As long as we agree that we shouldn’t prioritize fights because they’re easy, it’s good.

We have to eat anyways, so making the more ethical decision and picking the vegan option is completely different from taking an action and spending time to advocate against oil or whatever other cause. Gong vegan is more like not taking an action while allowing you to fight other fights.

The difference is that one directly harms and kills tens of billions of victims, the other one may harm some but not so many.

The prioritization of the focus shouldn’t be based on how easy the fight is, but on how large the injustice is.

Abraham Lincoln could have focused on corruption instead of ending slavery if the focus should be on the easy fights.

Did I say “medicine is needed” or did I say “medicine is not needed”?

I haven’t defined ‘need’ nor brought up speciecism.

I purposefully left for the reader to decide if the medicine is needed or not. No evaluation of the ‘need’ on my part. Just pointing out that if animal exploitation is needed, this animal exploitation isn’t needless.

Sure, someone’s preference to exercise could be kicking animals. That doesn’t mean it’s a good justification to do so.

Most of the people I outreach when doing activism are actually against exploiting animals when there is no need. It just follows that if you believe that and don’t want to be a hypocrite, you have to be vegan. Non-blacks that supported the civil rights movements didn’t do so because someone ‘tell them an answer for a problem they didn’t have’, they did so because they thought it was the right thing to do. It’s the same with veganism, people against needless animal exploitation will go vegan, they just need to be educated on what they are supporting. Most people I talk to have no idea how animals are exploited.

I’m not sure what you’re proposing, I’d love to listen to some actionable ideas that would help abolish or minimize animal exploitation though.

From the nicotine example, the conclusion seems to be that these kinds of nicotine consumption are bad.

So the analogy would be that these kinds of meat (alternatives or real) are bad, am I getting this right?

it gives the fence sitters a cushion to delay making a commitment

Then you put fire into that cushion, point out to them that while they are sitting, there are real animals being exploited for them. Their change will also help motivate the industry to not only stop that abuse, but to find alternatives faster, much faster than taking no action.

You didn’t mention that the current meat alternatives also help reduce exploitation because they can be the choice for nonvegans. Before we can say meat alternatives are worse for the animals, we have to take that into account. How much animal exploitation is reduced because nonvegans eat meat alternatives versus how much animal exploitation is reduced because meat alternatives exist.

I don’t have any studies, but given that the majority isn’t vegan and having vegan options can help reduce their animal consumption, I’m more inclined to believe that meat alternatives cause less animal exploitation in society right now.

what if i juat dont think about them? Does that work?

Ah, the Epstein defense. The only argument that beats veganism.

We don’t need that much education to understand the argument, it’s quite simple actually:

You and animals both feel and want to live.

You don’t want others to harm your feelings or end your life.

If everyone respected eachothers feelings and desire to live, people wouldn’t harm you.

Therefore, we shouldn’t mess with the feelings and desire to live of beings that can feel and want to live.

You underestimate how much people can think and act for themselves.

Awareness of a problem only elicits a response in a small minority of the population.

And according to the 3.5% rule, that’s how much change we need in people.

A grassroots movement that defends animals needs more positive people, not negative ideas.

Pasta, rice, lentils, peas, chickpeas, beans, mushrooms, mock meats… There are plenty more options other than animal exploitatin products and veggies.

it assumes that animals and humans sit in the same moral category

No, just that animals deserve some moral consideration.

In the case of livestock, many decide that food, culture, convenience, or nutrition justify it.

Some decide that kicking dogs is a good way to exercise, doesn’t mean it’s a good justification. Especially when there are other options. Same with animal products, there are other options.

Veganism is not about animal suffering, but needless animal exploitation.

Is the medicine needed for you? Then it isn’t needless animal exploitation.

Do you have other options besides exploiting animals to death for food? Then it is needless animal exploitation.

Would you rather live to be exploited to death or not be born at all?

Sheep are not native to the Americas and are not extinct, far from it actually.

I agree, that’s why I said there’s only one reason to go vegan. You have to be against exploiting animals.

There may be other reasons to go on a vegan diet, but this is the only reason to go vegan.

How do you define veganism?

I think vegan communities should welcome everyone, but words have meanings and we should use them correctly to make sure we make ourselves understood.

Imagine a community called c/politicians, made by politicians and it’s about politics. They welcome everyone, including a newcomer, Bob. Bob does not engage with any kind of policies but presents himself as a politician in the community. Would they be excluding him from the community by pointing out that his use of the word “politician” is wrong or, at least, very unique?

You use “vegan” in a idiosyncratic way. I would never call Alice, who doesn’t consume animal products but kills animals for fun, a vegan.

Do you think all c/vegan communities in the fediverse have their sidebars wrong, as in they should be about diet and not veganism?

Please check out the original definition of veganism, by Leslie Cross https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history

Veganism is definitely not just about consumption choices, people can exploit animals in so many other ways besides consumption. Using them for their work, vivisectioning them, testing on them, etc.

A vegan who does it for environmental reasons is more vegan than someone who is philosophically opposed to animal exploitation but still eats cheese.

The first person is just plant-based, not vegan. They can stop being plant-based as soon as they find an environmental reason to go back to animal exploitation. Also they wouldn’t necessarily be against using animals for their work, vivisectioning them, etc.

There’s only 1 reason to go vegan, everything else is bonus.

People who go plant-based for health, environment, etc… aren’t necessarily vegan unless they agree that needlessly exploiting animals is wrong. Veganism is a philosophy about not exploiting animals, not dietary preferences.