Why Do People Hate Vegans? - White supremacist and alt-right hitlers in my salad?

[Overly Serious]

The chicken grinder thing only happens on the aforementioned factory farms. Buy from a local farmer or a small operation, problem solved. In fact, you're actually making things better by encouraging local farmers and taking business away from factories.

Hey - you said you'd never heard any reason why someone shouldn't eat eggs because "chickens are going to lay them anyway". I gave you one. As regards "only happens on factory farms" those are the source of the overwhelming majority of eggs and for a vegan even if it's not, they're going to kill the male chickens one way or another whether it's a grinder (the huge majority of cases) or one by one throwing them over the fence into the organic pig pen next door. It really doesn't make it okay for someone who wants to live without killing animals. You can agree or not but to claim you'd never heard of the reason before makes me think you haven't actually talked to many vegans about this.

The cow one I'm extremely skeptical of. Cows only have to give birth once a year to produce milk all the time, and a calf is far too valuable to slaughter for no reason. They'd be kept for breeding or sold for meat. I've never heard of this "technique" before, and the only information I can find online about it comes from a small handful of PETA-grade lunatics. And even if it does happen, once again, buy small, buy local, problem solved.

Who said it would be slaughtered "for no reason". The meat then gets sold. It's not "a technique" you've never heard of, it's basic facts - you can't milk a bull (at least, it wont be the sort of milk you want!). Ergo, male calves are disposed of. It makes little economic sense to provide all that resource to raise a bull you don't need when you could put the same energy into raising a cow that can provide you a few milk giving cycles and then still be slaughtered for meat later on. You're trying to shift ground with things like "only give birth once a year" to some sort of 'it doesn't matter if I'm wrong, I'm still right' sort of position. Think through the basic logic - there's only a certain amount of milk the market needs. If in year 1 it's met by X cows and you get three cycles out each cow, then why and how would you be raising each of the calves of these cows - by year 4 as you're retiring the original cows you now have 3x the number of dairy cows than the market actually wants. I mean, I'm simplifying but of course the extra cows are killed. Meaning that vegans don't want to drink milk because it's resulting from a process that requires killing animals.

You were ignorant. That's not a crime. You don't have to agree with the vegans about the importance of animal life. But saying bollocks like you've never heard a vegan give a reason for this sort of stuff and then when you're provided one trying to pretend the reason doesn't exist rather than just saying you don't care about it. Well, it makes you sound stupid, you know?

 

[Niggercat 0w0]

I don't get it either. They just want to stop animal suffering and cruelty in slaughterhouses. I love vegans

 

[Clown Baby]

Whenever I see this thread in the forum list I think it says "Why do people hate vaginas?"

I personally don't like vegans because they tend to be hypocrites who don't know anything about how their own bodies work. Try discussing the necessity of vitamin b12 in human beings' diets with a vegan, including the fact that we would die without it, and that b12 only naturally occurs in meat and dairy products, which is basically proof that it is biologically necessary that we eat meat. Yeah sure, you can buy b12 in a pill or a package of spinach that's been "fortified" with it, but Natural (and that's important because half a vegan's stance is about what's natural, and what people are "really supposed to be eating") vegan b12 sources don't exist. It's all cool and good to not want to hurt animals and be against factory farms, but these fools try to act like humans have been evolutionarily destined to be herbivores.

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

It really doesn't make it okay for someone who wants to live without killing animals.

But their diets do, their diets result in the death of countless small mammals when it comes time to harvest. Every vegan I have ever talked to (and that has been many) refuses to address this issue.

Every vegan I know also refuses to use animal (by)products, yet freely drive cars, takes public transit, etc. All of which run off of the remains of animals from a long time ago, but it goes against their moral base.

I know moral vegans who support PETA even knowing their history of killing animals.

Many vegans I know also support trying to make cats vegan , which only causes cats to suffer and die slowly because cats can not survive on a vegan diet. They claim "Its science!" yet every single scientific paper not sponsored by PETA and/or vegan cat food companies shows this harsh truth.

I don't get it either. They just want to stop animal suffering and cruelty in slaughterhouses. I love vegans

See above, most "moral" vegans it seems are hypocrite to the highest degree, and only use it as a status symbol to say how much better they are to others.

That said I don't fucking care what your diet is, and if possible if I was making food for you I'd do my best to accommodate you, out of politeness but if you become an asshole about it (with maybe life or death allergies excluded, since well your life is on the line), forget about it.

 

[twi1992]

I liken the hate towards vegan as hate towards religious people. I don't hate religion unless some person is trying to shove it down my throat. I don't hate vegans until I run into one who gives me stank face for eating meat and says I'm killing animals/should feel ashamed. I have a friend who's a lovely person and vegan and he never tries to convert, we just respect each other as people and I'm mindful of where he can eat when we hang out. Good for you, vegan. Don't yell at me and let me eat my nuggies in peace.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

To get the chickens that lay the eggs they hatch out millions of fertile eggs. Of the baby hatchlings a significant portion will be male and thus no use for laying eggs. These are emptied by the bucket-load still alive into grinders. It's the same reasoning behind not drinking milk - it's not drinking milk that is the problem it's that they inseminate the cow, take it through pregnancy then slaughter the newborn calf just so they can keep the milk.

Well, you did ask.

I've raised hundreds of chickens in my life. Pheasants too. Gotten crates and crates and crates of eggs, to where I was giving eggs away to friends and selling them.

Chicks fed into grinders: 0.

The most inhumane deaths I've ever had to deal with? Chickens so fucking stupid they stand out in the rain and get sick and die, when there is a heated, comfortable shelter with food ten feet away. Chickens are barely more intelligent than fungus.

 

[Overly Serious]

I've raised hundreds of chickens in my life. Pheasants too. Gotten crates and crates and crates of eggs, to where I was giving eggs away to friends and selling them.

So you raised them from hatching or you bought the chickens as chicks? If the former what did you do with the male chickens? If the latter did you buy females over males?

Let me remind you you're not arguing with a vegan, you're arguing with someone that saw a post claiming they'd 'talked to lots of vegans but never found one that could answer this question' which I don't believe because there's a very standard answer you can get from almost any vegan which is that male chicks are disposed of as a by product of getting the female laying ones.

As to your personal anecdote you could check yourself just by a simple Google search. I'm not a vegan. You can think this matters or think it doesn't, but don't bring fallacious arguments like "well I've raised hundreds of chickens and I didn't grind any of them" as if it means this isn't commonplace. Or just look up videos yourself. There are multiple age-restricted videos of it on YouTube. You want to argue you don't care, go ahead. Don't argue it doesn't happen because you, an amateur chicken farmer don't do it.

Spoiler

Oh, and don't forget to answer that question at the start.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

So you raised them from hatching or you bought the chickens as chicks? If the former what did you do with the male chickens? If the latter did you buy females over males?

I was pretty young when we started raising chickens, but I still remember how we started. I don't remember if we bought or were given them, but we started with a batch of fertilized eggs. We raised them from chicks ourselves. Any chickens we didn't need, we slaughtered for meat once they were big enough. Same as any small farm/homestead type setup is going to do.

I'm not interested in what factory farming does, the argument you were trying to attack with the grinder argument was that you could get eggs without the factory farming, and my response was basically a slap-back against you hauling out factory farming arguments in response to that.

You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the half of the paragraph you deliberately cut out of your quote that undercut your argument.

 

[Lemmingwise]

You were ignorant. That's not a crime

Are you sure? It should be.

 

[Croan Çhiollee]

Who said it would be slaughtered "for no reason". The meat then gets sold. It's not "a technique" you've never heard of, it's basic facts - you can't milk a bull (at least, it wont be the sort of milk you want!). Ergo, male calves are disposed of. It makes little economic sense to provide all that resource to raise a bull you don't need when you could put the same energy into raising a cow that can provide you a few milk giving cycles and then still be slaughtered for meat later on. You're trying to shift ground with things like "only give birth once a year" to some sort of 'it doesn't matter if I'm wrong, I'm still right' sort of position. Think through the basic logic - there's only a certain amount of milk the market needs. If in year 1 it's met by X cows and you get three cycles out each cow, then why and how would you be raising each of the calves of these cows - by year 4 as you're retiring the original cows you now have 3x the number of dairy cows than the market actually wants. I mean, I'm simplifying but of course the extra cows are killed. Meaning that vegans don't want to drink milk because it's resulting from a process that requires killing animals.

While your logic is spot on (you can't milk a bull), your numbers are a bit off.
I'll preface this by saying that I can only speak to Australian farming practices, but bulls aren't generally left in with the cows year-round. In the area where I live there is always a "bull paddock" to keep them, and the cows are separated out, to prevent an excess of calves, and also to keep the bloodlines straight (you don't want brothers and sisters mating). Cows come into season, and then a bull is brought in, or they are artificially inseminated, depending on the genetics.
Male calves are generally sold to beef operations once they are weaned, so they do end up being killed, but they go into the food chain the same as if they were born on a beef farm.
Cows that have been through their maximum milking cycles aren't generally eaten though, as they're tough as boot leather at that age.
As I said, this may not be true in the USA, as we also don't have the grain feedlot system for our beef cows (except for a very select few farms which deal with the export market), and intensive factory farming isn't really a thing here, except for pigs and chickens. Even then, free range options are really common.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not interested in what factory farming does, the argument you were trying to attack with the grinder argument was that you could get eggs without the factory farming, and my response was basically a slap-back against you hauling out factory farming arguments in response to that.

You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the half of the paragraph you deliberately cut out of your quote that undercut your argument.

That's the animal welfare argument, and it's made by an array of people including vegans, but it isn't really the vegan philosophical outlook on things like milk, honey, eggs, or other animal products that don't actually kill the specific animal used to generate the product.

While vegans would generally prefer a world without the specific cruelty of factory farming to one with it, they do not think consuming animal products at all is acceptable and would abolish it entirely. The philosophical basis of this, at least of full abolitionists, is that it is fundamentally immoral to instrumentalize another animal, all the way down to bees, to exploit them for human purposes.

The concept of instrumentality in this context is a bit tricky, so I'll use a human example. Suppose a child is born but has some form of cancer and requires a bone marrow transplant, and for some reason, neither parent is actually a suitable donor, and no other suitable donor could be found. So the parents instead have another child in the hopes that the new child will be a suitable donor. The very existence of the second child has been instrumentalized in the service of its sibling, and they're going to be exploited in a probably painful way without any opportunity for consent or even understanding what has been done to them.

Vegans consider other animals to be essentially equivalent to humans, at least in their right not to be exploited, with actually killing them to consume their dead bodies being the ultimate form of exploitation, but other forms of exploitation are also morally impermissible.

I should also note that many vegans tend to be dogmatic and fundamentalist and not distinguish between degrees of exploitation, so that consuming honey, drinking milk, eating a lobster you personally caught, eating a cheeseburger made by factory farming, and eating a live monkey's brains while the monkey is locked into a table are all just part of the same thing.

Still, these are the people who have actually put some thought into the ethical underpinnings of their choice of behavior. I'm not talking about the vegan douchebro who will tell you how great they are for being a vegan while wearing a leather jacket and destroying the wetlands behind their home.

 

[RaptorJuice]

I don't get it either. They just want to stop animal suffering and cruelty in slaughterhouses. I love vegans

And why do you need to be a vegan to stop animal cruelty and suffering in slaughterhouses?

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

That's the animal welfare argument, and it's made by an array of people including vegans, but it isn't really the vegan philosophical outlook on things like milk, honey, eggs, or other animal products that don't actually kill the specific animal used to generate the product.

Still, these are the people who have actually put some thought into the ethical underpinnings of their choice of behavior. I'm not talking about the vegan douchebro who will tell you how great they are for being a vegan while wearing a leather jacket and destroying the wetlands behind their home.

Shortening this for brevity...

Oh, no, I totally "get it". That's why I've said Veganism is ultimately a religious or philosophical stance and can't be argued for logically. You either have a certain world view (That all animals are essentially "equal" to humans, and we have no more right to exploit them than we do each other), or else you don't. It's like arguing for Shinto with logic. Or Christianity, for that matter.

That difference is that we let Vegans get away with believing otherwise.

That doesn't actually require any real thought. Actually, I find most extremist/black-and-white positions require very little thought, because they are inherently nuance-averse. Which is why things like the honey question went from something not all Vegans were settled on thirty years ago, to settled doctrine now. Not because the average Vegan actually gives two shits about bees, but because it was an unacceptable degree of nuance.

It's also why some questions are never asked.

 

[Overly Serious]

I was pretty young when we started raising chickens, but I still remember how we started. I don't remember if we bought or were given them, but we started with a batch of fertilized eggs. We raised them from chicks ourselves. Any chickens we didn't need, we slaughtered for meat once they were big enough.

Which is what I said - the male chicks are killed because they're not needed.

I'm not interested in what factory farming does, the argument you were trying to attack with the grinder argument was that you could get eggs without the factory farming,

No it wasn't. Never said that at all. You're just doing that thing where you argue against what you think someone said. You stated you'd talked to many vegans and none had been able to answer your question about why it's wrong to eat eggs when chickens lay them anyway. I call bullshit on that because every vegan I know would straight off just reply that chickens were killed (well, they'd probably say "murdered") as a byproduct of producing the eggs. Something that even happened by your own admission on your semi-amateur basis.

You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the half of the paragraph you deliberately cut out of your quote that undercut your argument.

Except you don't get what my argument is. I'm not even vegan and I cut it out with the simple rebuttal that you're arguing over whether or not you think something is right and I'm simply pointing out that your argument is bogus. Anything that isn't to the point why shouldn't I ignore it? I'm not interested in proving your beliefs wrong, just a statement you made. Which I was doing for your benefit but whatever.

That's why I've said Veganism is ultimately a religious or philosophical stance and can't be argued for logically. You either have a certain world view (That all animals are essentially "equal" to humans, and we have no more right to exploit them than we do each other), or else you don't. It's like arguing for Shinto with logic. Or Christianity, for that matter.

If you remove values as a basis for argument then you'll declare every course of action irrational because every argument for something has to start with a belief that it is desirable. You're stating that their values are illogical therefore their argument is. But the values aren't illogical - they're just a choice of what you think is important or not. You're trying to take a disagreement with their values and turn it into an argument that their position is not rational. It doesn't work like that. You have to demonstrate either the argued for behaviour contradicts itself or that the behaviour doesn't support the desired values. That's why @AnOminous 's example of the vegan douchebro preaching whilst wearing leather works (leather contradicts the professed values of not harming animals) but your example of "chickens lay eggs anyway so no chickens are killed" doesn't (it's false and every vegan I know would be able to say why).

Even then, it depends how absolutist you want to be about things and that's not for someone else to say. Some vegans might not even eat Tortillas because they have animal hair as one of the ingredients. Most will because they're making a best effort to minimize animal harm but there are limits to what one can do whilst still functioning in the world.

That difference is that we let Vegans get away with believing otherwise.

Okay, Torquemada.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

Which is what I said - the male chicks are killed because they're not needed.

Yes. Humanely. For food. I made no claim to personally being a vegan. But I do not feed them into a grinder. And you wouldn't have to kill them, we just chose to because we eat chicken anyways.

The males were not 'unneeded'. They were just needed for a different purpose.

No it wasn't. Never said that at all. You're just doing that thing where you argue against what you think someone said. You stated you'd talked to many vegans and none had been able to answer your question about why it's wrong to eat eggs when chickens lay them anyway. I call bullshit on that because every vegan I know would straight off just reply that chickens were killed (well, they'd probably say "murdered") as a byproduct of producing the eggs. Something that even happened by your own admission on your semi-amateur basis.

You're confusing me with the person your responding to.

I didn't kill chickens as a byproduct of making eggs. I was going to kill chickens anyways, and never argued otherwise. But I was not feeding them into a fucking grinder.

You're the one who went straight for the grinder.

Except you don't get what my argument is. I'm not even vegan and I cut it out with the simple rebuttal that you're arguing over whether or not you think something is right and I'm simply pointing out that your argument is bogus. Anything that isn't to the point why shouldn't I ignore it? I'm not interested in proving your beliefs wrong, just a statement you made. Which I was doing for your benefit but whatever.

You're still arguing with someone else.

If you remove values as a basis for argument then you'll declare every course of action irrational because every argument for something has to start with a belief that it is desirable. You're stating that their values are illogical therefore their argument is. But the values aren't illogical - they're just a choice of what you think is important or not. You're trying to take a disagreement with their values and turn it into an argument that their position is not rational. It doesn't work like that. You have to demonstrate either the argued for behaviour contradicts itself or that the behaviour doesn't support the desired values. That's why @AnOminous 's example of the vegan douchebro preaching whilst wearing leather works (leather contradicts the professed values of not harming animals) but your example of "chickens lay eggs anyway so no chickens are killed" doesn't (it's false and every vegan I know would be able to say why).

Even then, it depends how absolutist you want to be about things and that's not for someone else to say. Some vegans might not even eat Tortillas because they have animal hair as one of the ingredients. Most will because they're making a best effort to minimize animal harm but there are limits to what one can do whilst still functioning in the world.

Actually, no. Not all values are equally illogical. Many of the core things we hold as values are directly about maintaining a stable, harmonious existence with the rest of our species, even though we might not consciously think about it in those words. There is, for example, a logical reason we don't eat people - several, actually, but fundamentally it's because it's harmful to group cohesion to see your father or neighbor as a walking cheeseburger. Not because you turn into a wendigo if you eat little Billy one winter. You could make a strong argument that the whole Wendigo myth actually is just supernatural way of saying the same thing - it's a bad idea to view other people as food. We condemn theft because the end result of rampant theft is harmful to the group as a whole, because more time securing property is spent than needs be, fights break out, progress is discouraged, etc. Adultery isn't bad because God said not to covet your neighbor's wife, but because, again, adultery leads to fighting and disunity. Honesty and keeping your word is valued not because you go to the land of wind and ghosts to dwell forever if you're an oathbreaker, but because society needs reliability and trust to function. Etc. Etc.

Veganism lacks that. Veganism relies on an unsupported abstract ideal. Which is fine as a personal belief, but it's not equally valid in a greater sense.

Philosophers have spent millenia arguing about this, of course, and I'll concede that a certain amount of it depends on which particular philosophers you listen to, which is why Vegans tend to be a fan of Kant. But Kant's argument is basically circular. "You should do these things because you should do these things". Or else falls into unsupported claims, that what you do to animals is the same thing you will be likely to do to humans, which... has several problems.

Okay, Torquemada.

As cathartic as it might be to see a vegan put on the rack or to the irons sometimes, I'm not advocating that. I'm just saying we let the assumption go unchallenged too often. Because it's a popular, trendy, left-aligned value, so it's nearly beyond reproach in "civil", mainstream dialog.

 

[AnOminous]

Veganism lacks that. Veganism relies on an unsupported abstract ideal. Which is fine as a personal belief, but it's not equally valid in a greater sense.

All of the examples you give also rely on an abstract ideal, the ideal that society is actually something worth having, that humans being inconvenienced or harmed is bad, and that the welfare of humans is something to be valued and protected. Vegans just also consider animals to be worthy of similar consideration, and instead of just viewing humanity as the only valuable thing, also include all animal life in the same category.

That's no more supported or unsupported than the normal core ethic, it is just different. One always starts with some a priori assumption or other and works from there, and you can generally never actually prove the first principles. Whether a belief system is rational or not depends on whether its tenets naturally follow from these first principles.

Because it's a popular, trendy, left-aligned value, so it's nearly beyond reproach in "civil", mainstream dialog.

The popular, trendy vegan outlook really isn't based on any of these principles, because for most of these trenders, the only real principle they have is "saying this shit will make me look cool." They don't think about or care about the underlying philosophical considerations. They haven't read Peter Singer, much less Jeremy Bentham or any of the other philosophers who laid the groundwork for what turned into the philosophy of veganism. An example of this sort would be Onision, a nearly illiterate moron who despite claiming to be a vegan, murdered a turtle by leaving it in a box out in the sun and wrecked the wetlands behind his house because he is a narcissist who cares about nothing but himself.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

All of the examples you give also rely on an abstract ideal, the ideal that society is actually something worth having, that humans being inconvenienced or harmed is bad, and that the welfare of humans is something to be valued and protected. Vegans just also consider animals to be worthy of similar consideration, and instead of just viewing humanity as the only valuable thing, also include all animal life in the same category

That's no more supported or unsupported than the normal core ethic, it is just different. One always starts with some a priori assumption or other and works from there, and you can generally never actually prove the first principles. Whether a belief system is rational or not depends on whether its tenets naturally follow from these first principles.

Fair, I suppose, but I consider self-interest in the continued well-being of our species logical. Maybe that is an unsupported first principle, and I suppose the Extinctionists and other types would disagree, but I'm willing to accept the double standard of disagreeing.

It's not that I don't consider animals "important", by the by... We benefit from their survival in many ways! I just don't consider them equal, and I don't think that can be logically supported.

The popular, trendy vegan outlook really isn't based on any of these principles, because for most of these trenders, the only real principle they have is "saying this shit will make me look cool." They don't think about or care about the underlying philosophical considerations. They haven't read Peter Singer, much less Jeremy Bentham or any of the other philosophers who laid the groundwork for what turned into the philosophy of veganism. An example of this sort would be Onision, a nearly illiterate moron who despite claiming to be a vegan, murdered a turtle by leaving it in a box out in the sun and wrecked the wetlands behind his house because he is a narcissist who cares about nothing but himself.

Well, sure. But how is that relevant? Most people are ignorant jackasses about most things. That doesn't negate what I've said - if anything, it just makes the situation more sad. We don't debate because it's just one of those things that's "hands off" right now, which empowers mental light-weights and narcissistic assholes to run their mouths off and get unearned "cred" for their ill-considered views.

Most "communists" have no fucking clue what they're talking about, either, but, again, it's trendy right now. Most antifa types wouldn't know what a fascist was if they were eating pizza with Benito Mussolini, either. There's lots of stupid people embracing causes and ideologies who don't really understand the first principles. But whether or not they're true Scotsmen, they still wear kilts and play the bagpipes.

 

[Ahriman]

Something that vegans don't ever consider - soil erosion.

https://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/follow-the-food/why-soil-is-disappearing-from-farms/

The very soil where their precious veggies are grown has it's own "shelf life" and after that, you can't just plant things wherever you like, expecting things to take root. If nothing grows, then we are utterly fucked.

 

[Cope or Rope]

I really don't have any qualms against vegans but guilting people about eating meat is a bunch of bullshit. If they want to win people over to veganism then they should be talking to non-vegans with more respect. Oh and by the way Hitler was a staunch vegetarian towards the end of his life. " Personal accounts from people who knew Hitler and were familiar with his diet indicate that he did not consume meat as part of his diet during this period" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism
so to call all nazis omnivores is a fallacy. considering that the leader of the 3rd reich wasn't

 

[Autumnal Equinox]

Was buying groceries last night and some mincing little faggot was walking around wearing a pink shirt that said "herbivore" on it, giving death glares to anyone buying meat and acting like a complete ass to the employees working the meat/deli counter. Vegetarians have a diet that isn't my thing, but they're usually cool about other peoples' choices. Vegans are scumbags, every last one of them. Show me proof of one vegan who isn't a drain on everyone they come across and I'll eat my hat.