fungi?
I appeal to the Director of Veganism!
I’ve had an unreasonable number of arguments against people who seemed to think animal was a synonym for mammal. Thankfully, we’re now in an era where you can look it up and show them now mobile data is cheap, so it’s become a winnable argument.
Except they still don’t care, and resent you for edumacating them. Whatever you say, they “win”. Welcome to the post -information age.
I rarely judge someone for ignorance unless it is wilful. I pretty harshly judge people who cannot assimilate new information. Over time I think I might be evolving from INTP->INTJ as I age. I used to have more patience and would try to encourage people to learn and adjust.
P->J completely inverts the orientations of the cognitive functions (Ti Ne Si Fe -> Ni Te Fi Se), it wouldn’t reflect a singular change but a wholesale shift in how you take in and act on information (also J doesn’t mean judgmental).
I’m in the same camp, but wording it as “unable to assimilate new information” might actually help me have more sympathy for the willfully ignorant. That sounds awful to deal with.
I get you - and am the same. I hold little to nothing against someone unable to learn… but that’s not what I am talking about. Imagine someone with an IQ of 50, who decides to pass themselves off as a doctor - you go in for brain surgery and, whoopsie, you get your event taken care of “at a reduced price”. Nobody blames someone who is authentically stupid - and if that sounds bad, note that I include myself first among that category:-) - until and unless they step up and decide to become a LEADER. The latter carries with it a societal obligation to do better, than us mere peasants.
Put another way, if you are going to perform literal and actual and fully physical violence against an establishment such as the government of the United States of America (i.e. becoming one who acts rather than being acted upon), then you might want to start with actually reading the document that you are about to overthrow. It does no good to sleep with it under your pillow - you need to pull it out and actually READ it for it to do any good! Although many who were there have self-admitted that they have not in fact read it, even so much as once.
Likewise, more people died in the USA from the recent pandemic than all wars combined. Much of that was preventable, and quite frankly we don’t even (nor will ever) know precisely how many are directly attributable to that, b/c those stats were deliberately fudged and forbidden to be counted. The same with school shootings - we counted at one point that there were more “mass events” (involving 5+ people) than there were calendar years, but the government is specifically prohibited from collecting this data, so once again we’ll never truly know the extent, only lower-bound estimates (which are already shockingly high). Also people have already died from the ham-handed prevention of “abortion”, that somehow includes cancerous masses, dead fetuses (from natural miscarriages) with necrotic tissue rotting away (but can’t remove either b/c that could be considered an “abortion”), ectopic “pregnancies”, and other life-threatening situations, which are nowhere close to the medical definition of “abortion”, yet to the lawmakers (some of whom claim that babies cannot be produced from a rape - I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP - b/c “God has a way of shutting that whole thing down there in the case of rape”) are too unintelligent to understand anything at all about what is going on.
However, nobody is that stupid, as to e.g. see Trump wear a mask, then turn around and claim to others that he does not wear masks. We have long ago crossed that line, from “stupidity” to “obstinacy”. This is cognitive dissonance, yes likely imposed upon people from others (e.g. Putin), but also willfully held onto by many.
And here is proof: a video by Kurzegatcht that is only 11-minutes long that explains why people should take the vaccine. This is VERY understandable. Anyone who watches this would INSTANTLY understand the situation fully - and it’s only 11-minutes long, so for something that could save a life, and possibly that of every one of your family members - is not too much to ask. And yet… people did not do it.
Moreover, much of the subject matters involved in all of what I mentioned above don’t even need a video of even 1 minute to explain - e.g. to say that “kids getting shot in schools all across the nation” is… what is is again? good? no wait, bad, yeah, that’s it, that’s a bad thing!.. right?!
That’s not stupidity - that’s stubbornness.
I was very on board with your comment until the Meyers-Briggs pseudoscience BS and then you lost me
I think it means that as people get older, they get crankier and thus more prone to rush to judgement, just to move things along quicker, rather than take the time necessary to figure out all the nuances and expend patience in trying to actually change things. Though I might be putting words into their mouth.
Although either way I definitely have noticed this trend within myself, especially when I was on Reddit, so it’s a real shift imho. And it needs to be fought against vigorously, bc talking rather than listening usually does not lead to the most ideal outcome. That’s what I got out of that anyway.
And there’s a MAJOR caveat: sometimes judgementalness should be embraced - e.g. patience to tolerate a tanky will never work out well… (The only thing we must never tolerate is intolerance). Young people tend to be too patient sometimes, even as old people trend towards being too judgemental. Young people need to learn more and realize what is known vs. not known yet, and old people need to aim to practice discipline to avoid their feefees from taking over logic as they are always wont to do if given half the chance. imho ofc, which is surely incomplete!:-P
Or they don’t care because they’re using it in a colloquial sense and 90+% of people they talk to would understand their intended usage, so they resent being lectured on semantics rather than responding to the meaning behind their words.
lectured on semantics rather than responding to the meaning
this is ironic
That’s a launching point for a really interesting discussion, which I doubt you wanted so I’ll cut it short. The gist is: do words have any meaning at all, and if so, is there such a thing as objective truth, and then shouldn’t the former be reflective of the latter?
“Mammal” means something, and all the Reddit-esque “acktwually” aside, it means something different from “animal”. But rather than say “thank you for the correction, yes that is what I meant, what you said”, the implication being that we all stand together side-by-side in front of Truth, with those closer to it being the ones considered “correct”, many instead would hold onto pride and say like “nuh-uh, I know you are but what am I?” One fosters a sense of community, while the other divides it into those who enjoy shitting onto others and those who (surely) enjoy being shat upon.
