Please also check out Lemmy.vg for a great set of well-run communities for vegan news, science, cooking, circlejerking. It is a nice, cozy, all-in-one space for vegans.
We ask that the you have an understanding on what veganism is before engaging in this community.
If you think you have been banned erroneously, please get in contact with one of the other mods for appeals.
Moderator reports may not federate properly and may delay moderator action. Please DM an active mod if an abusive comment remains after reporting it.
Welcome to c/vegan@lemmy.world. Broadly, this community is a place to discuss veganism. Discussion on intersectional topics related to the animal rights movement are also encouraged.
'Veganism is 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 ...'
— abridged definition from The Vegan Society
The rules are subject to change, especially upon community feedback.
A compilation of many vegan resources/sites in a Google spreadsheet:
Here are some documentaries that are recommended to watch if planning to or have recently become vegan:
Vegan Matrix Instance:
Vegan Dating App Veggly
A fun game you can play if you find yourself in an argument/debate:
!homecooks@vegantheoryclub.org
Chickens are processed at 10-16 weeks depending on breed. They are not tortured when processed. They are tortured when they are alive. Be upset at factory farming not eating meat. A properly raised and processed bird doesn't suffer and has a happy life. Problem is, that costs a lot more.
Source: raise and eat my own chickens and eggs
The way the word "processed" is used so casually is really saddening.
If you're going to do this at least be honest about it instead of hiding behind these words to make it seem less terrible. You're killing and dismembering these birds.
So honest question about veganism here, since it relates to animal suffering - are vegans limited to what medicine they can use, since nearly all of it required animal testing? Especially since usually these animals suffered WAY more than livestock does, due to how medicine is tested.
If yes, and the philosophy does allow medicine, then does that mean raising your own chickens in ideal conditions and only eating them at an old age / near death is fine in that case, for example?
Especially since usually these animals suffered WAY more than livestock does, due to how medicine is tested.
You already got some good answers for the rest, but this part is also questionable. Lab animals tend to be kept in better conditions than most farmed animals. And while toxicity tests are terrible (esp the ones for cosmetics) they don't tend to last as long as intensive farming. Chickens in factory farms can barely move, some collapse under the weight of their own muscles, 70 to 80% of them have broken bones. It is trully hell and that's just one example.
Also when you look at the numbers, proportionally eating animals is a way bigger issue. Most meat eaters would be "responsible" for the killing of around ~100 animals a year just for food. For medicine, proportionally it would be way, way less, since the test happened only once.
To be honest for me veganism is not a set of rules, it's a way of looking at things. Taking into consideration that animals are sentient beings and being honest to myself about the implications. Also on how my actions impact the world. I can't justify not taking most medicines if I need them. However I also can't justify not making the effort to look for cruelty-free cosmetics.
Just a nitpick on the numbers. It very much depends on environment, species, the farmer, and other factors as to when animals are harvested. I only farm vegetables personally today. But I know a lot of farmers. I imagine it also varies by country as well. If you want to make a good defense against animal products to an audience accustomed to them, being accurate can be important
Good for them dying so young, or else 90% of them would need antidepressants
That sounds clean, but it assumes that animals and humans sit in the same moral category. A lot of people simply don’t grant that equivalence. They can fully imagine the suffering and still judge it differently because they see humans as having a higher moral status.
There’s also a leap from empathy to obligation(or similar is to ought). Humans routinely recognize suffering and still accept it under various tradeoffs. Medicine, construction, law enforcement, even wildlife management all involve harm that people wouldn’t personally want inflicted on themselves. The fact that someone can imagine pain doesn’t mean they conclude “this must never happen.” It means they decide whether that harm is justified within their own moral framework. In the case of livestock, many decide that food, culture, convenience, or nutrition justify it. It catered to their hollow.
Just look at guns, drugs and cars... And all the dead children. I digress.
Not all land can grow crops. A large share of grazing land is only usable through animals. Most livestock systems convert otherwise inedible biomass into food. On the other hand, industrial animal agriculture clearly has major negative and positive impacts. The reality isn’t a clean moral on-off-switch. It’s a messy optimization problem with mutual tradeoffs, and people naturally disagree on where the balance ought land, and naturally for whom the bill tolls.
Animals avoid suffering, but many also inflict it without moral hesitation(fight vs flight). Humans are perhaps the only ones trying to build any ethical systems at all, so disagreement is predictable. The presence of empathy doesn’t produce one universal conclusion, nor should it ever when considering the endless facets of those perceiving whatever this is.
Cheers.
The argument has always been precisely to re-examine what we believe is morally justifiable. It's no surprise that someone who supports animal agriculture finds it morally plausible - it would be stranger if they didn't find it morally plausible while continuing to support it. People make loads of arguments in favor for continuing to consume animal products, but the most revealing question is - what if all animal products tasted like sand? Does any of the claimed nutritional value arguments or tradition or w/e really feel well argued if you are defending something that both tastes incredibly bad, and is as harmful as animal agriculture is?
Not all land can indeed grow crops, but hysterically much more fertile land is wasted on animal agriculture. Pointing out marginal factors like they paint the whole picture is misleading.
it assumes that animals and humans sit in the same moral category
No, just that animals deserve some moral consideration.
In the case of livestock, many decide that food, culture, convenience, or nutrition justify it.
Some decide that kicking dogs is a good way to exercise, doesn't mean it's a good justification. Especially when there are other options. Same with animal products, there are other options.
Sure but I prefer animals. Most of the meat is from hunting or butchering animals myself.
