Photograph via snooOG

A place for open discussion about veganism and vegan issues, focusing on intellectual debate about animal rights and welfare, health, the environment, nutrition, philosophy or any topic related to veganism.

Please be warned that while we forbid hate speech as well as rude and toxic behavior, DebateAVegan cannot be considered a safe space and regardless of perspective you may run into ideas that you find offensive or appalling. Please take care of your mental well being.

A place for open discussion about veganism and vegan issues, including genuine questions or arguments about animal rights and welfare, health, the environment, nutrition, philosophy, or any topic relating to veganism.

You are welcome to bring up questions and topics that have come up before, but please search older posts first to see if your question has already been sufficiently answered. You can also find some resources related to common topics on our wiki.


1) No hate speech. No attacks on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

2) Stay on topic. Arguments, questions, and beliefs about veganism are all welcome.

3) Don't be rude. Toxic communication is defined as that which harms the dignity of others. This rule applies regardless of intention or accuracy, and even if the target of the abuse is a third-party. A full description of this policy is available on our wiki

4) Argue in good faith. Users should act with the intention of having honest and meaningful discussion. The precise definition of 'good faith' that we moderate for is on the wiki. In summary:

  • Don't ask loaded questions.

  • Don't just post copied content.

  • All posts should support their position with an argument or explain the question they're asking.

  • Do not present an excessive number of arguments at once.

  • Do not frequently change the subject in a way that makes discussion difficult.

  • Do not ignore all replies to your post.

5) Don't abuse the block feature. This includes:

  • Blocking another user so that you can get the last word.

  • Blocking community members (who are otherwise in good standing) in order to preemptively remove them from discussion.

6) No low-quality content.

  • All posts and comments should contribute meaningfully

If you see someone breaking any of these rules, please report the content in question so it is brought to a moderator's attention, and consider sending a modmail. Expanded versions of our rules are available on on our wiki.

Related Subreddits


40,505 Subscribers


Blog says animal activism is imagination and that cows don't give a damn what you do to them.


I landed on this blog and would like to share something written here.


in the context of AI, activists strongly believe that cows are forced against their will to become pregnant. They believe that because cows are unable to give [verbal] consent, it’s a gross form of misconduct and abuse for a human to put an arm up the cow’s anus and a metal rod up her vagina to breed her. This interpretation comes from imagining what it’s like to be a cow. They imagine being restrained against their will. Then they imagine themselves with an entire hand forced up their anus and a cold metal rod rammed into their vagina (men, you’ve no idea). The former is a real and rather lewd erotica act called “fisting,” minus the metal rod. It’s where one person is on their hands and knees (sometimes restrained if it’s a naughty BDSM act) while their partner forces their hand into that person’s anus right up to the wrist. Apparently, the recipient achieves orgasmic climax despite the pain they must endure when the “fister” stimulates the right spot through the rectal wall. Understandably, most will get grossed out by this version of “reality.” (We know a few of you will find it a turn-on, even though you will never admit it.) They get so disgusted that they automatically make false claims of the lack of consent, display of dominance, and alleged bestiality and sexualization of a veterinary medical procedure. So, they conclude that artificial insemination is very painful for a cow to go through, not to mention extremely traumatizing and, therefore, hatefully cruel. But reality has a much different opinion that counters this perverted belief

The author uses "perverted" many times in the post, calling vegans and animal rights activists perverted, fetishizing fisting. It is also said that vegans and animal activists imagine what it is like to be cow, it is all in the imagination.


In the former definition of rape, being of sexual violence, sexual abuse, or sexual assault, all of such terms are directly in the context of [un]lawful human conduct. NOT of conduct towards animals, especially when it comes to veterinary medical procedures. (Bestiality is considered a form of zoophilia “rape” because the animal is forced to be involved in the nefarious sexual activity of one or more humans and therefore is unable to consent. Certain countries and states have laws that make bestiality an illegal activity punishable by law. More on that later.) Quite frankly, cows (and all other non-human animals) are unable to consent to anything that we have to, can do, or will do to them. It doesn’t matter if it’s for their own benefit or our idiotic wants and desires based on whatever nefarious, delusional, or faulty beliefs we may have about their health, welfare, and desires. Guaranteed, they have no clue that we’re trying to help them and will be absolutely terrified when a painful procedure must be done that they won’t like. They will try to get away from us at any cost. (Some animals are a lot more trusting than others. When it comes to “livestock” like cows, they’re often far less trusting than a family pet.) Frankly, when it comes down to decisions that must be made that affect their lives and which only we humans are best informed about, it’s our sole responsibility to enact those decisions regardless of whether the animal consents to such actions or not. A cow will try to get away when she needs to be treated for an injury or sickness. Same if a person needs to get her out of trouble, like getting her head stuck in the fence. A cow or heifer doesn’t know consent when it comes to breeding, either. She doesn’t know how dangerous and expensive bulls can be. She’s in heat, and her hormones are driving her (and her herdmates) mad. Therefore, consent cannot be given by those animals either for the good intended for them or the evil that may be done to them. What good is it to argue animals’ interpretation of consent (and “bodily autonomy”) when they have no clue about such concepts? It’s more useful to debate what constitutes good welfare and animal husbandry. To ethically raise animals for food means understanding what truly is best for the animals in terms of welfare, health, productivity, and, when the time comes, their ultimate death. That responsibility falls on our shoulders. We’re the ones that are to be held accountable because we are responsible for their care. The animals cannot make any of those decisions by themselves. Unfortunately, there are times when the things we must do to animals involve some level of force and “dominance,” but always for the benefit of that animal. Sadly, certain people misconstrue such activities as a “deliberate show of human superiority via dominance and control.”

Now it says that rape is a human concept. Cows are clueless. What humans do to them is for their advantage.


The way cows are raised is (and should be) a win-win situation: the cows win because they get free shelter, free food, and great health care, and the human (farmer) wins because it’s a challenging, fun, and enjoyable way of life, and an income is made in selling a product (milk).​ Cows don’t give a damn that money is made off of them. (Yet another human construct they have no comprehension of.) They only care about being treated well, fed well, and feeling safe and secure. If they’re being abused and neglected, it really, really shows. The animals don’t lie; humans sure do. And we humans can do some pretty nasty, vile, disgusting stuff to animals that they don’t deserve.

It's a win win situation because human gets fun, enjoyment and challenge from this way of life. And also money.

You guys can better discuss these points so now the debate is in your hands.

03:55 UTC


Would modern prey animals be that much better off in the wild?

I understand the argument that animals kill in a survival situation which is not the case for humans who could survive off plant based, but even if we freed all the livestock how much better off would they be? If we are worried about the wellbeing of the animals is being killed in a survival situation that much better than being killed by a human? The way I see it we either kill them ourselves and harvest the resources or let them die in the wild and we get nothing. I seriously doubt many modern livestock animals would stand a chance against wild wolves.

20:12 UTC


Being flexitarian is valid

I just found out that many people don’t think it is valid, even on r/vegan people were condemning it. They see it as bragging. Apparently flexitarians are meat eaters trying to disguise themselves as “good people”. I think it’s especially weird when vegans say that since they have faced the exact same issue. I’m not flexitarian myself but I have friends who are. They don’t call themselves flexitarian though because it’s not something they feel the need to tell others about. Either that or they simply don’t define as flexitarian since they don’t obsess over identity. All they need to say is that they prefer vegan food and leave it at that. It’s just a description of the diet which is useful in many settings, like when you’re trying to promote or research the benefits of the diet. Also, most of us are NOT flexitarian. Or at least not in the west. If you want to know why, search up the definition of flexitarian. Flexitarians are trying. They’re doing it for their health, animal and environmental issues. Not for bragging, something that I think is more common among vegans btw. Just like how plant based food isn’t always environmentally/animal friendly, animal based food can be. Research also say that people with a flexitarian diet live the longest. I don’t know how to end this but I guess a “prove me wrong” will do. So prove me wrong, I guess.

Edit: I love how you guys just downvote my comments without answering. Can you not refute my point or what? I see that as a win.

19:36 UTC


My son won't be vegan.

My wife and I are both happily vegan (her 5 years, me 9 years). We're expecting a son next month. As of now, I have no intention of insisting he be strictly vegan, or even vegetarian. I'm not sure exactly why, I just feel it's taking a risk with his health and may negatively impact his social life. Change my mind.

Especially interested to hear people who have had a critical look at literature regarding vegan children, or have experience raising vegan children in the UK.

18:13 UTC


Out Of All Feelings, Why Just Empathy?

Feeling empathy is of course completely valid, but there are many things you can feel: greed, hate, love, envy, fear, lust, etc...

Why would you base your moral framework just on empathy when there are so many different things you can also feel?

