I know this is not a wildly unpopular take in the sense that it’s not taboo or particularly offensive. But I have yet to encounter a compelling reason against the statement I make above. To be clear, I respect vegetarians/vegans (despite some claiming that they’re smug).

They’re making an intentional choice to not consume animals/animal protein for a combination of three respectable reasons:

1. Animal cruelty.
2. Nutrition.
3. Sustainability.

Yet with bivalves, we have a solution that checks all those boxes based on first principles.

1. There is little evidence that bivalves possess anything resembling conscious suffering comparable to vertebrates (as they don’t have what we’d classify as brains). That doesn’t mean they don’t feel anything, but all living things ultimately have senses. Everything we consume, even as vegans, is or was once living (unless you’re hardcore nuts and fruits only). Plants and fungi are certainly alive.
   ⁠
2. Nutritionally speaking, bivalves are quite healthy. They are lean proteins that are robust in micronutrients (in part because you’re eating the entire organism). In fact, they have many micronutrients that are not as easily found in non-animal sources. They also don’t have much saturated fat, which is thought to contribute to higher cholesterol levels, and is one of the main critiques of animal protein consumption from a nutritional standpoint.
   ⁠
3. From a sustainability standpoint, they are incredibly abundant and predominantly featured on the Monterey Bay Aquarium seafood watch’s safe list. They’re both easy to catch and easy to farm. Although I’m not a marine biologist, oysters have been shown to benefit ecosystems by functioning like “kidneys” for the ocean.

All in all, I’m optimistic this is an unconventional take we can actually all agree on. When I bring up this idea with vegans/vegetarians I personally know, they disagree with me but don’t state why. I believe it’s because of a strict adherence to superficial categorical distinctions that ultimately does not survive underlying first principles scrutiny. I welcome critique of any of the points I just laid out.

>Does ask yourself has literally used to name the trade argument in order to claim that non vegans are hypocritical because they can't name a trait that humans have and all other animals don't.

He is literally said a bunch of his videos back retarded people don't know any better and are not civilized and therefore behave like animals or at least that's what he's implying.

I can't follow this at all. I don't know who you are talking about or what your point is here.

>Also if you think that consideration for moral framework should be extended to anyone capable of suffering, so does that mean that animal should be held accountable for killing other animals?

Again, the "name the trait" argument is about moral patients, not about moral agents. If you believe that suffering is bad and animals can suffer, you need to have some additional trait that justifies harming non-human animals but does not justify harming humans.

The reason non-human animals don't need to be held accountable for killing other non-human animals is because they are not moral agents. They don't need to behave morally. Humans should.

I’ve seen some loud-mouthed, holier than thou vegans (primarily women) and some have been vegan for many years. I noticed they have faces that look like jell-o, no discernible bone structure, age prematurely. These aren’t smokers. Also, I noticed hardcore vegan women have croaky voices all of the time, like “vocal fry” but worse.

Is it some deficiencies causing this? It’s been bothering me for some time. I’m grateful I never joined the vegan cult: I was pressured long ago but I said NO!

[poll: "do you believe vegans are dumb?"]

me: *believe*?! they're dumb

vegan: "So caring about rape and murder is dumb? That's f*cked up dude what the h*ll"

me: "no. but don't change the subjuct"

vegan: "It's not changing the subject. It is the subject. Do you think that caring about rape and murder is dumb, yes or no?"

me: "it's not. and you again change the subject from legal and moral meat to illegal and immoral rape/murder of humans"

he wrote something and deleted

For context, the post I made was in the Crohn’s Disease subreddit.
This post was about how I don’t like that so many vegan content creators, and most recently Billie Eilish, seem to forget there are literal food disabilities when they cast their “good” and “bad” nets.
In the interview my friend sent me, Billie made the statement, “You can’t eat animals and say that you love them. You can’t do both.” I don’t think that’s a fair statement to make when I rely on animal products for nutrition because I have a literal disability processing raw and cooked plant foods. I could totally eat salsa, but the last time I did I ended up in the ER. I’m good for a pinch of greens on something, and sometimes I still have issues with that.

For more clarification I used to be vegan for the sake of losing weight (it was orthorexia in disguise) and CD isn’t why I stopped. Just because I had disordered eating doesn’t mean I wasn’t a part of vegan communities. I donated to charities both vegan owned and for animal welfare charities. I’m still on a list to adopt a beagle freed from animal testing. Every animal in my home is disabled and they were at risk of useless euthanasia, aside from my cat who was a sick stray that I brought in. I pray for the roadkill I see. I save tired bees every time I come across one. I’m planning a native pollinator garden. I’ve always loved animals since I was a small kid.
I left the communities because realized how mean we were being as a group, and transitioned from “vegan” to a “faker” as my former friends called me. I was still eating a plant based diet.

Apparently, vegans are still really fucking mean to this day. When I made the post, it was to basically say like “people forget us, and that hurts because now we’re catching strays”. Some people replied with the typical “got off the internet”, some agreed that it hurt because they used to be vegan or vegetarian and themselves feel betrayed (which is where I was coming from), some were vegans with CD who found a way to continue, some were vegans claiming the diet would cure CD. (It is important for you to know there is no cure for CD.)

I leave my phone and eventually come back to it, and there’s a message request calling me a murderer, saying I’m worthless, if I have to eat animals then I’m a waste of space, they hope CD kills me but they’d prefer my death be on their hands so I can “know how animals feel”, I’m irredeemable, and I’m evil, and I’m awful. I reported it to reddit and blocked the account.

Keto people aren’t this mean, carnivores aren’t this mean, vegetarians aren’t this mean, plant based people aren’t this mean, pescatarians (where I hang out now btw) aren’t this mean. I don’t know what it is about vegans that makes them so incredibly mean.

As a woman, nothing makes me more fucking mad than this talking point from vegans

It is so incredibly dehumanizing and it is another way to diminish the struggles of women.

Human women are not fucking cows!!!!! cows being inseminated for meat production and then milked is not comparable to the suffering of women world wide

Human women are far more valuable than any cow and it shouldn't be weird to value the life and rights of human women over fucking cows.

This talking point is another way to silence women when discussing women's rights.

Like holy shit I just realized like it's funny how vegoons think and love acting like eating meat is somehow "unnatural," and morally awful and all but nature tells a very different story to be frank. I was blown when i found out that truly obligate herbivores are actually pretty fucking rare lmao. Aside from animals like sloths, koalas, and giant pandas that are highly specialized, a lot of herbivores won't pass up meat if it's right in front of them like they will literally eat meat, if they can get the chance. Deer, cows, horses, goats, rabbits you can find countless examples of them eating birds, eggs, insects, carrion, or small animals, when they get the opportunity, guess the animals they defend and cry over aren't so innocent themselves lol

Sorry for the rant and likely being wrong, about some things, if you feel i spread misinformation and or am being disrespectful and rude, feel free to delete my post, everything I'm about to say, I gathered over years growing up seeing and studying putting two and two together, because I never went to school for it and am no genius, and having to use the Internet which stuff can be falsified and lied about on so take everything with a grain of salt.

So again sorry for the likely rude, disrespectful, miss informed angry rant.

So I found a couple old posts talking about meat on that sub and it seems to have been taken over by idiots who don't seem to understand anything and seem ablest even someone autistic pointed it out and someone tried to morally guilt trip them, because they had issues eating certain plant based things.

They are screaming meat is bad and destroying the environment and that cattle methane causes climate change when it's been proven methane from cattle can't do that because all animals produce methane and eat meat.

They also blame it for our water crisis and such alongside data centers and that meat eating is outdated and should have been phased out years ago or that it's disgusting and evil and vile.

I've never seen stupider people, humans eating meat isn't the problem we've done this since the fucking stone age,also without meat we die because of the very fact we aren't animal's where carnivores that are obligate omivores meat is what we evolved to eat,they also ignore conditions like autism or auto immune or something make plant eating and fruit eating impossible for some.

Alongside allergies and Igore the fact that many fruits actively try to kill us when we eat them plants as well alongside over consuming and most stuff that's plant we can't eat alongside the fact plants don't have many things humans and animals need to consume to live because animals eat meat also especially so called vegetarian animals.

And they ignore the fact plant and fruit agriculture and farming alongside things like data centers and golf courses etc consume insane amounts of water especially plan agriculture, because you need tons to produce enough to feed people and make back on crop loss, alongside tons of pesticides that kill off the insects needed for the environment and killing little animals and critters that are needed as well.

Alongside avocado and such farming actively destroying and dealing foresting countries alongside defense of invasive species as well that where brought alongside stuff that should never had been introduced to the country, seriously what the absolute fuck?

I seriously can't understand that sub or vegan's,I believe the crazy industrial cash crop farming and animal farming is wrong but I'm in no place to fight it because 1. no one will listen 2. people will be stupid and refuse to acknowledge the truth because I eat meat and .3 just don't care unless being morally superior.

Also I have autism and it's hard for my family and me because I'm autistic and just in general to afford things outside bags of potatoes and such to get plant based because of inflammation and sometimes bags of stir fry to get plant based and because of how I am and likely food intolerances because some plants and fruits give me the shits or hurt my stomach or mouth or do all three at once means it's hard.

I just can't understand, I wish for things to get better I really do but until people stop blaming meat and look at the pollution and greed and cash crop farming and veganism superiority shit that's acully causing these devils saying Environmental impacts and water crisis all over, nothing will change sadly.

So my mother used to have a vegan friend. That woman later gave birth to a child, and what i dont understand, decided to raise the child as a vegan. Now what i think is wrong, what a little child needs is the essential nutrients. The diet was also poor, the child was found to be underweight, mainly because of that. Let me know what you guys think about raising a child like that.

I really don't have anywhere else to post this, as the vegan and vegan debate subs either rejected it, banned me or both. I'm interested in your thoughts and feedback.

Emotional Rhetoric vs. Reality

A major issue with standard vegan arguments is the heavy reliance on hyper-emotional language, specifically words like "rape" and "murder." From both a legal and linguistic standpoint, this is a category error. Murder specifically denotes the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being.

Society classifies different types of killing under distinct moral and legal categories based on context, such as self-defense, manslaughter, euthanasia, and slaughter. Collapsing all forms of killing into a single, emotionally charged word completely ignores how human ethical and legal systems actually operate. It is a rhetorical tactic designed to shut down nuance rather than invite an honest debate.

The Slavery Analogy is a Non-Starter

Vegans frequently attempt to draw a parallel to human atrocities by arguing that "slavery was normalized too." This is a massive false equivalence. Chattel slavery was an artificial economic and social system enforced by a small minority of human elites to exploit other humans.

Eating meat, by contrast, is a cross-cultural, baseline biological behavior that has spanned virtually the entire existence of our species. For over 99 percent of human history, veganism was functionally non-existent. You cannot logically compare a specific, localized historical crime against humanity to an evolutionary dietary norm that defines human development.

The Inescapable Reality of Harm

The philosophical foundation of absolute veganism falls apart when confronted with the reality of resource competition. Simply by existing in a modern society, every single human causes harm to the natural world.

"Necessity"

When confronted with the environmental and animal toll of plant agriculture, the argument usually shifts to: "Well, you don't need to eat animals to survive."

But human life is not based on mere survival alone. If our moral baseline dictated that we must only consume what is strictly necessary to keep our hearts beating, human life would be utterly bleak. We would eat nothing but basic plant mash and drink only water.

By this logic, no one needs coffee, tea, chocolate, alcohol, or smartphones. The production and shipping of these non-essential luxuries cause documented environmental destruction, habitat loss, and human labor exploitation. If a vegan justifies consuming these items for their own pleasure and convenience despite the collateral damage, they have already admitted that human enjoyment justifies causing harm to the planet and its inhabitants.

The Procreation Paradox

If the ultimate moral goal of life is to minimize your footprint and reduce negative impact on animals, then bringing a new human into the world is the most unethical thing a person can do. A single child (even one raised vegan) will consume vast amounts of water, electricity, plastics, and land over the course of their lifetime, directly competing with wildlife for resources.

Strictly looking at the numbers, an omnivore who chooses not to have children has a vastly smaller lifetime ecological and animal-impact footprint than a vegan couple who decides to have two or three children. Vegans tend to optimize for one specific variable (diet) while ignoring a much larger variable (reproduction) simply because the latter is a human drive they do not want to sacrifice.

The Subjectivity of "Practicable"

The official definition of veganism includes the clause: "as far as is possible and practicable." This is the escape hatch vegans use to justify using modern medicines, vaccines, and everyday items that rely on animal testing or animal-derived stabilizers.

However, "practicable" is entirely subjective. If a vegan is allowed to draw their moral line based on their physical health and medical comfort, then anyone else is allowed to draw that line based on their social, cultural, and mental well-being.

Humans are tribal, social animals. Forcing oneself into a strict ideological box can lead to severe social isolation, anxiety, and friction with family or culture. If maintaining your mental health and social integration requires participating in the baseline dietary culture of your community, that is a legitimate psychological need.

The Social Cost of Absolutism

We live in a morally relativistic world, and the existence of any legal system proves this. What is a reasonable moral trade-off for one person or culture is different for another. It is not the black-and-white calculation that absolutists make it out to be.

Morality cannot be calculated in a vacuum; it must include how we interact with our own species. If adopting a strict, uncompromising ideology makes a person socially disruptive, self-righteous, and isolated, that is a real, measurable net negative to their life and the lives of those around them. Human social cohesion is a legitimate factor in overall utility, and sacrificing it for the illusion of a zero-harm lifestyle is a losing equation.

I’ve hated vegans for as long as I can remember. I hate how they try to demonize a personal choice (what I’m eating) and how they act like they’re so much more morally superior.

But last week, I went on a date with a co-worker. She didn’t mention anything about it before hand, but at the restaurant she ordered a vegan pizza. I made some comment like, “you’re not a vegan, are you?”, and she was like “yeah I am”. I was pretty taken aback and was questioning her about it, but what she was saying made some good sense.

Anyways, I’m a pretty media-skeptical guy and the whole date and that interaction about her veganness got me thinking about how maybe vegans are just portrayed as crazy and people-haters when they’re not? Like a “few bad apples don’t make the grove bad“ kind of thing? I don’t know what do you guys think?

TL;DR: Went on a nice date with a girl who I found out is vegan. She wasn’t at all what I expected. Maybe we’re being pushed a false narrative?

Like they seem to love life and all so much, like mice, pests, insects, snakes and all, and farming harms them, so why not invest in making cheap subsidized nutrient blocks and eat those? Those fill up your stomach and yourself up pretty well, without harming animals lol.

Anyone else met some who were genuinely terrible people who treated People poorly but used their “morally superior” Diet as a Smokescreen for them actually being bad people, & make themselves look/feel Good? Can think of 3 off top of my head. Loonies.

Ffs every fucking vegan has to tell me about how oh animals are so valuable and we shouldn't eat them because we can live without eating them as well, and how they deserve to live and all, well I don't give a shit, as long it's not cruelty or sexual abuse of an animal, I do not care, I wanna eat fucking meat because I like it and because I have grown on it, and I wanna eat it, chickens do not give a shit about other chickens, and neither do goats, so why tf should I? Also they are killed humanely, if you have such a problem with sentience and all and killing sentient beings, why don't vegans eat nutrient blocks ffs.

On the left, we have a field of grass. It’s a prolific crop. It grows in abundance without fertiliser and does not need protecting from pests. It’s the natural food source of ruminant animals: cows, sheep, goats.

When they graze on pasture, they stimulate the growth of more grass. The process is amazing. What we see on the surface is nothing compared to what is buried underneath: complex root systems intertwining deep underground, storing carbon and creating rich soil for the future.

Ruminant animals do not deplete when managed properly. They create abundance. Cows eating grass encourages more grass to grow, but also supports more flies, more birds, and more of the things that feed on birds. It is a living system.

So how did we end up believing this is the environmental disaster?

Now compare that to industrial arable farming.

First, rich prairie sod is tilled and “enriched” with fertilisers made using fossil fuels. That’s a double hit to nature: we release the carbon trapped in the soil, then use methane-derived fertilisers to force crops to grow. Over time, this depletes the soil. Instead of building more underground, shallow crop roots help turn the resource into dust.

Another thing people may not know about mined methane is that it also produces ethane. You cannot mine one without the other. Ethane is used to make plastic. This is one reason plastic recycling makes so little commercial sense: virgin plastic is practically free at source because ethane is treated almost like waste.

Then comes the next environmental crime that people have been led to believe is a solution: gas nature to save the crop. Don’t let insects eat their preferred food source, even though we planted it all together in one giant buffet.

What is your solution?

Mine is simple: let cows eat grass and let humans eat cows.

The way I see it, pasture-based livestock is not the enemy of the environment. It may be one of the only realistic ways to restore soil, rebuild ecosystems, and reduce fossil fuel inputs in farming.

How did they convince so many people that destroying nature is good for the planet?

It makes me so happy that the evil, obnoxious, narcissistic vegans get to have no impact on the environment bc a “carnist” decided to eat their share of the meat industry. Honestly, I relish in consuming animal products just bc obnoxious vegans would hate it so much.