Why aren't vegans eating the food they ask for?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Freefaller said:
It is entirely logically and morally consistent within my ethical framework to care profoundly about animal welfare – actively opposing cruelty and demanding humane conditions – while accepting the use of animals for food under those stringent standards.
Click to expand...
your's maybe a considered ethical framework - but the general consumer they are duped by the real standards that rscpa/red-tractor concur, versus a higher welfare option where consumer has to accept higher product costs and reduced meat consumption - should the government legislate ? - in a mercenary fashion, carbon cost alone would probably justify legislation.


If the government wasn't trying to improve our trade balance should probably fine the farmed salmon business with its 20% mortality and damage to ecosystem.
 
jpaul said:
your's maybe a considered ethical framework - but the general consumer they are duped by the real standards that rscpa/red-tractor concur, versus a higher welfare option where consumer has to accept higher product costs and reduced meat consumption - should the government legislate ? - in a mercenary fashion, carbon cost alone would probably justify legislation.


If the government wasn't trying to improve our trade balance should probably fine the farmed salmon business with its 20% mortality and damage to ecosystem.
Click to expand...

Interesting points! At least you're broadening the discussion beyond the pointless direct back-and-forth I was having. To be honest I think you're right.

The issue of consumer understanding and the clarity (or lack thereof) of welfare labelling is definitely a significant challenge. I think many of us have been misled probably over the years.

I agree that navigating the various schemes, like distinguishing between baseline standards like Red Tractor and genuinely higher-welfare options such as certain organic certifications or specialist farm labels can be confusing for people trying to make conscientious choices. It often feels like true transparency is lacking.

yeah the disparity in standards assurance and truly high-welfare systems, which the latter undoubtedly comes with a necessarily higher cost, which logically points towards reduced consumption overall for many.

I agree with your points about the potential need for government action, whether through clearer legislation on welfare standards, better labelling laws, or tackling the environmental impacts like carbon costs and ecosystem damage (the farmed salmon example). These systemic issues definitely need addressing at a level beyond individual consumer choices, but how or what is beyond my simple brain.

I think though it underscores why, for those who do choose to eat meat, the effort to actively seek out, verify, and support farms genuinely committed to the highest possible welfare and environmental standards – and likely eating less meat overall – feels like such an important responsibility.

I think we're on the same page with regards to the need for significant improvements in industry standards, transparency for consumers, and addressing the environmental footprint.
 
Freefaller said:
Interesting points! At least you're broadening the discussion beyond the pointless direct back-and-forth I was having. To be honest I think you're right.

The issue of consumer understanding and the clarity (or lack thereof) of welfare labelling is definitely a significant challenge. I think many of us have been misled probably over the years.

I agree that navigating the various schemes, like distinguishing between baseline standards like Red Tractor and genuinely higher-welfare options such as certain organic certifications or specialist farm labels can be confusing for people trying to make conscientious choices. It often feels like true transparency is lacking.

yeah the disparity in standards assurance and truly high-welfare systems, which the latter undoubtedly comes with a necessarily higher cost, which logically points towards reduced consumption overall for many.

I agree with your points about the potential need for government action, whether through clearer legislation on welfare standards, better labelling laws, or tackling the environmental impacts like carbon costs and ecosystem damage (the farmed salmon example). These systemic issues definitely need addressing at a level beyond individual consumer choices, but how or what is beyond my simple brain.

I think though it underscores why, for those who do choose to eat meat, the effort to actively seek out, verify, and support farms genuinely committed to the highest possible welfare and environmental standards – and likely eating less meat overall – feels like such an important responsibility.

I think we're on the same page with regards to the need for significant improvements in industry standards, transparency for consumers, and addressing the environmental footprint.
Click to expand...
Now this is what we want, good debate. I absolutely agree with what you are both saying. Keep it up and we may yet get into government and put this country back on its feet.
 
Freefaller said:
Well I'm having fun going round in circles. I was going to ignore you but sod it. Why not....

Labelling anyone who doesn't adopt your specific conclusions as suffering from "cognitive dissonance" is frankly an arrogant and dismissive tactic, typical of ideologues who cannot comprehend legitimate differences in ethical frameworks.

My position isn't "dissonance"; it's a considered ethical stance that balances multiple factors you seemingly disregard (that others in the thread will concur with) – including human autonomy, cultural context, biological reality, and a different but still valid perspective on human-animal relationships.

Furthermore, your repeated insistence that "high welfare means nothing", using extreme examples or failures like gas chambers while ignoring the tangible, regulated improvements groups like RSPCA Assured or Soil Association Organic provide over standard conditions, isn't reasoned argument – it's manipulative rhetoric.

Dismissing all incremental progress because it doesn't meet your absolutist ideal is counter-productive to reducing real-world animal suffering within the systems that currently exist.

And your final question is a classic example of a loaded question built on a false premise. It is entirely logically and morally consistent within my ethical framework to care profoundly about animal welfare – actively opposing cruelty and demanding humane conditions – while accepting the use of animals for food under those stringent standards.

The "inconsistency" you perceive only exists if one accepts your specific, narrow definition of "caring" and the moral status of animals. Implying dishonesty in those who don't bow to your ethical ultimatum is a manipulative silencing tactic, not a genuine inquiry.

My ethical compass is clear and considered, even if it points in a direction different from yours. We fundamentally disagree, not because one of us is "duped" or "dissonant", but because we operate from different core premises about the world and our place within it.

I'll let you have the last word because I know you'll want to. But I'm done.
Click to expand...


So instead of answering a genuine question with honesty, you dodge it and go on a pseudo intellectual diatribe, repeating yourself once again.

I gave you a link with industry standard practices (you could take 30seconds to look them up yourself) and described how most pigs live and how most are killed, thats not "extreme samples".

Your ethical compass isnt morally consistent, the fact you still cant see this proves literally everything ive said about your cognitive dissonance, its like trying to argue with a religious fundamentlist.

Devilman said:
You have 0 belief that people should "live by their own morals" instead you try to force your own morality down everyone else's throat at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

Yea they should, then animals would stop being forced into gas chambers and slaughterhouses, but ofc, I should stop "forcing" my views.... by typing words on the internet.

Would you say the same about people who tell people to boycott the yulin dog festival?

tonys said:
Just a very quick Google.





For you it's about winning to get your view across and just use emotive words and pictures to reinforce your point. How long do you think it will take for the whole world to go fully vegan?

You also don't seem to grasp the fact that morality and ethics are just a social construct so people can have wildly differing views, so get over it.
Click to expand...

Debunking a myth: plant consciousness - PMC

Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No really? You mean to say that guy in Leeds with the crossbow had different views to me? Damn.

Ethics are just a social construct, if I want to bash a random dogs head in let me be, STOP FORCING YOUR VIEWS ON ME TONY.
 
Last edited:
Johno please? said:
So instead of answering a genuine question with honesty, you dodge it and go on a pseudo intellectual diatribe, repeating yourself once again.

I gave you a link with industry standard practices (you could take 30seconds to look them up yourself) and described how most pigs live and how most are killed, thats not "extreme samples".

Your ethical compass isnt morally consistent, the fact you still cant see this proves literally everything ive said about your cognitive dissonance, its like trying to argue with a religious fundamentlist.



Yea they should, then animals would stop being forced into gas chambers and slaughterhouses, but ofc, I should stop "forcing" my views.... by typing words on the internet.

Would you say the same about people who tell people to boycott the yulin dog festival?



Debunking a myth: plant consciousness - PMC

Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No really? You mean to say that guy in Leeds with the crossbow had different views to me? Damn.

Ethics are just a social construct, if I want to bash a random dogs head in let me be, STOP FORCING YOUR VIEWS ON ME TONY.
Click to expand...
Now who's repeating themselves? Yes ethics and morals are a result of society but extremes are not tolerated and your views are extreme to the majority of society so that's why you are on the outside thumping your soap box. Nobody claimed that plants had consciousness only a type of nervous system and could feel pain and transmit signals. So now who doesn't understand what is put in front of them.
Typing in capitals won't do any good either, I sometimes prefer it due to poor eyesight, because I don't eat a lot of carrots in my diet.
 
Last edited:
tonys said:
Now who's repeating themselves? Yes ethics and morals are a result of society but extremes are not tolerated and your views are extreme to the majority of society so that's why you are on the outside thumping your soap box. Nobody claimed that plants had consciousness only a type of nervous system and could feel pain and transmit signals.
Click to expand...

So just to be clear, suffocating animals in gas chambers in their millions isnt extreme to you?

But "shouting" about how this is wrong, is extreme? cmon tony, have a good think about it....
 
Last edited:
Johno please? said:
So just to be clear, suffocating animals in gas chambers in their millions isnt extreme to you?

But "shouting" about how this is wrong, is extreme? cmon tony, have a good think about it....
Click to expand...
You should take a step back and just look at yourself. How do you know for absolute certainty what my views are ? Please grow up and get over puberty.
 
no_1_dave said:
True vegans tend to know how to make their own dishes and prefer not to eat all the processed foods.

When I say "true vegans" I am referring to what I have noticed among my friendship groups... One of my friends has been a vegan for over 20 years, she minds her own business, makes her own food and just gets on with life. You would never know she's a vegan unless you went right out and asked her, or if you had her over for dinner. I would call her a true vegan.

Other friends, or acquaintances I know to be vegan are very much the opposite. They jump onboard whatever the new movement is and pretend to be part of it. They'll be vegan and they'll be laud about it. They want everybody to know that they're vegan and they act like they're above people who are not vegan. I'd call this fake veganism. They jump on any trend if they feel it's anti-establishment, whether that be the gay pride, just stop oil or free Palestine. They see how the majority of the population are and they see a group against it so they jump onboard to be part of said group and then look down at everybody else.

These fake vegans are not vegan because they care about the planet or because they care about what they eat. They're vegan to boost their superiority complex and I imagine they also eat all the processed vegan foods. It allows people to see they're vegan and they don't need to spend all the time and effort working out for themselves what they can and can't eat. The vegan trend appears to be declining now, with fewer fake vegans and more true vegans so it's no surprise the processed foods are left rotting on the shelves.

That's just my 2 cents on this.
Click to expand...

Veganism is the rejecting the notion that animals are here to be used as commodities, resources and entertainment.

I care about the fact that non human animals dont have rights, and thats it, It has nothing to do with the climate or other so called justice issues,.... just so you know.
 
Last edited:
Johno please? said:
I care about the fact that non human animals dont have rights.
Click to expand...

www.gov.uk

Animal welfare

Advice and guidance on protecting animal welfare.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

www.rspca.org.uk

Animal Welfare Act | RSPCA - RSPCA - rspca.org.uk

The 2006 Act has introduced an important and new concept for pet owners and those responsible for domestic animals in England and Wales.
www.rspca.org.uk www.rspca.org.uk

Perhaps your issues are directed toward certain practises? You've linked a bunch of halal abattoir information in the past, while ignoring anything anyone said about ethical farming.

-- I swear I'm just here waiting for Mags to discuss his bean intake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom