Billie: “You can eat meat. You can love animals. But you can’t do boooooooooth.”

[elegidadedios 4,902]

nvmd

Edited May 3 by elegidadedios

[elegidadedios 4,902]

1 hour ago, 27monster27 said:

I'm gonna say it. This is racist.

[Bronco 25,131]

1 hour ago, 27monster27 said:

I'm gonna say it. This is racist.

Damn. We've hit the "white lives matter" stage of veganism. 

What in the MAGAt bs.

Edit - imagine playing the white lives matter card when your pfp is literally about George Floyd.

The cognitive dissonance. 

Edited May 3 by Bronco

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,158]

2 hours ago, 27monster27 said:

People are LMAO reacting you because they want perfectionism in activism. Plus, I guess dismissing womens opinions is okay if they are white, because I guess that makes them automatically selfish.

I don’t think it’s “perfectionist” to ask people to be effective with their messaging and I think it’s actually more dismissive to reduce criticisms of Billie’s comments to misogyny as opposed to engaging with the substance of the critiques.

Edited May 3 by Ladle Ghoulash

[TheSine 6,911]

2 hours ago, 27monster27 said:

People are LMAO reacting you because they want perfectionism in activism. Plus, I guess dismissing womens opinions is okay if they are white, because I guess that makes them automatically selfish.

I'd criticize this opinion even if Chaka Khan said it.

[PartySick 172,545]

I feel like "you just want to excuse eating meat because you don't value women and you hate white people" should be the "alright, let's pack it in 🔒" moment but idk

[Bronco 25,131]

4 minutes ago, PartySick said:

I feel like "you just want to excuse eating meat because you don't value women and you hate white people" should be the "alright, let's pack it in 🔒" moment but idk

Give into the chaos

[elegidadedios 4,902]

4 minutes ago, PartySick said:

I feel like "you just want to excuse eating meat because you don't value women and you hate white people" should be the "alright, let's pack it in 🔒" moment but idk

Is this the real reverse warholian experience 

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,974]

2 hours ago, Bebe said:

“You can say that vitamin supplements can resolve most of those issues but in the same vein eating meat in moderation can also lead to better health outcomes”

Yeah I can say that and I will! Eating meat in moderation also leads to the inhumane treatment, suffering and slaughter of a sentient being which we have established is not necessary. Take the supplement.

”80% of soybeans in the US are grown for animal consumption but we as individuals don't grow 80% of the soybeans. The street does go both ways so if we generalize stats to a 9 figure population then we are talking about the experiences of a 9 figure population.”

This misses the point - instead of feeding humans, that soy is being used to feed animals for slaughter. 1/3 of the worlds crops are grown to feed animals - it’s completely inefficient and a disaster for the environment.

Cut out the unnecessary and costly animal agriculture and use the crops raised to feed them to feed people!  

”Policies to support humane treatment of animals aren't hard to think of”

I agree don’t slaughter them! None of the things you mention lead to more ethical farming practices than plant based farming.

“How do you address the unnecessary plastic waste of supplements? 1.8 billion plastic supplement bottles are sold in the US every year.”

A switch to plant-based materials like hypromellose (HPMC), alginate, or carrageenan. 

It also doesn’t compare to plastic use in the meat industry. Plastic is dominant in meat packaging—using materials like PET, PE, PVC, and PP for trays and film to extend shelf life and ensure hygiene. This leads to significant landfill waste and potential microplastic contamination.

It’s also simply factual that turning vegan is the biggest impact you can have on reducing your carbon footprint. Even if the diet doesn’t reach environmental perfection, the idea that a move away from vitamins and towards animal agriculture would create better environmental outcomes is absolutely laughable and not worth taking seriously.

“do you grow all of your own food? Because fertilizers used to farm fruits and vegetables are derived from animal waste. Produce that is out of season at any given time is also regularly transported via air, impacting GHG.”

I do grow some of my food! But animal fertiliser isn’t required to grow crops. Most crops these days use agrochemical fertiliser but organic fertiliser can be plant based..

The idea that I might unknowingly eat fruits and vegetables grown with organic fertilisers from animals doesn’t rack me with any guilt, I can’t control that - I can only to my part to reduce animal suffering and that means avoiding animal products wherever possible. 

“How do you justify the use of internet and other electronics given that the energy sector accounts for 76% of GHG and that rare  earth mineral mining has significant impact on soil quality, water toxicity, and wildlife habitat destruction?”

False equivalency. I need to use my electronics and the internet in the order to survive in this modern world. We all do. I need my phone for work. I need access to the internet for work. There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism, but this isn’t an argument against veganism it’s simply an attempt at a gotcha “hypocritical” moment. 

I don’t need meat or animal products to survive - so I’ll continue to do my bit to reduce unnecessary suffering and do what’s best for the environment!

It’s about taking steps to consume more ethically and consciously. I’ll start with avoiding animal products but if you want to go a step further and eliminate the use of the internet and electronics than great respect to you! 🙂

It's funny that you wanted to get on to others for bad faith arguments and then provide this as a response. You pull facts and when they are countered you become dismissive of the entire premise of your own argument. 

 

You completely ignore the fact that the issue at the heart of your argument is economics. The moral high ground that vegans try to stand on is more sustainable agriculture, with  statistics based around industrial scale farming for the meat industry. If everyone were to swap to veganism the food industry would still exploit it and as vegan supply chains grow so would the misery of animals. But I guess that is more palatable as you won't directly consume the meat and don't have to watch as environmental destruction grows. 

 

You're trying really hard to create strawman arguments as well. Because I never said that moving away from vitamins to animal agriculture would be more environmentally sustainable. I said that the practices of the supplement industry raises environmental concerns. Yet this is still false because raising your own animals for consumption would still have a lower environmental impact than buying and supporting the supplement industry. 

 

The idea that you "need the internet" and "need your phone" are cognitive dissonance. You can buy land to sustain yourself and grow all of your own food, you can provide for yourself and have a job that doesn't require either of those things. It's okay to think this way though, and the idea that you can live without them requires some discomfort. If you don't do those things you just don't love animals. Because you're willingly partaking in and supporting a industry that knowingly destroys the environment. 

2 hours ago, 27monster27 said:

People are LMAO reacting you because they want perfectionism in activism. Plus, I guess dismissing womens opinions is okay if they are white, because I guess that makes them automatically selfish.

People are lmao reacting because Billie's entire statement is extreme and the user hypocritically cherry picks the ways in which they support animal welfare while also being condescending. Not a single user has defended the practices of the meat industry and most even acknowledged that less meat consumption is needed. 

[Bebe 17,289]

6 hours ago, AsleepOnTheCeiling said:

It's funny that you wanted to get on to others for bad faith arguments and then provide this as a response. You pull facts and when they are countered you become dismissive of the entire premise of your own argument. 

 

You completely ignore the fact that the issue at the heart of your argument is economics. The moral high ground that vegans try to stand on is more sustainable agriculture, with  statistics based around industrial scale farming for the meat industry. If everyone were to swap to veganism the food industry would still exploit it and as vegan supply chains grow so would the misery of animals. But I guess that is more palatable as you won't directly consume the meat and don't have to watch as environmental destruction grows. 

 

You're trying really hard to create strawman arguments as well. Because I never said that moving away from vitamins to animal agriculture would be more environmentally sustainable. I said that the practices of the supplement industry raises environmental concerns. Yet this is still false because raising your own animals for consumption would still have a lower environmental impact than buying and supporting the supplement industry. 

 

The idea that you "need the internet" and "need your phone" are cognitive dissonance. You can buy land to sustain yourself and grow all of your own food, you can provide for yourself and have a job that doesn't require either of those things. It's okay to think this way though, and the idea that you can live without them requires some discomfort. If you don't do those things you just don't love animals. Because you're willingly partaking in and supporting a industry that knowingly destroys the environment. 

“You completely ignore the fact that the issue at the heart of your argument is economics. The moral high ground that vegans try to stand on is more sustainable agriculture, with  statistics based around industrial scale farming for the meat industry. If everyone were to swap to veganism the food industry would still exploit it and as vegan supply chains grow so would the misery of animals. But I guess that is more palatable as you won't directly consume the meat and don't have to watch as environmental destruction grows. ”

This doesn’t make sense - how?

How would a switch to veganism exploit MORE animals than the slaughter of over 200 million animals a day? You’re just making things up. It’s not supported by any evidence. Decades of academic research shows us that environmental impacts are significantly lessened by the elimination of animal agriculture. Decades of academic research tells us that veganism causes better animal welfare outcomes.

“Raising your own animals for consumption would still have a lower environmental impact than buying and supporting the supplement industry. “

Again how?? You’re once again just making things up - this is a ridiculous statement. Animal agriculture is so much worse for carbon input, water consumption, deforestation and land use, water pollution and biodiversity loss.

How do you expect your average person to raise their own animals? The vast majority of people live in densely populated cities. There isn’t enough space. I think choosing plant based alternatives to meat and animal based products seems far more reasonable and is actually possible.

This isn't a straw man argument. If we are arguing against the use of vitamins because of environmental impact you would need to be able to show that moving towards supplements is worse than animal farming. Something that is absolutely ridiculous and, once again, not supported by evidence.

I also showed you that you don’t need plastic capsules for vitamins? You can be against unnecessary suffering and unnecessary use of plastics? You’re not providing a defence of animal agriculture or providing a scathing takedown of veganism with this argument. If you care so much about the environment, then the best choice you can make would be to go vegan.

"The idea that you "need the internet" and "need your phone" are cognitive dissonance. You can buy land to sustain yourself and grow all of your own food, you can provide for yourself and have a job that doesn't require either of those things."

Then do these things! I don’t think it is possible, but you can try and prove me wrong! This is an absurd example and you know it. Buying tofu instead of chicken and oat milk instead of cows milk is seperate from reverting back centuries. Technology supports things like renewable energy systems, plant-based innovation, medical innovation, global communication, access to knowledge and education, activism etc.

Technology isn’t just “a necessary evil” — it’s one of the main reasons human wellbeing has improved so dramatically. It brings real benefits, even if it also has environmental costs.

You cannot point to a benefit from meat or animal consumption that you cannot get elsewhere.

A more realistic expectation is:

1. Reduce harm where you reasonably can

2. Accept that some harm is unavoidable in complex system.

I’m considered an essential worker, the work I do helps to deliver essential financial support and social services to over 5.3 million people. The use of technology is a necessity for me and most people. There is no alternative, in the way there are alternatives to animal products. Its a false comparison.

Are you suggesting that nobody should use the internet, phones, computers? That everyone should also somehow be able to find work that doesn’t need these technologies, access essential services that don’t use these technologies and also be able to afford land and livestock?That unless you manage all of these things you cannot make responsible, reasonable and ethical decisions with your diet?

It’s absurd. Instead of reverting back centuries, I’m suggesting you experiment with some tofu recipes. This seems like a far more reasonable adjustment than living completely off the grid and disconnected from society.

Here is some light reading, peer reviewed. 

The academic evidence is clear that vegan diets are generally better for the environment because they require less land and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than diets high in animal products. Veganism also reduces animal suffering because it reduces demand for industries that breed, confine, exploit, and slaughter sentient animals capable of pain and distress.

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
 

Scarborough, P., Clark, M., Cobiac, L., Papier, K., Knuppel, A., Lynch, J., Harrington, R., Key, T., & Springmann, M. (2023). Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts. Nature Food, 4, 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w
 

Carey, C. N., Paquette, M., Sahye-Pudaruth, S., Dadvar, A., Dinh, D., Khodabandehlou, K., Liang, C., & Thavarajah, P. (2023). The environmental sustainability of plant-based dietary patterns: A scoping review. The Journal of Nutrition, 153(3), 857–869.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316623065896

Ritchie, H. (2021). If the world adopted a plant-based diet, we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. Our World in Data.

Reimert, I., Webb, L. E., & van Marwijk, M. A. (2023). Towards an integrated concept of animal welfare. Animal, 17(10), 100838.

If you can find me any peer reviewed literature that demonstrates that an alternative approach to animal agriculture would be have less of an environmental impact and create less suffering for animals I’m all ears. Until then you have not provided a coherent argument against any of my points.

Edited May 4 by Bebe

[elegidadedios 4,902]

Dear lord...

[Bebe 17,289]

As the conversation devolves into the absurd I want to refocus on facts:

The academic consensus is that shifting away from animal agriculture, particularly in high-income and high-meat-consuming societies, is one of the most effective dietary changes for reducing environmental harm.
 

Research consistently shows that plant-based diets require less land, produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce pressures on biodiversity, water systems and ecosystems compared with diets high in animal products. From an animal welfare perspective, farmed animals are widely recognised in welfare science as sentient beings capable of pain, distress and suffering.

Therefore, reducing demand for animal products reduces the number of animals bred, confined, transported and slaughtered, making veganism or plant-based eating both an environmental and animal welfare intervention.

We can talk about eating pigeons and rats, we can talk about reverting back to a pre-technological civilisation, we can pretend that a move away from animal agriculture culture would lead to an ecological crisis in the form of plastic vitamin capsules (none of my vitamins use plastic btw…)

None of these provide a coherent argument against veganism as, once again, we know from the decades of academic research into the subject that veganism provides better welfare and environmental outcomes. 
 

To justify your consumption of meat and other animal products, you would need to demonstrate that there is an alternative system to veganism that is better for animals welfare and the environment. Something nobody here can do.

If you say you love animals, don’t contribute to their needless suffering.

Edited May 4 by Bebe

[27monster27 15,869]

5 hours ago, Bronco said:

Damn. We've hit the "white lives matter" stage of veganism. 

What in the MAGAt bs.

Edit - imagine playing the white lives matter card when your pfp is literally about George Floyd.

The cognitive dissonance. 

 

5 hours ago, elegidadedios said:

I'm gonna say this:

I have always supported BLM and always will. This is a clear stance of mine, especially with the case of how women who aren't white tend to have their femininity taken away from them. I will always stand on the side of justice for black people. Don't twist that from me.

What I am mad at is the clear disrespect white women have been receiving that is considered okay because they are white. I haven't forgotten how Katy Perry (ew, but still) has been viewed for Witness, how Madonna has been viewed for American Life, etc. because they are "privileged white women detached from reality". For what exactly? Using their platforms to speak up for what's right? Isn't that the whole thing people are asking for from public figures? I haven't forgotten when Lady Gaga's Inaugration performance got called "Whitney Houston dipped in Mayonnaise" because Charlie Puth revealed that he took inspiration from Whitneys rendition to help compose it, which apparently was offensive.

Truthfully, I want people to not give ammunition to the far-right. The whole idea of calling so many things "white feminism" (certain things do deserve this, but I've seen this term be misused a lot) is doing more harm than good to true (true as in not TERFism, or other appropriations) feminist movements. I truly feel like this rejection of certain things pushes more people away than it pulls in.

That's what I have to say. Do NOT claim that I am either racist or a MAGAt. I would never, short of my own (redacted), partake in either one of those now.

[Ultimecia 6,882]

6 hours ago, PartySick said:

I feel like "you just want to excuse eating meat because you don't value women and you hate white people" should be the "alright, let's pack it in 🔒" moment but idk

I checked out of the conversation the moment I read that "raising livestock = human slavery" argument.

[Hadrian 2,639]

Also imagine thinking you're allowed to define the parameters of love for someone else lmao. What kind of main character syndrome. It's like those karens who say "you don't know what love is until you have kids". Ridiculous.