If you based you moral framework on all of the things your feel and not just empathy, that "moral framework" would just be egoism.

(Keep in mind that this argument is obviously only relevant to you if you base your moral framework on empathy. From my experience in discussing on this sub I would estimate that at least 40% of the people here do, but I could be wrong of course.)

12:42 UTC


Why is it fundamentally wrong to dictate the choice of a conscious being against their will?

So... you saw the title and if you're a vegan, expected to see a snide remark and have the perfect counter-response prepared. At least, that's what I would be expecting when I put a title like this.

So, I know that vegans argue that "we shouldn't interfere with anything that is sentient".

As a vegan, how broadly do you believe in this? Do you only agree with the statement as it pertains to animals, or do you believe it in more broadly as a concept?

If you believe in it only if it concerns animals, congrats, your actions align with your morals. If you believe in the concept of this in a broader sense, then your actions no longer align 100% with your morals.

Let me explain!


Do you have a parent, sibling, spouse, child, or pet? Do you have a colleague, peer, co-worker, or friend who you really like? Do they sometimes do things that you don't agree with and try to advise them against? Do you sometimes feel so strongly about it that you insist that they stop?

Did you assume that I meant things like wasting money, going into debt, drinking alcohol, or doing something stupid?

I did, but did you only stop there?

Did you know that you could feel strongly about different styles of way of doing things? You could enjoy oil paints and hate clay paints. You could enjoy 4 wheelers and hate 8 wheelers. You could feel something "off" and actively do everything in your power to stop these people from doing certain things that have no danger to their life whatsoever.

You might do it because it pisses you off and you want to correct the behavior. Sometimes what you perceive as a not-positive but not- negative behavior doesn't have to lead to death or poor life outcomes but you still want to change it regardless


Are you a vegan who thinks we should just leave animals alone but we shouldn't leave people who are close to us alone? Do you have a strong desire to "alter" their lives in a way that suits your personal preference?

Like someone has a heavy interest in reading about cars but you think its a waste of time and they should read books about investment and leadership instead.

What gives a person the authority to justify to others how they should live when the original argument is, "we should leave sentient beings alone!"

Now, if we want to shift the goalpost by saying, "we shouldn't kill sentient beings!", there are already hundreds of post in hundreds of threads conceding the fact that, there is utilitarian value in objectively determining that animals are of less value than humans because if a humans life was in danger, then maybe it's acceptable to start influencing their life and death

We stop caring about these values when we face death. Are morals not meant to be adhered to for our entire life span? It seems that morals disappear when our self interest is at hand. Why are morals only allowed to be consistent when we're healthy but they can be dropped when we're about to die?

In contrast, someone who believes that it's okay to "interfere" with "just enough" animals from birth till death to extract beneficial value from them (bones for nutritional value, meat for food, fur for warmth, etc) is morally consistent their entire life.

04:41 UTC


Is it ok for a vegan to learn and practice how to fish, hunt, and dress meat in case of emergency?

Most vegans agree that it's ok to kill and eat animals if the alternative is death. Problem is that if you never actually fish, hunt, or field dress animals it's unlikely you'll be able to do it when shtf. Sure, you can watch tutorials, but those will only get you so far.

16:17 UTC


Animal Feed: Crop by-products only?

I quite often see the vegan claim that ~60% of the crops we grow are fed to animals. The claim crops (lol) up a lot in a few different discussions, but most commonly in response to the "crop deaths tho" argument or general land-use debates.

I recently saw the following comment on here which is a relatively good representation of the types of responses I have seen made by non-vegans:

"Livestock eat the byproducts of plants that humans can’t digest.

A 6ft tall corn plant yields only 2 cobs . The leaves, roots , and stalks is what if fed to animals.

Soy beans are a tiny portion of the entire plant. The waste goes to feed livestock.

The figure 60% is based on the amount of the plant .. 60-80% of the plant can’t be digested by humans and is fed to animals.

Livestock is not fed 60% of human food .. they are fed the byproducts"

So, what's the real situation? Are we, as the non-vegans claim, growing crops for human consumption/usage and then converting the non-edible parts of those plants to animal feed OR are we growing crops SOLELY for the production of animals feed?

If it's a combination of the two...which side of the vegan debate is "right"?

[For clarity: I'm a vegan. I didn't put this on a veganism or farming page because I've heard the points both sides make, I'm more interested in seeing both sides debate the point and this is one of the better debate subreddits I've seen]

08:36 UTC


Bees and Honey

So full disclosure, im a vegan, so its vegan on vegan debate time. Ive been a vegan since January, but I was a vegetarian for my whole life before that. So ethics of consumption and agriculture is something that ive pondered for years before veganism. Im wondering what the solution to honey bees and honey is. So I objectively understand why its bad to farm animals obviously, and I have naturally concluded that bees fall into that category, though I admit I dont empathize with bees as much as I do with mammals. But the question I have is, what should we do with bees? There is a very real chance that they could go extinct due to climate change and habitat loss without bee keepers keeping them, and we need bees to sustain basically all of nature ecologically, but without the profit of honey I doubt any will choose to keep them. Conservation efforts by non profits and governments can help sure, but Im doubtful it’ll be enough. In addition a lot of conservation groups sell honey as an effort to upkeep themselves and their bees. So basically I’m wondering what we can do to try to help bees without exploiting them? Sorry if this isn’t quote a debate topic, but I like arguing anyway so Im sure it’ll turn into one quickly.

23:55 UTC


Why is killing animals fundamentally immoral?

I've run into this a couple of times and I still feel I need clarification as to what the Vegan ethos is on this.

Some say it's just a fundamental axiom: "it is cus it is". Let's put that aside as not very helpful in getting anyone to understand the point of view.

Some say it's based around "choice" or "need". Many animals need to eat meat, and they have no choice, but many to most humans now have options where they could subsist off of plants. Humans don't need to eat meat and so it's immoral for them to do so. But this is positing killing as fundamentally immoral. There is something missing in the explanation. If killing is fundamentally immoral then a wolf killing is immoral BUT he has no choice but to be immoral. We "forgive" the immorality because the wolf must be immoral. But no one thinks this. A wolf killing is not immoral.So what makes killing another animal fundamentally immoral other than "choice"/"need"?

Not saying there's no relevance to "choice"/"need" but i'm hoping someone can expand my view on this, as I find that answer non fundamental.

Also, presumably death itself isn't the issue, but rather pain, suffering and the removal of agency, and these are contingent on sentience and the feeling of pain.

I.e. killing plants is fine. So it's not killing per say that is the issue

21:28 UTC


Do vegans have a problem with hunting, if only done for subsistence?

I guess I wonder on the nuance of the ethics.

This is an implausible solution for much of the world's current social setup. All people living in the suburbs/citie cannot become hunters within the current model. I ask not proposing it as a solution, but just as a question to try and understand the point if view. Do you have problem with rural people doing it? what about the spectrum of people between that and hunter gatherer tribes?

As an add on: would it be ethical of me to kill a deer, or many deers, or similar animals who want to eat my vegan crops? If they eat the crops my family will starve to death. I can gradually try to set up other deterents but time realities and situation realities won't make that immediately or universally feasible. If I do kill that deer would it not be more ethical to eat it?

Would it be ok to protect wild goats, or similar, from wolves so that I could hunt them later?

Most of theese questions are to get a sense of the general (i imagine there is a spectrum) vegan point of view. Some are just rhetorical questions to make the point that there are a range of ethics and practilities to consider

I think if there was a main focus on something like reforming farming away from "factory" profit driven farming (obviously need some individual profit but not investor corporatism type profits) then most people would be on board, and would actually achieve something of measure. Why scream at individuals and restaurants?

15:34 UTC


If livestock animals rebelled, who’d you choose?

Let’s say animals on farms somehow manage to organize and start a revolution against humans. Maybe some rick and morty thing happens and now certain animals have enough intelligence to start organizing the other ones. For the sake of the hypothetical, we’ll say that humans still have enough food to both survive and fight a prolonged war.

You have 2 choices. Side with animals, or side with humans. The animals give you another choice: you can pretend to be on the human side, but sell out your non-vegan friends and family, sentencing them to suffer the same conditions animals(whichever one they eat the most) suffer on factory farms, for the same percentage of their life, then be killed in the same manner. Or you can fight on the animal side and like actually shoot people and stuff. For every 5 people you kill, you can choose one person to save from the animals’ wrath. If you die, the animals cast speak with dead and you can pick 2 extra people to save. If you pick the animal side, animals win. If you pick humans or stay neutral, humans win.

