45
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

It's funny to me because it reads like a satire of non-vegans, but this is literally how most of them are.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 38 points 2 weeks ago

The arguments of non-vegans aren't meant to sway vegans. They're meant to sway themselves, and an argument doesn't have to be good to convince someone of what they already want to believe.

[-] [email protected] 29 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Idealism vs. Materialism in a nutshell. "Plant rights" and "universal principle of non-use"

We have big tractors to plow or fields in the west but most of the world still gets their vegetables the old fashion way, animal labor.

Wait till this person learns about migrant labor in the USA and where their fucking vegetables came from. All carnists are idealists, veganism is the only actual science here.

[-] [email protected] 27 points 2 weeks ago

how is a society of nearly 8 billion people supposed to feed their families with animal use?

I'm always saying this!

I do kind of give them credit for thinking about this in term of animal labour isn't vegan, honestly. It's not a great point all in all but I bet we can get this person

[-] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago

I'm pretty sure "with animal use" is a typo, by the way. They meant to say "without animal use."

[-] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago

It is, yes, but it makes that whole post even more hilarious

[-] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Okay this is a wild idea but what if we took a bunch of seeds of edible plants and put them all in one place. Then once they've grown, we pick them all at once. I'm pretty sure that as long as we save the seeds those plants produce and plant them for the next year, we can keep doing this year after year.

[-] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago

”And then we feed the plants to animals so we can eat the animals?”

”I dunno, that doesn't really make sense to me, we could just eat the plants.”

[-] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago

"What, you mean just directly get the plant calories without putting them through a Rube Goldberg torture machine first?"

[-] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago

Gotta watch a living animal grow so you can put out the lights in its eyes and then you can have those calories

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago

I learned this shit in 8th grade biology.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago

begging liberals to read about the 10% rule of ecology.

Eating meat is literally part of why the planet is collapsing.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 2 weeks ago

I think this one post just filled out my bingo card.

[-] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago

It's missing my uncle's farm but yes still about as dense with memes as lentil loaf is with protein

[-] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago

It’s also missing the bit about vegans killing bugs with pesticides.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago

look at the big brain on that poster.. glad they put so much thought into it so we don't have to

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

never trust the words that come after "honestly" or before "but"

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

That doesn't even get into the ideas around plant rights, plants are literally living thinking things so why is it okay to use them

I agree, agricultural practices should definitely be changed so that plants and the animals in their ecosystems are being treated ethically.

I don't know necessarily that a tree is actually sentient but if we seriously consider it, perhaps that might lead to better environmental conservation practices as a matter of ethics.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago

Plants aren't sentient, but regardless, this person bringing up "plant rights" is just a deflection. We could handle environmental issues far better if we get rid of the nightmare that is animal agriculture, as that is fucking up the planet more than anything else. Natural ecosystems would be better for both plants and animals because we'd be without the problem of clearing vast amounts of land to grow crops to feed animals who are also responsible for a shitload of carbon emissions.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Plants aren’t sentient

that's actually fairly contentious, some researchers argue that they might be
though my answer to the "what if plants turn out to be sentient after all?" thing is i'll cross that bridge when and if we get to it

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

No, not really.

We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.

A few "experts" who arrive at their beliefs off of vibes rather than science may say they support the notion of plant sentience, but it's not taken seriously as a scientific idea.

Non-vegans also don't believe it. If anything, they just throw it out as a disingenuous excuse to alleviate guilt.

Something I ask non-vegans who say this stuff [NSFW]If plants are to be sentient and that therefore makes exploiting animals for food and eating plants morally equivalent, would you consider using a cucumber as a sex toy to be morally equivalent to bestiality?

In every case, they dodge the question and act as if they don't understand the relevance.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

the "experts" are botanists, they aren't like just random people and the idea has been published in scientific journals
and yeah, of course non-vegans are being disingenuous, that's what they do

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago

Can you a cite a source, though? I've seen non-vegans cite sources and arrive at the wrong conclusions because they misinterpreted the sources. For example, they think that responding to stimuli is an indicator of sentience, but it's not. I feel like you are assuming far too much good-faith when it comes to this debate about plant sentience. Just because an idea is discussed and seems controversial doesn't actually mean that it's truly contentious with in a scientific context. Not all "debates" are genuine, and not all "controversies" are scientifically valid, and this is really just a "We have to validate both sides" kind of framing. Can you please demonstrate to me a single reputable botanical source that endorses plant sentience?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago

I don't know necessarily that a tree is actually sentient but if we seriously consider it, perhaps that might lead to better environmental conservation practices as a matter of ethics.

They most likely are not sentient, as we currently understand or can perceive, though the complexity of the networks formed within a forest might, might, allow for something like it in aggregate. Consciousness is deeply strange, for something that should be so familiar.

But as Angel says, here it's just a paralytic deflection. Like saying that eating plants is stealing from the animals that could eat them, therefore we're already sinners, therefore we might as well sin some more.

this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
45 points (94.1% liked)

vegan

6922 readers
1 users here now

:vegan-liberation:

Welcome to /c/vegan and congratulations on your first steps toward overcoming liberalism and ascending to true leftist moral superiority.

Rules

Resources

Animal liberation and direct action

Read theory, libs

Vegan 101 & FAQs

If you have any great resources or theory you think belong in this sidebar, please message one of the comm's mods

Take B12. :vegan-edge:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS