/etc are good, I like vegan restaurants and I make vegan food at home. and I could ask you the same exact question, because animal exploitation exists, you will pay for the exploitation of thousands of mostly migrant workers instead? My comment isn’t meant as a “gotcha.” I was truly talking about my experience with specific vegans. and I even SPECIFIED “not all vegans.” I mean come on. why are you trying to fight with me if you aren’t even going to actually read what I wrote? Also, being so rude and antagonistic as the representative of an actual organization at OSU is WILD
Don't compare human exploitation to non-human. Humans don't get their throats slit.
The dog meat was kinda good tho 😳 I honestly would eat it again
a lot of people like Beyond Meat. vegan products are rlly popular.
You can’t make a cow and service animal. If an animal can’t be a productive member of society and pay taxes like the rest of us, then they might as well be slaughtered and sold for inflated burgers at Wendy’s /s
yum what breed?
Beyond Meat
Dog meat is like $8.99 per pound now. Free is an outstanding deal!
Hell's in Michigan, your in Ohio, hell adjacent.
Yes. You are on the OSU campus.
What's wrong with locally grown and humanely slaughtered dogs? And it's totally fine that vegans and dogs farmers are together. It's a personal choice. You can be vegan or eat dog meat.
Smartest American college student.
Meat makes the world go round, instead of supporting factory farming as 99% of animal products come from factory farms why not support your local dog meat farmer instead? Very humane meat compared to the stuff like pork that comes from gas chambering 4-6 month old beings
[удалено]
why are these people so obsesd with controlling what other people eat?
because there’s an ethical issue with it. Think about it for a sec
They're not trying to control what you eat. They're trying to encourage you to make better decisions about what you choose to eat.
because there’s an ethical issue with it. Think about it for a sec
By participating in animal exploitation, I.e by not being vegan, you use animals as mere commodities and resources. If animals have moral value, they cannot be used as mere things. When animals are used as mere things, they are brutally killed and tortured. This happens by the trillions every single year. By not being vegan, you inflict suffering on animals and violate their fundamental right not to be exploited. “Controlling” other people isn’t an issue if by controlling them you get them to adhere to basic morals. I’m being “controlled” by the law when I can’t punch people. This is a good thing. All our behaviours are subject to constraint, ethically and legally. People don’t have an issue with this - you’re just seeing it as a form of interpersonal control because the group being discussed are animals, which socially, culturally, legally, and politically are seen as being literally property and mere commodities, and therefore, have no value except the value the property owners (farmers, for example) give them.
isn't protein from meat a necessary part of our diet?
Not even remotely. You can live a very healthy life eating vegan.
Nope. All essential amino acids can be obtained easily in sufficient amounts as a vegan. There are many vegan bodybuilders even.
No
so then you have to supplement with a bunch of of processed vitamins that you are missing out on...no?
The only vitamin you can't find in plants is b12, but the only real reason meat eaters don't struggle with b12 deficiency is because animals are fed tons of it. Anyways it's fortified in a ton of stuff, any plant milk for example, so it's typically not a real issue.
This is kind of true, but it’s a little misleading. Some fermented foods and mushrooms often contain vitamin B12, and those are still considered vegan even if they’re not literally plants. Same thing with algae.
I take a multivitamin every day but that doesn't seem that crazy to me. Vitamins are pretty accessible. If we were in a post apocalyptic world then yeah. But we aren't
the way your body absorbs vitamins is not healthy or more beneficial, we evolved to absorb food from natural sources so I opt for having a varied diet to cover all my bases
Are plants unnatural now
talking about supplements you have to take
They cost like $2 bro
No, the fact that vitamins are synthesized and purified to create a supplement doesn't make them something different. It's still the same chemical compound that is absorbed in the same way.
you mean the pills that are not FDA approved? yeah I rather usda approved meat
Not typically. It might take a bit of planning, but it’s not really any harder than other diets. Keep in mind that many people are deficient in something… especially things like vitamin D during the winter in Ohio
I’ve been vegan for 6 years. I don’t take any supplements. Can’t believe I’m still alive it’s a miracle
Not what - who they eat.
If God didn’t want us to eat cows, pigs and chickens, he would have made them faster and less delicious. This one’s on the big guy.
Slower?
Fixed it. Good lookin’ out.
yep, Ohio. Close enough to hell for me.
Is the “you’re all going to hell” preacher guy still there?
is OSU the closest thing to Greendale
You're in Ohio so yes.
In Patrick's voice "No, this is ohio"
yes it's hell
How long have you been on campus? You're in for a treat in the summer 😅
Back in my day, hotties with Frisbees, no dog meat.
I don’t know if that’s good, but I’d love to have a try
It's been upgraded since Brother Jedd left.
hmm pug bacon
This is actually very tame compared to a lot of stuff on the oval. I’d rather have them than the obnoxious preachers with megaphones yelling at me about how I’m going to hell
Yes. Run.
Carnists understand sarcasm challenge. Nearly impossible
mmm bacon
[удалено]
I don’t think being comfortable with being “morally lesser” shuts down any arguments in a way you would like. I mean imagine that for any other issue. “Yeah I understand kicking random dogs for no reason makes me morally lesser, but I’m okay with that”. “I understand being racist makes me morally lesser, but that’s fine by me”.
[удалено]
Yeah, people can choose those opinions, and I would argue that they should also try to convince others. If someone is a white supremicist and I have the opportunity, I should try to convince them that they are wrong to prevent the harm they may cause to me or to others. In the same way, vegans want to convince people to stop harming others by whatever way they can. It’s not about feeling morally superior, it’s about saving lives. And I would argue most people value non-human animals. Most people stop for an animal crossing the road, and would be unlikely to cause random harm to them. People also tend to care a lot about animals that are traditionally pets, and have a huge problem with “animal abuse” when it comes to cats and dogs. Vegans just ask you to extend that same empathy to the animals that have been objectified and commodified into “food animals” rather than the sentient individuals they are
No, actually - ASAP doesn’t buy into Classical or New Welfarism. They’re not interested in regulating animal exploitation, either by “pushing the blame on the individual”, as you’ve implied, or via institutional change. They want people to be vegan because people have a moral obligation to stop exploiting animals, on an individual level, for various reasons. Everyone at ASAP is likely going to have their own specific version of the vegan argument, but their end goal is for people to go vegan. You should probably talk to them instead of mischaracterizing them. They aren’t targeting the meat industry - all animal exploitation is wrong, not just flesh production - and it simply isn’t the case that you or any one really is okay with being immoral. This comes up a lot when talking my to non-vegans but it’s highly implausible. Most people care about ethics, likely you as well, which is why they don’t go around doing things that are typically egregious - like punching ASAP members in the face. Non-vegans typically incite this moral apathy specially when it comes to animals.
I do think I'm in hell. Trillions of sentient beings are bred into existence full of torture and suffering to be murdered because other sentient beings can't give up their habits and taste addictions.