There is a saying that pride goes before a fall. And with planes having parts falling off of them inside the US, and literally falling from the sky into the ocean (that one off the coast of Africa, in at least one case), I’d say that we could definitely use more of the former where we consider 1+1=2 as a more worthwhile goal than “everyone is always correct, bc even if not, they surely meant to be and that’s enough”.
Of course if not, then surely you agree with me anyway, since I am responding to the meaning behind your words? ;-)
Or if still not, then you may want to block me, since I have a feeling you may not enjoy much of what I will have to say across the Fediverse.
Sure in some cases there can be an objective truth probably, although i doubt any of us is as close to it as some people seem to enjoy thinking they are. But i think what you’re missing (possibly intentionally) about my point is that if you know what someone meant then they achieved the objective of communicating, and by choosing to ignore what they meant and instead focus on what they incorrectly said then i feel like you’re consciously choosing to move the conversation away from ‘truth’ and toward ‘correctness’ out of some need to feel superior. There is a time and place to correct people, but lots of people (and you may or may not be one of them) seem incapable of distinguishing when it is not the right time or place.
I acknowledge that there is that as well:-). The hard part is that the OP is a joke, somewhat, so all answers seem to work within that context.
And Truth is such a very slender path between extremes - e.g. 1+1= neither 2.1 nor 1.9, but exactly 2 in-between.
So if I say that Truth matters, generally speaking, and you say that it depends on the context, then strictly speaking your argument must win. e.g. in a discussion between literally toddlers the facts would not matter, hence you are most definitely correct that there exists some scenarios where it does not.
I was bemoaning how society in general chooses for it not to matter, more often than the reverse - yes, definitely the road less traveled for sure. We all exist on that spectrum, with choices as to when and where and what and why and how.
And how ironic that we are nitpicking on these points to find the real Truth - that was supposed to be my schtick! But instead we will share it together:-). And here I am not joking: since I do value Truth, I enjoy both of our POVs here: sometimes Truth matters, sometimes it does not, but in general I wish people would value it more often than happens currently, even though sometimes indeed it can get in the way of other things too, like friendships.
Okay but words are not math. Language exists solely for the purpose of communicating ideas, and if you understand the idea that someone is trying to convey and that idea is not false, but their word choice is inaccurate then you most definitely are just nit-picking, and its not in search of some greater ‘truth’ because the actual truth of the conversation is what they were intending. I feel like you’re conflating truth with accuracy. Misusing the word animal when you mean mammal is not false in the same way as saying the sky is green or the covid vaccine gives you aids. Words can also have multiple meanings, which lends itself to more than one truth. Theres the scientific definition, and as i mentioned, the colloquial usage. So if a majority of the population understands a word to mean one thing in one context and another thing in a different context, and you willfully ignore that societal understanding in favor of ‘scientific validation’, then you are again ignoring a form of truth.
How do you make sure you understood the idea if the word choice is incorrect? You may assume from context what the idea was, but you may as well assume wrong. And the more such assumptions exist in one dialogue, the further it is from information exchange, and the closer it is to not listening at all because you already knew the context before the dialogue
I believe that’s a terribly slippery slope there: truth lies not only in the artist who made something but also the beholder who receives it. It’s both. If I sent you an unasked-for picture, say of my genitals, then my own preferences in the matter may be said to matter less than those of the recipient even!
Or I could say e.g.: that men and women are the same thing (I mean… 22 other chromosomes are so…), or that men and bears are the same - neither is particularly true, nor does me saying it help make it so. The burden is on me to communicate whatever I intended - men and women are similar, and indeed the same in so many aspects, though not precisely all; and similarly with men and bears.
I preemptively agree that the importance of saying that mammals is the same thing as animals is low. Unless, that is, someone has decided to really really really really really care about the answer, for whatever reason, and then to them it will matter. But how then will they find the answer in such case, when everywhere they look, people all agree that those words mean the same thing?
You seem to be arguing that mammals == animals is a matter of subjective opinion, like the sky is beautiful, rather than of fact, like the sky is green, or blue, or whatever the names of colors mean. It is not though?
Oh well, no biggie. But I do think that facts matter, and furthermore I think that the very existence of the USA is at stake upon this issue. Not that I have anything against you personally I hope you understand (my intent there only going partway to explaining that, and the burden to communicate such being partway on me to say whatever I mean), it’s just that I get triggered upon this matter, as I wonder how many of my family members will be among those who get killed as a result.
Anyway, far from ignoring that “truth”, I was in fact bemoaning (and also making fun of:-P) its existence. Not every popular trend is equally valid. Case in point, I was making fun of the existence of the former, which you took exception to, so apparently you agree that despite the fact that MANY people think that mammals==animals, that there should be other interpretations that are equally valid and my pointing out the opposite was something that you felt needed to be spoken out against. If only there was some way to arbitrate! Some way to find out which things were “true”, vs. “untrue”! Sadly, there is not it seems, so in your mind you will remain “correct” and in mine I will do the same. No /s - I truly bemoan that fact, but I know of no way to remedy it: in my worldview, facts, and only facts, are true, regardless of how many people believe otherwise.
First, let me agree that everything in the kingdom Animalia is, in fact, an animal.
But now let me point out that many of the people who say shit like this might not speak english as their first language. Many languages have different words for animal for different types of animals. I tried to find out what I’m half remembering but I can’t find it quickly and I have to get to work. But I vaguely remember that some word that’s usually translated as animal into english actually doesn’t include insects. Just like the english “deer” at one point in time refered to all wild beasts (but not fish or fowl) and now only refers to Cervidae.
I’m referring to arguments I’ve had in person against native English speakers. If they were online arguments, the ability to use mobile data to show someone a citation wouldn’t be a new development.
Sure, but remember that there’s sometimes a scientific term used incorrectly, but it’s so widespread it has non-scientific definition in dictionary. Although thinking that insects are not animals is indeed stupid.
Historically I still “lose” these types of arguments as my willfully ignorant interlocutor spams potential strawman and ad hominem “arguments” until they feel sufficiently convinced that my pesky facts and I are safe to ignore.
In my experience there are very few people worth arguing with, as there are very few people willing to argue in good faith. Most people see arguing as a battle to be won or lost rather than a mechanism by which to vet assumptions. How can you expect to argue with a person who is unable to argue with themselves?
I feel like a lot of these posts are people just “poking the bear” and others end up taking them seriously. I understood this concept fairly early because of my family’s heavy use of sarcasm and seeing Calvin’s dad (of Calvin and Hobbes) explain things. Sometimes your best bet is to just not give the lesson and leave it alone so it doesn’t get unnecessary attention.
I’ve deleted so many half written comments thinking “If this is what they think, do I really want to deal with the absolute garbage response I’ll inevitably get back?”
But you can ignore the response if you decide to not deal with it
Kinda tongue-in-cheek questions, but: Honey isn’t an animal body part, it isn’t produced by animal bodies, so if it is an animal product because bees process it, is wheat flour (for example) an animal product because humans process it? How about hand-kneaded bread? Does that make fruit an animal product because the bees pollinated the flowers while collecting the nectar?
I’ve always found it interesting that using animals is a bad thing, but using plants in similar ways is fine. I guess there has to be a line somewhere, otherwise such a person would simply starve to death.
It is really tricky to genuinely discuss this topic. Many omnivores use this as a straw man argument to discredit vegans for not being fully consequential. On top of that, reasons for being vegan and where people draw the line also vary hugely.
Anyways, I would argue that eating plants and also fungi is very different to eating animal products. First of all, if you are vegan for ethical reasons (as I am) then usually the argument is that one can infer from one’s own feelings onto other animals. Sure, this isn’t always that easy and we will never know how other animals really feel. This includes fellow humans btw. But it is certainly very definitive that many animals feel pain, discomfort and many other emotions not unlike we feel them.
Plants and fungi on the other hand have completely different body plans. Plants are modular organisms and you simply cannot relate cutting your arm off with cutting a branch. We may deepen our understanding on plants and maybe we will find some form of conscience one day. But this is still far off and for now we can only speculate. Fungi are very different as well and we usually just eat their fruiting bodies anyways.
Secondly, as someone else pointed out, for ecological reasons and for the sheer quantity that is necessary to sustain humans, going vegan is always the better choice. Animals live on plants, too, and just use a lot of the plants’ energy on their own metabolism.
There are varieties of Jainism that won’t pluck fruits (will only eat what has naturally fallen) and many mainstream varieties of Jainism that won’t eat any root vegetables (because digging them up would harm insects), or seeded vegetables (eating it harms the plants ability to reproduce).
Naturally fallen fruit has ground bugs enjoying them like slugs. If a slug is already enjoying the fruit, that would violate Jainism?
I’m not a Jain so take this with a grain of salt. Their philosophy of nonviolence believes in two sets of rules - one for ascetics and one for “householders”. The former renounce everything in service of nonviolence (they often wear masks to prevent breathing in any organisms, carry canes that they use to tap the ground when they walk, etc). The latter have more “reasonable” restrictions (but are still pure vegetarians, etc). So maybe for the former group?
deleted by creator
One good argument for this: A vegan diet not only minimizes animal deaths but plant deaths as well, since livestock obviously has to be fed on many, many individual plants before they can get slaughtered. So even if we for some reason prioritized saving the lives of plants going vegan would still be the way to go.
I respect this argument. I would like to know how Humans fit into the ecosystem.
Humans tend to remove predators from population centers to prevent Humans from becoming prey. The culling of predators allow more prey animals to survive. Humans find themselves competing with prey animals for fruits and vegetables. Humans hunt prey animals to increase yields of fruits and vegetables.
How do we reconcile that our population centers are built on the culling of predator and prey species?
How do Humans balance protection and food production with the morality of minimizing animal and plant death?
What should Humans do with the bodies of culled predators and prey?
I think if you ask 10 people this questions you will get 11 opinions, at least.
I personally would prefer the reintroduction of predators into their native habitats because the human tendency to squeeze economic profit out of every square centimeter of the planet we inhabit reads absolutely bizarre to me. This kind of instrumental world view where everything has to have a purpose for us is in my opinion an epoch in the development of humans we should strive to leave behind, because although for a time it shaped our progression as a species like nothing else, it’s also about to destroy the world we live in and come crushing down on us if we find no better way forward. I believe that in the long term we will have to withdraw from at least some parts of the ecosystem and let the predators do their thing. Our population centers can be (and for a good part already are) so sealed off to them that it should very well be possible to do our thing without being mauled by wolves.
…All this does go a bit beyond the question of honey though. Sorry for the rant there.
Bees and other insects are pollinators allowing food to grow. Say humans succeed at sealing themselves off in such a way that we can grow the food we need without impacting outside ecosystems.
Would humans still need pollinators? Would human pollinator populations be separated from outside populations?
The idea could inspire some entertaining science fiction. The best writer would probably have a background in Entomology and Horticulture.
Being sealed off wouldn’t have to mean having zero contact with the surrounding nature. I think we can coexist with predators while still using some land for agriculture - just not all of it.
Animals aren’t just used, they are tortured on a industrial scale. That’s mainly why vegans oppose animal products.
Are bees tortured to get honey?
We’ve been keeping them improperly in the winter since the mid 20th century, leading to unnecessary bee mortality within hives. Whether that’s torture or not is up to you, but it’s definitely unnecessary harm.
This is suggesting that we should be using hive covers. What exactly changed in the mid 20th century?
We stopped using hive covers because they’re more expensive than the increased mortality. They naturally nest in tree hollows in winter, whose thicker walls (and living material) allow the hive to maintain a higher internal temperature than uncovered hives (or covered hives).
Well bees are definitely objectified and seen as industrialized honey producing machines. They’re starved of their own resources and are given mostly sugar water in return. Bee keepers are not concerned with their well-being other than for production yields. It is a form of factory farming. Isn’t this reason enough?
As a local beekeeper, I take offense to your sentiment.
Maybe time to think about life choices then?
Quite happy with my life, thank you. And the bees.
your offense has been duly noted and taped to the refrigerator for all to see
They’re certainly exposed to a very different living situation than would be typical for them in most cases, to their detriment. For example, bees that make their combs in frames lose substantial heat from their hives, which usually helps protect against disease and even predation. They’re also often given a sugar water substitute to eat when their honey is drained off for human consumption, which is nowhere near as nutritious. They’re also moved around on the bee keeper’s schedule, which may be a substantial stressor compared with a hive that stays in one place. Never mind that they may be exposed to climates that substantially differ from where that particular variety of honey be evolved.
Given issues like colony collapse disorder, it’s pretty clear that many forms of bee keeping aren’t really great for bees. Does that constitute torture? That’s hard to tell, but it certainly does put pressures on them in multiple aspects of their lives and the lives of their hives as a whole that they wouldn’t be dealing with otherwise, and which probably aren’t pleasant.
Would you consider it torture, or at least cruel, to forcibly relocate the population of a city to an area that’s freezing cold, force them to live in poorly insulated homes, make them eat food that isn’t healthy for them, and steal the product of their labor in exchange for their efforts?
yea of course, never heard of the bee grinder?
it isn’t produced by animal bodies
Sure is, it’s concentrated bee spit with sugar. And spit is made of water and body cells.
Think about it as if its about consent. The bees don’t consent to their honey being taken. Cows don’t consent to be repeatedly impregnated and milked. Pigs don’t consent to their butts becoming bacon. Chickens don’t consent to their eggs being taken.
However, the miller and the baker both consented to milling/kneading, and later selling their wares.
Human breast milk can be vegan, though, if given freely. If you forcefully take human breast milk, then it is no longer vegan.
Can human meat be vegan?
if think so but once they get to the age of consent they are probably not very palatable.
Technically, yes.
Assuming the canabee is consenting freely, and likely has to be done in a way not violating other laws. Like some variety of a pain kink where people slice of small portions of each others meaty bits and eat them. That’s probably a thing, though likely not very popular among vegans.
Bees make honey for their hive. Honey also does indeed contain bodily fluids from the bees.
The bread making human consents to you taking the bread (presumably). Breast milk and other human bodily fluids can be vegan for the same reason.
And insects pollinate plants not because they use the fruit, but for the nectar. They don’t care what happens after they leave the flower.
“and other bodily fluids”
I didn’t want to go into it in the original comment, but yes. It is a relevant debate whether it’s vegan to swallow another humans semen, or even saliva. And yes, it is, if the human consents. Consent is the more or less the basis of whether vegans find it moral to consume something. Humans can give consent to sharing their fluids. Other animals cannot.
Well basically yes, tho would need to get into the topic of exploitation and all that if we are talking about if something is viewed as acceptable to consume.
Beekeeping is exploitation, but don’t the bees benefit from it too vs. being in the wild?
Is it exploitation? I’d argue slave or prison labor is exploitation because the workers have no freedom of choice. Bees are free to leave, and the queen will in fact do so if not content with the conditions in the hive. If the queen leaves, all of the bees will swarm with her and you’d be left with an empty box.
Beekeeping strikes me more as symbiosis. The beekeeper provides ideal conditions, far better than the average location that would be found in the wild, and can help protect the hive against threats like mites. In exchange the beekeeper receives a share of the honey produced by the hive.
No beekeeper takes all of the honey from the hive. Only the top box (the “honey super”) of a typical hive stack is harvested. A grate below the top box (a “queen excluder”) prevents the queen from entering it so no larva are laid in the top box. The workers bee are smaller and can pass through the grate to build out comb and produce honey. The comb and honey in the bottom boxes are left to the hive to feed its workers and produce the next generation of bees, ensuring the survival of the hive.
A queen excluder cannot be used to prevent swarming long-term as the drones that gather the pollen also won’t for through the grate! An excluder might be used to delay swarming and buy time so the beekeeper can offer another solution, like adding more boxes to the hive or splitting it into two hives. Better beekeepers proactively manage their hives, e.g. by setting up an empty hive in advance to essentially offer a swarming hive a new ideal home whenever they’re ready for it.
it’s also important to differentiate between someone with a backyard hive, vs industrial scale beekeeping where they might do all kinds of terrible shit because $$$$$$$$$$$$
we live in an age where if you’re willing to spend some dosh on a fancy hive, you don’t even have to open it to drain honey, you can just turn a lever and it uncaps the back of the cells and the honey flows out through a pipe.
What’s fair compensation to the honey bee? Humans aren’t allowed to speak on behalf of the honey bees. We don’t actually know if this is a fair trade on the side of the honey bee, we can only look at it from our very biased opinion.
excuse me I need to eat meat in front of vegans again.
Reasons that I, as a vegan, do not use honey:
-
I cannot guarantee that the bees consented to their product being harvested. Some beekeepers clip the queen’s wings, which can prevent the colony from leaving.
-
I cannot guarantee that bees were not harmed in the process of harvesting (potentially getting crushed by the honeycomb frames, for example) or in the process of controlling the colony (like clipping the queen’s wings).
Regarding your second point, you also cannot guarantee that small animals like rodents are not harmed in the process of harvesting plants.
But renouncing honey is very easy, while not eating plants would mean starving to death. Since veganism is about reducing harm as far as possible, unavoidable suffering doesn’t make anything non vegan.
(Strawman)
Killing a few bees when collecting honey
Vs
Killing a lot of insects and rodents when plowing/tilling land to grow sugarcane/corn(sirup).
Why discount one but not the other if they are equal?
I assume that for many vegans the specifically exploitative element of farming honey does make a difference to the rather unavoidable collateral damage of agriculture in general (since if we don’t want to starve to death; each and everyone of us, vegan or not, will have to accept that those are happening) - but if you assume that honey comes with less suffering than corn syrup you’re very welcome to replace them accordingly. Based on your tone I assume you’re not a vegan and not actually interested in reducing animal suffering, but I could be wrong.
I am not vegan, but simply trying to understand how honey is bad, but as you say “unavoidable collateral damage of agriculture” or not.
There are many ways agriculture could be less harm, less pesticides, less monotone growing practices, more spread out growing. We do not have to accept these practices to not starve.
I don’t think honey collecting is worse than agriculture (even of direct plants for human consumption), so I don’t think vegans should discount honey.
I am not vegan, but simply trying to understand how honey is bad, but as you say “unavoidable collateral damage of agriculture” or not.
Is bad as well, we simply have no good way of avoiding it.
Think about it this way: Beekeeping is bad, agriculture is bad. Can we avoid both? No. But can we avoid at least one of them? Easily so. So let’s do that - half a win is better than nothing.
There are many ways agriculture could be less harm, less pesticides, less monotone growing practices, more spread out growing. We do not have to accept these practices to not starve.
I agree, which is why many (if not all) vegans strive to support those more sustainable forms of agriculture. But economic constraints are a real thing for many people. Not everyone can always decide to buy the higher quality produce. If we can - good, let’s do that. While and if we can’t, same thing with the honey: Can we avoid all the problems at once? No, but at least we can do as best as reasonable possible, so let’s do that. That’s veganism for many people.
I don’t think honey collecting is worse than agriculture (even of direct plants for human consumption), so I don’t think vegans should discount honey.
Even if it’s just 1% worse than agriculture wouldn’t we reduce a bit of suffering by replacing it? And I mean it’s not even like we need honey for anything. We consume too much sugar anyway. Even if honey is exactly as harmful as sugar cane farming (which is debatable), by omitting it we would save not only agricultural resources but animal exploitation as well. Not consuming it is better than consuming it in terms of animal suffering. Since we don’t need to consume it, from a vegan perspective I think it’s understandable why that’s seen as preferable.
I agree with your arguments. We’re on the same side of all of this.
I disagree on having to remove one if both are bad. It would be like the trolley problem. 10 people suffer repeatedly indefinitely vs infinitely many suffering eventually. Moving all use to sugar cane will be worse for the environment than spreading some honey and some sugar cane. See my previous monocultulturalism point.
Personally I think honey vs sugar cane is equal, so for me the choice is bad either way. I don’t know which is worse, I try to use less, but what I use I feel is ambivalent, so I use both.
Bees can kill their queen and make a new one no problem.
If the colony would want to move away they would just do that. I don’t think clipping the queen wings would do nothing.
But I doubt any beekeeper colony would want to move as they are keep at a perfect environment so they can produce more honey that they would actually need to survive. Even industrial ones. It’s part of basic beekeeping that bees must be in a good place so they produce the most honey.
Hurt of mistreated bees would not produce honey. If they are mistreated the try to leave (and as stated they can just kill their Queen if she is crippled), they eat all the honey, or just die.
Bees are really complicate to get advantage of. Our relationship with them need to be symbiotic to work.
Not trying to convince anyone to consume honey if they don’t want to. As it’s basically just sugar so whatever.
Bees can kill their queen and make a new one no problem.
This doesn’t make the mutilation of the queen bee any less bad. It’s still harming the bee. I am not aware if a bee has the ability to make an informed decision on whether to kill the queen and relocate, so I cannot make an informed decision about whether the bees actually want to be in their current hive.
If the colony would want to move away they would just do that.
I don’t know if this is true. It’s possible the bees are being manipulated into staying at their current hive in some way.
I don’t think clipping the queen wings would do nothing
It would hurt the queen, which is more than I want to be involved in.
But I doubt any beekeeper colony would want to move as they are keep at a perfect environment so they can produce more honey that they would actually need to survive. Even industrial ones. It’s part of basic beekeeping that bees must be in a good place so they produce the most honey
Making an assumption about what the bees want is not strong enough of an excuse for me to be ok with their exploitation. I don’t believe we should have the right to make decisions for other organisms, and the bees are not able to tell us how they want to be treated, so we should not try to control them or take what they produce.
Hurt of mistreated bees would not produce honey.
This appears to also be an assumption. I do not know if it is true, so I cannot use it to make a decision
If they are mistreated the try to leave (and as stated they can just kill their Queen if she is crippled), they eat all the honey, or just die.
If this is true, there is likely to be a minimum amount of mistreatment before they take action. I do not know how much mistreatment a bee can take, so I cannot use this to make a decision.
Bees are really complicate to get advantage of. Our relationship with them need to be symbiotic to work.
I do not know if this is true. We take advantage of many animals without giving them much in return, so I am not sure if the bee-beeker relationship is actually symbiotic.
Now I’m just curious.
How do you manage the amount of animals that are hurt during agricultural process then?
Tons of invertebrates are killed by pesticides, while harvest or during the cleaning process of the vegetables.
It seems to me that being killed by pesticides or drown with water is worse fate that beeing in a nice artificial honeycomb where they may or may not clip the wings of one queen or make you a little sleepy once in a while with smoke.
On matter of animals hurted/killed during production process honey seems more vegan that most vegetables.
This comment section has led me to more deeply consider the effects that all types of food production have on animals. I previously have just been ok with any non-animal product, but I now realize that this is not enough, and I am still causing harm to animals with the products that I do use. I will try to ensure that I buy the lowest-impact food available in the future, but I don’t think it is even be possible to stay alive without causing harm to some animals.
I think using products produced by animals is generally going to be worse than harming animals to stop them from destroying crops, but I will need to consider this more deeply to make the best choice I can.
How much awareness of it’s existence do you think a bee has?
I dont care. In my opinion, the best way to live is to do as little harm as possible, and it appears that bees are harmed by the human collection of honey, so I will not use honey.
We have no way of knowing don’t is best to be on the safe side. Veganism isn’t about awareness it’s about respect.
More than that sort of people that make these posts, no bee has ever said anything that has convinced me they have zero understanding of philosophy of consciousness.
of its* existence
That seems well thought out to me, thank for this explanation.
Do you personally grow everything you eat? If not, animals (and humans) are absolutely harmed in the process. Commercial agriculture, even organic, kills huge numbers of small animals and destroys habitat just to prepare the soil, not to mention all the insects killed by pesticides. Farmers will also kill deer, wild pigs, birds, etc. to protect their crops. And agriculture in some places still relies on child and/or slave labor.
You are correct. There is more that i can and need to do. That still does not make it good to use honey.
Do you avoid all sugar products, or just honey?
Sugar growing also kills animals. You cannot avoid all harm, so why discount honey for the harm you know, but not discounting harm from growing sugar?
Reducing harm, sure, but it seems selective to discount honey for small amount of harm, when other things you (assumed) eat do equal (potentially unknown to you) harm.
Do you need to know every process of growing/transporting something to eat it? Or does you list of edible products shrink as you learn every new form of harm?
The list of edible products shrink as I learn of new harm. As a modern human, I am addicted to sugar, but I do need to make more of an effort to use less of it, as well as lessen the impact of what I do use.
Hey no wait you’re supposed to throw your hands in the air and just eat industrially farmed animal corpses because there are also negative outcomes of vegetable production so obviously the two are completely equivalent
Nice strawman, strawberry. The point is that avoiding honey to reduce possible harm is vain at best.
But since you want to talk about meat, I’m curious about your opinion of hunting.
Do you know how animals die in the wild? The lucky ones get hit by a car and die instantly. The rest die from disease and starvation, both agonizing slow deaths, or they are literally eaten alive by predators.
If the aim of veganism is to reduce animal suffering, surely you would support ethical hunting, right?
the goal of veganism is to reduce animal exploitation.
-
That was rough.
Yeah, but, did you ever see an ape turn into a human being?
Jesse Lee Peterson always cracks me up. I feel like his whole thing has to just be an act, but he never cracks it’s amazing really
The fact that he thought he won this “debate” and uploaded it is so embarrassing…
That shit went dumb REAL fast
Not as fast as an ape turning into a human being.
i guess this person refuses to work or patronize a place that uses pest control for cockroaches?
false equivalence
agreed. insects are definitely not animals
TIL lol
i get there’s a difference between exploitation and extermination, i’m just not seeing how one is “immoral” and the other isn’t
I’m personally an amoralist vegan so I can’t really speak to that exactly, but it comes down to practicality and health. Veganism is usually about reducing harm as far as is practical (I.e., without risk to your own health), so most vegans make exceptions for medical needs, etc.
reduction of harm is really the best point, and i can’t think of an argument against it
Roaches can transmit diseases, they’re an actual biohazard. This doesn’t change that they’re living animals, but this does mean killing them when they’re invading a home is legitimate defense. You may shun someone who goes tiger-hunting, but if a tiger comes into town, threateningly approaches people and get shot, you’d think this was necessary, although regrettable. You might want to investigate the cause for the tiger’s unusual town venture, maybe blame deforestation, but the one who ends up shooting is likely not the one to blame. Same for roaches. Yes, they’re animals; and certainly fascinating ones in some regards, but if they start proliferating in our homes, bringing bacteria and molds everywhere… At some point it’s us or them.
You avoid an avoidable luxury, yet you do not avoid something unavoidable that’s necessary. Curious.
exploitation is a fact of life. why is it unacceptable to exploit bees for their honey, but it’s fine to kill billions of yeasts to make bread?
Although yeast is technically living, it’s more similar to bacteria than animals or other living creatures. It doesn’t feel pain and isn’t a sentient being - there is absolutely no reason not to consume yeast or foods made with yeast.
Insects and other animals were not (and are still not in all cases) always considered sentient or capable of feeling pain. When it comes to other life forms, the fact is we have no idea how they experience the world. They are way too different from us. That doesn’t automatically make them less alive or less valuable.
And now we have evidence to suggest that we were wrong, thus there is a moral imperative to act based off this new information. There is no evidence that bacteria or similar organisms are capable of pain or suffering. If you want to just disregard all science and biology, that’s your prerogative I suppose.
I don’t want to disregard science. I want to err by being preemptively more inclusive, not more cruel, when I don’t have sufficient information.
If you don’t have any evidentiary basis for your inclusiveness, then that makes it completely arbitrary. Why not start worrying about potential cruelty to non-living things like air, or rocks as well?
Heh, nice try at having standards but since it is impossible to not harm anything then obviously possibly harming for pleasure is fine. Checkmate loser.
Now I am going to depict you as the crying wojack and me as the handsome wojack.
Correct
Because cockroaches are considered harmful to humans, some people just can’t leave cockroaches alone and live correctly.
some people just can’t leave cockroaches alone and live correctly
some people can’t be around peanuts. or bees for that matter
And we have to respect the peanuts’ right to be everywhere, right?
Peanuts and bees usually don’t invade your home. And if they did, some would argue it’s acceptable to get rid of them. I’m pretty sure you can figure this out.
some would argue it’s acceptable
some would argue that eating honey is not immoral
edit: also, funny how you bring up “invading homes” while agriculture inherently, necessarily is invading the homes of all sorts of animals. i guess “some would argue that’s acceptable” also?
some would argue that eating honey is not immoral
Sure.
The point of going vegetarian or vegan is to aim at a reduction of animal suffering and environmental footprint. Not to starve by choice. Agriculture is still better than more agriculture needed to consume meat.
What’s the problem exactly?fair enough.
Can you milk a bee? I didn’t think so!
The whole “Vegans against Honey” thing is so stupid… like… brah, Bees are the one critter that has already unionized.
Not like there’s much sense to begin with in a diet where you need a thousand supplements in order to not go insane from a Vitamin B-12 Deficiency and start blaming Carnist Voodoo for your Anemia… Ya know instead of going “Oh wait, I was getting my iron from chicken…”
Edit: On that note, I actually do need to take Iron for a defiency, this post reminded me… Not a vegan though.
How is there 4 posts but one reply? Who said something first, the “bees, not animals” thing?
Honey can be vegan. I have a friend who keeps endangered bees and as an unintended side effect of fostering their growth has honey that she has to give away because she doesn’t want it
Genuine question, I would like to know if there is a reason. Why doesn’t she just let the bees keep it?
I believe it’s to encourage them to increase numbers, but I haven’t discussed that with her. She’s the type of nerd I know probably has a good reason so I never asked
The bees make more than they need. They’ll keep filling up cells till there’s no room for larvae then swarm. That takes a while but in a meantime, the honey sitting there attracts pests and predators that can harm the colony.
And this is where I have problems with strict veganism. Animal husbandry can be ethical and beneficial to the species. Animals do produce excess nutrients that can be reused for other animals (culling chickens to feed carnivores for example) and some byproducts can benefit humans in a non exploitative manner.
The real issue is capitalism. Or the exploitation of others for personal benefits.
Playing devil’s advocate, this could be sidestepping the issue, because the honey is only an unintended side effect from your friend’s POV, not the bee’s.
So, if they were endangered cows and your friend didn’t like milk, the milk would be vegan…?
Well veganism is about reducing suffering. If the cows didnt suffer to produce that milk, like no forced insemination, calfs aren’t separated from their mother, male calfs aren’t slaughtered, the cows don’t have unnaturally large udders, you only take the over production and not steal the food from the calf and the cows live a good life then you could argue that the milk is vegan. But milk is not produced like that so milk is not vegan.
Isn’t that vegetarian, not vegan though?
“It’s complicated”.
It’s the same category of dispute as the “eggs or milk can be vegan under certain circumstances” one. The argument is that rescued farm animals have been so warped by human intervention that it’s actively harmful for you to not use their produce - dairy cows can in rare cases die, and otherwise will just be miserable, if left unmilked. Chickens lay too many eggs, and leaving unf. chicken eggs in the coop can lead to the chickens learning to eat their own eggs, so you have to remove them. (I don’t hold a position on these claims, I’m just reporting what I see come up in the argument.) Bees fall into the same sort of category, they’ve been so selectively bred that they now produce far more honey than they can possibly use, so removing and eating some of it helps to mitigate the negative impact that humans have had on the creatures.
Regardless though: cows, chickens and bees are all still animals. I don’t think any vegans are gonna argue that one.
Seems like a weird thing though. A lot of domesticated animals can’t survive in the wild. And even the ones that can, it would only be in certain parts of the world, and they’d be an invasive species.
So do we want all of those animals to go extinct? If you eliminate all farm related activities with these animals, give them a place to live out the rest of their lives, but then what? But do you not allow them to breed? Or just let them all die off so they go extinct?
Or do you keep some of them in zoos? Given they’ve been bred to live on a farm, does that mean you have zoos that are identical to farms? And if you can get milk, eggs and honey from these animals if they’re technically living in zoo (which is exactly like a farm in every way) what’s been accomplished?
This is a very common argument and it’s a little shortsighted, because the answer is broadly “yes”. Reducing the number of cows/chickens/etc in the world is a net positive, and would only require us to stop force breeding them like it’s some kind of degenerate poultry hentai. Allowing the species to reduce in population is only of benefit to the species (cough humans cough) and is overall desirable. Keeping some in zoos would be fine, maintaining the native wild populations is also a good plan, small scale farms (“family” or “hobby”) farms where they don’t brutalize the animals is also a feature of most vegan utopias. Take india, where most of the population is vegan: there are still cows on farms, cow-derived produce is still available, it’s just the cows aren’t kept in American-style stock farms.
YMMV, and like any ideology there are other opinions with equally valid outlooks, this is just what I see most often. (full disclosure, I am not a vegan (there’s plenty of evidence to that in my post history), I just sleep with a lot of vegans and quite like chana masala)
(There’s also a pretty… sane… subgroup that proposes ‘corrective breeding’; a process wherein we undo the destructive changes humans introduced to the species and return them to what would be found in their ‘natural’ state. “Contentious” is probably the best description.)
Degenerate poultry hentai
Excuse me sir/madam, but I’d request that you respect the preferred literary sub-genre of some without resorting to terms such as “degenerate”. Poultry Hentai may not be overly popular and only have a niche following, but it truly is an art form in and of itself. Whether it’s “2 hens, 1 cob” or the better-known “Lady Chookerlee’s Lover” it truly does represent a formidable contribution to the art.
I cherish you.
But probably from a distance. Chickeboos aren’t the best for, you know, close-up cherishing.
You know why.Don’t even get me started on Bawk-kake…
Damn. That’s a good one!
There’s also a pretty… sane… subgroup that proposes ‘corrective breeding’; a process wherein we undo the destructive changes humans introduced to the species and return them to what would be found in their ‘natural’ state
Yeah I feel like that is just forcing animals to live in the way humans want them to live under a weird assumption that we know what they want.
I could live out in the wild if I really wanted to, but I don’t because living in a heated home, having access to healthcare, and having a grocery store nearby is way better than starving to death, getting frostbite, dying of a disease, or getting eaten by wolves. I don’t know how an animal wants to live their lives, so who knows, maybe they’d rather die of disease over being poked by a few needles by a veterinarian, starving because there’s no mangers filled by humans, or getting eaten alive by a pack of wolves. Maybe animals want that, but there’s no way of knowing and it’s a really weird thing to assume given humans don’t want to live that way. We live happy an fulfilling lives without having to constantly worry about being eaten by wolves, why would that be a requirement for an animal to be happy?
I think people see nature from a Disney cartoon perspective where the only danger is a human hunter. But the reality is nature is extremely brutal.
I don’t think a perfect ethical solution to domesticated animals really exists. Best we can do is just treat animals better. If they seem like they’re happy enough, then that’s probably alright.
Indian economics and laws regarding dairy produce their own sort of hell. If the unwanted non producing animals aren’t smuggled across the border for slaughter, they’re abandoned and left to starve due to laws about culling. Nobody’s really feeding unproductive animals except for the goshalas and there’s nowhere near enough of those for India’s dairy cattle production.
Yeahhhh… I was drunk and I probably could have thought that example through better. My apologies.
Most indian population is definitely not vegan. there have been various surveys that show the percentage of the vegetarian population is between 23% and 37%. That means 63% to 77% are non-vegetarian. It’s a myth, a big one, that India is mainly a vegetarian country.
Not even the majority of Indians are vegetarians, much less vegans.
Very poor word choice on my part, I will freely admit that. The veg population of inda in is roughly larger than the entire US population, which is the much more useful statistic. I’m also aware that the vast majority of people who eat a vegan diet do so for economic reasons. Sorry about that.
Many Indians I’ve worked with are sort of semi-vegetarian, eating meat but only on certain days. I think that’s specific religious doctrine rather than a general attitude about animals - like Catholics eating fish on Friday.
The response I’ve heard for that one is that domesticated animals are dependent on us because we’ve bred their survival capabilities out of them. People originally just captured wild animals and put a fence around them. Selectively breeding only the more docile ones has turned them into something they wouldn’t have been without our interference. To me that part makes sense, but the present reality is still what it is, and what you’re saying is still true.
Stupid discussion. It does not matter whether something is in the box “vegan”. Ask yourself why you would or would not eat something. If you don’t want to eat(/drink) dairy because of the way the animals that produce the dairy are treated, would you be ok when they are treated differently? Are bees treated in the same way? Does it matter if you treat them in this way? Those should be your questions, not “does it belong in this box?”.
deleted by creator
Uh, that’s not the definition that biologists use. Kingdom animalia includes humans. (along with fish, birds, reptiles, insects, etc.) We’re mammals.
Also, a vast majority of people use this definition of the word “animal” when referring to the animals themselves and only tend to use other definitions (which typically ends up referring to non-human mammals or sometimes humans the speaker find distasteful for whatever reason) specifically when contrasting them to so called “civilized” humans.
You can look up the word “animal” in a dictionary and I garuntee you the kingdom animalia style definition will be the first one you see under the noun form of the word with all other definitions (the ones that exclude humans or insects) coming later. Dictionaries typically order their definitions by usage when there are multiple definitions of the same word.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Some folks believe that fish aren’t animals, either.
fish is merely a menu description
The state of California consider bees as fish.
I thought you were kidding but no, they do and the reason is otherwise they wouldn’t fit under environmental protection laws.
Northern Cardinals are protected by the Migratory Birds Act even though cardinals are not migratory.
And that eating fish doesn’t count as eating meat…
Also, beavers are fish. Clearly.