Humans win: Veganism is outlawed. All efforts to help livestock animals are gone. No fake meat, no fake dairy, nothing. No more “free range grass fed cage free etc” shrimp any more. Humans continue the horrors of factory farming for the rest of their existence, and this war is used as justification for it. Expressing pro-livestock sentiment is treated the same as expressing pro-nazi sentiment is now.

Animals win: Many humans die, but a significant amount live. Society remains, but veganism is now mandatory on pain of death. The really weird carnivore diet guys are all executed immediately.

06:20 UTC


Would you eat eggs from your own chickens?

Hi, this is supposed to be less of a debate but more of a question but it felt too intrusive to ask in the vegan subreddit.

So: would you eat eggs from your own chickens? Why/why not?

02:39 UTC


Is there a vegan diet?

Hello, my brother is a vegan (I am not).

I believe there is such thing as a vegan diet. A diet is simply what you eat. When you become vegan you change what you eat, therefore you alter your diet - meaning there is a vegan diet. I am aware veganism is not purely a diet and is a way of life but objectively there is a vegan diet.

He tells me other vegans will disagree with me so I was just wanting to fact check that.

Edit: you lot have decided this is mostly an issue of phrasing which I agree with. I’m technically right but he is also right that it isn’t the most effective term to use.

22:03 UTC


Veganism vs. Other Ethical Choices: A Question of Moral Superiority?

Is ethical veganism truly a hallmark of moral virtue, or merely one choice among many in a complex ethical landscape? At its essence, veganism proposes a relatively straightforward trade-off: forgo meat and animal products for the benefit of sentient beings. This practice aligns with other environmentally conscious decisions, like preferring bicycles over cars or choosing not to fly. Undoubtedly, these are commendable actions, reflecting a commitment to reducing personal harm to others. However, in the grand scheme of moral actions, veganism is but one option in a vast array of sacrifices aimed at the greater good.

The modern world presents a myriad of ethical dilemmas, making it increasingly challenging to lead a life free from any harm or suffering. This complexity raises important questions about the relative moral standing of veganism. Consider the contrast between two individuals: one leads a minimalistic life in harmony with nature, uses no petroleum or electricity, and occasionally consumes meat. The other lives a life marked by high consumption, travels extensively by air, indulges in processed foods, drives a large vehicle, but strictly adheres to a vegan diet.

Which lifestyle, then, contributes more to the alleviation of animal suffering? This comparison invites us to critically examine the premise that veganism occupies a singular moral high ground. It suggests that the ethics of our choices are not black and white but are part of a broader, more nuanced debate about the impacts of our lifestyles.

Do vegans believe they possess a form of moral superiority compared to non-vegans who choose to focus their efforts and sacrifices on other ethical issues?


Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to respond.

I’d like to clarify a point that may not have been clear in my post. I am not suggesting that veganism is more or less ethical or correct than any other moral stance, nor am I implying that it’s impossible to adopt more than one virtuous habit simultaneously. What I am saying is that it’s fundamentally impossible to always be morally right or to adhere to every ethical practice, especially when many comforts and privileges come at the expense of others.

With this in mind, my point is that veganism is just one of the many morally correct actions that someone can choose to support. While you might choose this battle, other people may fight for different causes that are equally morally significant. We need to respect each other’s choices without accusing others of being immoral.

18:46 UTC


How can you be sure that a reduction in sentient life is more ethical than allowing for it to exist with the presence of some amount of suffering?

I recently happened to stumble upon some arguments for veganism made by the atheist Youtuber Alex O'Connor. After watching a few interviews he has done and finding many of the arguments for veganism to be quite compelling, I decided to read Ed Winters' book This Is Vegan Propaganda. I found it to be a fascinating book, and felt myself getting pulled more and more towards veganism as I read it. It really felt like it was reprogramming my brain as I read it, and I already feel like I can't look at animal products quite the same way anymore.

However, while I feel like I'm standing right on the edge, there are some things that I am unsure about that prevent me from taking the leap.

One is that I'm not sure that an individual boycott is actually an effective way to reduce animal suffering. I feel like the money I spend on animal products is a rounding error, and won't actually reduce the amount of animal suffering in the world one iota. It seems like it might be a shame to deprive myself of life experiences around food that negatively impact my own subjective experience and don't have a positive impact that counteracts it. To some degree, this is a less significant problem, because there are good reasons to be vegan even if it doesn't reduce suffering. In addition, I find that I am less and less inclined to want to eat meat as I learn more about the impacts of animal farming on the world, even if abstaining from it doesn't lessen that.

The real that I struggle with is the overall ethical question. To me, the biggest ethical concern about veganism is one that I actually don't see many vegans talking about, including Ed Winters. It seems like people take it as a given that eliminating the farming of animals lessens animal suffering, and is therefore a morally good thing to do. I think it's more complicated than that, though. I certainly agree that there is a huge amount of suffering as a result of factory farming, and we should strive to reduce unnecessary suffering. However, I also think it's important to carefully consider the fact that eliminating the consumption of animals means that those animals would never experience life in the first place.

I often see statements made by vegans like "It's wrong to kill animals for food, because they have a preference to live". And this is true. But if we didn't kill them for food, they wouldn't live at all. The only chance they have to experience existence at all is because they were born to be killed for food. How can we be sure that we have the right to make the decision for them that it's better that they were never born, so that they wouldn't be killed prematurely to become someone's meal?

Now, I am sure most people would simply respond that the existence of animals in a factory farm is hardly an existence worth having, due to the horrible conditions involved, but I don't think that's something that can be asserted without serious consideration. Is it really the case that non-existence is more ethical than one filled with suffering?

If that's the case, we should apply that same thinking to other areas. Animals suffer in the wild. Most of their lives are filled with fear of being eaten by predators. They waste away from disease and starvation, or become crippled due to injury with no hope of healing and having to endure chronic pain (which in turn makes them more likely to be eaten). Surely this existence is also quite horrible. If we can decide that farmed animals shouldn't exist because of the poor conditions they would live in, shouldn't we have a moral obligation to eliminate all life that would be predominantly filled with suffering? What is the distinction here?

I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts, as this is really the last thing that is giving me pause from becoming a vegan. If you know of any good videos or essays on the topic, I would be interested in reading them. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

16:46 UTC


Riddle me this vegans, (may be controversial)

If it's rape to milk a cow, for It can't consent, what do you call picking an apple from a tree? Abortion? Id really love to hear the explanation of this one.

14:14 UTC


Vegans Draw a Line too

As someone who has been researching, and frankly trying to justify being a meat eater, I have come across one argument that I think holds somewhat well. So, I have come to stress test it.

This argument is based around a few claims (evaluative and descriptive)

  1. reducing animal suffering is good
  2. a vegan diet also leads to the death of animals
  3. vegans draw a line, at what point they choose to kill animals. (The eating of excessive calories, not optimizing your diet to minimize animal suffering, not starving yourself and only eating what is truly required)

So here goes:

p1 If our end goal is to maximally reduce animal suffering (denote the utilitarian lexicology)

p2 Then as conscious vegans we should minimize our caloric intake to the point that we only eat what is truly necessary.

(to me this argument seems valid, however it feels ridiculous)

In my travels I have found this to not be the case. Vegans eat beyond meat, vegan ice cream, other non-essential delicacies.

This is what the title refers to: how do vegans justify suffering that they are indirectly causing through the means of eating non-essential foods. What is the difference between eating extra calories and someone being a vegetarian? These both cause extra harm. How do you go about justifying the prior and not the latter?

Thanks for reading.

03:53 UTC


Where is your proof that animals know they're going to die?

You'll often see videos of vegans filming animals in slaughterhouse trucks and saying "look at them, they're terrified, they know they're going to die". Well I'm sure they are scared, and I know they sometimes try to escape, but that's because it's a completely new environment. There is some debate over whether or not animals even understand the concept of death, but even if they do, how could those animals possibly know they're going to die?

02:27 UTC


I don't understand why vegans hate the RSPCA

From what I understand, it's because they approve painless methods of slaughter, and vegans are against all slaughter. Well surely vegans understand that killing animals is not going to become illegal, at least not for a very long time, and the RSPCA can't change that no matter how hard they try. The RSPCA is saying "if it must happen, it should at least be painless". I don't understand how any vegan could have a problem with that.

00:32 UTC


Biblical references to Veganism

Hello, I heard about some biblical verses in regards eating meat only in times of desperation/survival as opposed to whenever it suits.

What are these Biblical references? And how do you find Christians respond when you point these out to them? TiA

01:47 UTC


Vegans who want all humans to stop eating meat, how would you tackle issues such as the survivability of animals bred for consumption in the wild, overpopulation, and the inevitable massive economic impact?

Basically title.

We know there would be massive undertakings of other issues that would stem from a reduction in meat consumption in humans, so how do those who aim for humans to stop consuming meat plan to address these?

15:57 UTC


How to justify crop death

I'm vegan and I'm aware that this isn't an argument against veganism. I'm just curious about how we can justify crop death. I have heard the argument that we also build streets even though we know they will cause human death. However I think the crop death situation is a bit different. It's more like I drive through a full place, knowing that people get run over, but saying, sorry this is my street now. I don't have the intend of killing anyone, but that doesn't justify my action. The animals don't choose to be on what I define as my street and it's also not like I allow them to die. Aren't we even actively taking their rights because we take their space and claim it as ours? It might reduce wild animal suffering, but I guess most people agree that we aren't allowed to do everything as long as it reduces suffering in the end. Isn't any not necessary plant consumption therefor immoral?
And even the necessary one seems hard to justify. Just because something is necessary for my survival, I'm not ethically allowed to do it. I mean if I need an organ transplant I'm also not allowed to kill someone else. I see how the crop death argument runs into a suicide fallacy, but where lies the line with that? Because the organ transplant thing normally isn’t considered as a suicide fallacy.

16:10 UTC


Is Unnecessary Traveling Against Veganism ?

Hey,I don’t ask this in bad terms,unfortunately most people on this sub assume (vegan or nonvegan) that the questions are being asked to convince the other party that s/he was a moron the whole time and should change his/her opinions I guess.

But that’s not the case in this question,so if you’re going to make your smart remarks about your high ground regardless whether you’re a vegan or carnivore,just don’t.

The thesis is: when someone travels,regardless of what transportation is being used (car,plane,bike or even by foot) s/he kills some animals,insects to be specific.

So,travelling for mere pleasure and stimulation should be considered non vegan in my opinion.

Or am I missing some points here ?

Is this Nirvana Fallacy ?

Are we must travel and see the world if we can,is that a psychological need,a genuine need ?

Is this like saying we shouldn’t eat nothing but raw fruits that was collected only if they fell from the branches by themselves ?

07:15 UTC


How much do you trust veganism? What should I do?

Was vegan for 5+ years. Went back to eating animal products a couple of months ago.

I hate eating animal products and want to go back to being vegan, but I'm afraid of developing nutritional deficiencies. When I was vegan, I didn't eat a well-planned diet. The last two or three years I just ate bananas, orange juice, mock meat, bread, and pasta. Sometimes I would have other foods, but overall, my diet mainly consisted of what I listed above. I don't know how to cook beans/lentils, and even if I did, I don't know if I would get tired of eating them everyday.

There's so many doctors who promote a plant based diet and say you can get everything you need, but upon further examination I don't know how true that is because there are a lot of doctors who are against veganism and say we need to eat animal products. Also, the sheer amount of exvegans scares me because if they couldn't make veganism work for them, what makes you think it will work for you?

I've always had anxiety, but this year in particular, my anxiety has gotten so bad it's debilitating. I need help badly. I don't know what to do. My heart wants veganism but I have so much doubt.

01:01 UTC


Are crop deaths higher in a plant based diet?

According to FEFAC it is said that the total arable land used for animal feed is about 0.55 billion hectares, corresponding to 40% of the global arable land for crops. So vegans are responsible for more death counts from this data? I want to know if possible, how much arable land would we actually need if the world were to choose plant based? If the use of arable land alone is less than the current use of arable land, even by the death count, having a plant based diet will cause less so I want your inputs:)

PS: I know animal agriculture uses more land. I'm talking about arable land which is excluding grazing land.


Here is the source in which I was referring the data from. We use 60% "arable land" in which the other 40% is used for live stocks. What I want to know is that, if all people around the world ditched animal products, is it possible that we will use less arable land than we already do for live stocks combined!?

I'm here to make a clarification and not a point

07:38 UTC


I don't think it's worth it to go FULLY vegan

Yes, this makes me seem like a bad person, why wouldn't I want to do everything I can for the animals? Well, I think we should balance veganism, in accordance with our life and wellness, and being fully vegan wouldn't be the right balance.

So, as I'm taking small steps into becoming a vegan (yes, that's still unethical and a selfish way to go about it, I should ideally turn vegan instantly, not just some "small steps"), and what I've realised, is that attempting to be 100% (or realistically 99.7%) vegan is just much so more than just buying vegan products and avoiding animal products. I even had a real life example, I bought some vegan nuggets, I then read the list of ingredients out of curiosity, but then I saw it say: "may contain eggs" or "may contain traces of eggs" whatever the translated version was, I don't remember exactly. So that wasn't actually 100% vegan, and so I'm not actually supposed to buy that product then.

So, how would I go about being fully vegan, then? With every single food product that I would buy, I would have to carefully inspect it, additionally checking the company's website. Maybe that's not that much, but creating stress about everything I'm buying, checking every single product, asking restaurant owners if the products are fully vegan, not knowing if they'd lie or not, it would just make relationships with food a whole lot more difficult, and it could really be unhealthy. I'm not saying it would happen with everyone, but it could certainly happen to me.

And it's not just about food, EVERYTHING that I would buy I would be stressing about. "Is this vegan?" "Is that vegan?" "But is this vegan?" I wouldn't know if this board game was truly vegan, maybe it contained tiny amounts of some animal-derived materials. Buying literally anything would create this stress.

I couldn't even buy most things without the small risks of it not being vegan. So, I just don't see how going fully vegan would be worth it. It doesn't mean we should go back to eating animal products, gosh no, but it would mean still being mostly vegan, what would that be, about 95-97% vegan I would guess?

It would be so much more manageable and less stressful and more balancing to simply just buy vegan products, and not consume animal products, that would already be 95-97% vegan. Should we really go the extra length and try to go for the remaining 3-5% with the cost of feeling much more stressed with buying any items or doing anything?

I get that we should do as much as we can for the animals, because they're living in absolute hell, but when does it become too much, that we have to start sacrificing our wellness?

My point is that you can always go too far with something and be unbalanced, even with veganism. An example would be that we could be setting factory farms on fire in order to stop them (let's assume for the sake of the example it worked somehow and it stopped it) but that would be going too far, but if you don't agree that that's too far, then there's always even more extreme examples, eventually we would come to the point where it's too far.

Look, we should save the animals. But overall, my point is that going the extra length, from 95-97% to 99-99.5% vegan just wouldn't be worth it for our wellness, it would be worth it for the animals, but not for our sakes.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, and it's not actually that difficult and maybe all purchasable objects are actually vegan, but I'm new to this so I don't really know. I would love to hear your opinions or arguments about this.

06:37 UTC


There is weak evidence that sporadic, unpredictable purchasing of animal products increases the number animals farmed

I have been looking for studies linking purchasing of animal products to an increase of animals farmed. I have only found one citation saying buying less will reduce animal production 5-10 years later.

The cited study only accounts for consistent, predictable animal consumption being reduced so retailers can predict a decrease in animal consumption and buy less to account for it.

This implies if one buys animal products randomly and infrequently, retailers won't be able to predict demand and could end up putting the product on sale or throwing it away.

There could be an increase in probability of more animals being farmed each time someone buys an animal product. But I have not seen evidence that the probability is significant.

We also cannot infer that an individual boycotting animal products reduces farmed animal populations, even though a collective boycott would because an individual has limited economic impact.

16:47 UTC


it is often said, ``Let's do what we can.'' Is that true?

When it comes to environmental issues, it is often said, ``Let's do what we can.''
Is that true?
Hi, I'm a skeptic and it's not good.
For example, regarding ocean plastic, in Japan it is considered ethical to put plastic bags in your own bag instead of accepting them from the supermarket.
However, the source of ocean plastic is actually garbage that flows from rivers. Japanese rivers are very beautiful and clean. Japanese people's efforts to reduce the amount of plastic waste that ends up there.
no! It's not there!
Much of the garbage is plastic waste that flows out of rivers in countries such as China and Indonesia. That's an order of magnitude higher.
It's not that Japan's efforts are bad. However, if we are to do what we can, we should approach China and Indonesia.
That's what I mean when I say I'll do what I can.
Of course, the same goes for vegans. Of course you should be careful about your daily diet, but if you want to ``do what you can'', you should do something a little more basic. I have to do something important.
After all, if your room is a mess and you're picking up a little dust in the corner, that's nonsense.

07:04 UTC


have something to think about. Vegans believe that a vegan diet is healthy; non-vegans are skeptical. But this is meaningless.

have something to think about. Vegans believe that a vegan diet is healthy; non-vegans are skeptical. But this is meaningless.
That's right, the cause of many obese people's high blood pressure and diabetes is due to eating too many carbohydrates like wheat, rice, and corn.
Whether you eat only grass or only meat, you will usually lose weight.
The enemy of health is neither non-vegan nor vegan diets.

07:24 UTC

Back To Top