this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
638 points (97.9% liked)
I Didn’t Have Eggs
902 readers
1 users here now
People making changes to recipes and then complaining it didn’t turn out.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is that a strange vegan comeback? For the entire history of civilization, people were eating meat when given a choice. It's vegans/vegetarians who made not eating meat a point and a thing. And while I understand why people make that choice, some of them spend way too much time advertising their way of life.
Found the meat eater.
Yes, but my message is an answer to someone else who raised the topic. And again, nothing against other people's preferences, I'm only against making a thing out of them. Eating meat is not a thing, it's "old and boring*
You'd think, but there's lot of people that make eating meat a thing all right.
I never got bothered for eating meat, but I got approached several times by complete strangers while getting veg food because they HAD to mock me, convince me or explain nutrition to me.
Every group has their fanatics.
It's weird that nobody ever comes up to my hamburger and I and starts ranting at us about not eating meat. Clearly it's only vegans who have an issue.
/s because we are all past the days of thinking it could be skipped.
Are you sure on that?
Jain, Buddhist, Hindu, Manichaeists, Monasticism etc might want a word.
Maybe also bear in mind it's perhaps the industrial revolution and massive scale animal abuse that's led to the average pleb expecting daily meat instead of daily bread.
This is so strange to me, because everyone I’ve talked to agrees in theory but has this disconnect when it comes to reality.
Thought experiment: if I’ll give you a cookie, but only if you kick a dog, would you do it?
I’d bet nearly everybody would say fuck no, and probably be at least a little pissed even to be asked. Somehow “making an animal suffer to have a food you enjoy” is wrong to everybody at this personal level, but add enough steps in between the cause and effect and suddenly people are happy to have animals abused and then slaughtered for them to enjoy their meals. Just looking at the response to your comment (6 upvotes and 5 down atm) shows this in action - to anyone disagreeing with @the_q’s point, do you also think kicking a dog for a cookie is okay in my hypothetical? If not, where do you draw the line?
no one is happy about that
Yeah that’s fair, I probably phrased that uncharitably. People are definitely happy about the byproducts of that abuse tho
Maybe complacent is the word I would use. I agree with you.
People are willing and able to ignore the sufficiently-abstracted moral hit for deliciousness. Upthread, I commented on someone else with an effortpost, about how they knew about the immorality, and that choosing to turn a blind eye to it and instead be outwardly nasty is bad for the soul.
A lot of people would be willing to take that cookie if you tell them that, in the process of making it and as a requirement, they kicked a dog. That already happened, after all. What would not eating the cookie mean now?
Time really fucks with people on a minute to minute basis. Doing moral calculus while removing the time element is wholly outside of their experiences, mostly.
The vast majority of the animal kingdom kills other animals for food. But somehow at some point we decided it wasn’t cool for humans to do anymore? What about controlled hunting, where animals will die regardless of whether or not you kill them?
Where do you draw the line? Of course oysters and the likes are fine since they’re incapable of suffering, physical or otherwise. But then what if they’re capable of suffering, but incapable of many other thoughts besides instinct? Depending on how you kill them, they might suffer less than a natural death.
Black-and-white statement like yours “it’s wrong, period” are why vegans have bad reputation. Instead, consider focusing on actual issues, such as poor treatment of animals throughout their lives, or the health advantages of not eating meat.
Let’s take a more extreme situation then. I have chickens. They are free to roam around the yard and do whatever they want. Eventually, when they reach the end of their lives, I kill and eat them. Suffering wise, it’s the exact same as if I hadn’t killed them, they just lose a few of their last days. Honestly it might just save them suffering, considering how most of those last days are spent in pain. Do you still think this is somehow still immoral, despite no additional suffering having been added?
If so, then I guess you’re also one of those people who think humans should live as old as they can, despite their suffering?
this can't be proven
They… don’t have brains, that’s proven. Sure, they can process information, but so can mushrooms and even some plants, such as trees. Will you stop eating those too?
I eat all kinds of animals. I'm just saying you can't prove muscles can't suffer
It makes no sense that a living creature would not have a system in place to detect and avoid harm. Whether we see it as suffering from our point of view or not is irrelevant.
I can and have. The primary thing that should inform one on what to eat is and should always be nutrition.
It’s the same with plants, they too react to stimuli, that’s how they avoid harm. Like how some plants become “soft” in the face of harsh weather to avoid breaking. Or others physically move. If you cut a plant but not fully, you can see the plant try to repair it. How is this any different from a brain-less animal reacting to its stimuli?
I don't see avoiding suffering as a tenable or even meaningful way of deciding what to eat, and so I choose based on the effects of what I put inside my body. I eat only animal sourced foods.
I don't think it is any different at all. A narrow definition of "suffering" is reductionist and inadequate.
I mean I agree, I’m all for a plant-based diet for health reasons. But most vegans out there, including the one I was responding to, only use suffering as their argument. Here the part I disagreed with was the “always morally wrong” blanket statement.
It's more than a way of life to them, it's an urgent necessity, like dropping fossil fuels. They talk to you about it because they want to sensitize you.
Seemed like a joke, to me anyway
Found the meat eater