Good for you Skippy, but just because Vegans aren't the only hypocrites in the world doesn't mean it's okay to be a hypocrite.
General / Off-Topic Let's Have A Debate: To Be, Or Not To Be Vegan? That Is The Question ...
- Thread starter Alien
- Start date
Nobody said that. But if you have an issue with an individual hypocritical ballet-dancer, libertarian, Christian, football hooligan, lumberjack or vegan, take it up with him rather than random other people 'in that group'. There is no vegan pope, fuhrer or king, so no vegan is responsible in any way for how another vegan interprets the concept and decides to live their life.
I know hundreds of vegans and they all have dogs and bank cards, my friend. They all have cars, buy gasoline, take vacations (including travel by air) etc. You might like to equivocate, but I don't play that game; if you're going to talk the talk, you'd best walk the walk. Incidentally I know several hundred ballet dancers and I'm not sure why you're including them.
None of these things are mandated by veganism and just because all the vegans you know are hypocrites doesn't mean all vegans are hypocrites, nor would even universal hypocrisy change any underlying arguments.
Plenty of good arguments against veganism. The dubious overgeneralization that all vegans are hypocrites isn't one of them.
Having married into a family 25 years ago now that considers San Francisco to be the center of the known universe, and who's members and friends come from a culture that practically invented the practice (along with almost any other woke concept you care to name), I've known enough vegans and strict vegetarians to consider it a decent sample size and indicative of a general attitude that their excesses are acceptable while mine aren't. I'm not knocking the health benefits of veganism (which I think are impressive in limited cases) so much as I'm pointing out that it's moralistic stance is absurd. Veganism is a luxury enjoyed by people who can afford to be excessive, but they're in no position to pass moral judgment on the rest of society as long as they continue to engage in life styles/habits/practices that I think most people would agree were un-necessary outside of a whim.
Last edited:
I think it is obvious I'm speaking for myself but you can look up for the statistics, and you asked a question, I merely answered.
They support them by having dogs and cats and buying food and toys for them
That's a fallacy, not all dogs are bought or of a particular breed.
Ironically, becoming vegan has a lesser impact on the environment so that "luxury" is all but a waste of resources, it's quite the contrary.
However difficult to give only vegetables to eat to cats and dogs.They support them by having dogs and cats and buying food and toys for them
A little humanity in your case would not be a luxury.
Thanks for the laugh
To be honest I am very surprised. That is obviously a very limited view and not true. It makes me wonder what caused this remarkably negative opinion.
Dogs for example fulfill many important roles in our society, guarding, hunting, helping traumatized patients, guiding the blind, being the ears for the deaf, rescuing, detecting drugs, bombs etc., detecting cancer, assisting in combat, and also 'just' being companions (which is not to be underestimated). And there is much more.
Cats are more limited in their 'use', because they have stayed much more true to their wild origins (for now, as they were domesticated much later than dogs), but they too have roles in our society that are at a minimum important to the humans who have them. For example I suffer from depression. Having a cat (or dog) can help tremendously with that affliction. Every time I encounter a cat that is just acting friendly or playful and funny, I feel a little bit better, for a little while at least. To me that means a lot.
Of course there are disadvantages to having them, but the root of the problem is not the existence of these animals, but mankind itself.
We are a plague upon the earth and we behave like a plague... a murderous deadly, destructive plague.
Why end there at that random point?
If we all walked around naked we wouldn't need to manufacture all that clothing, without our desire to have computers..., without our desire to play games..., without our desire for fast transportation, without our desire to procreate..., more toys are made for children than for pets... and the food all these kids eat... where will it end...
Without humans the planet would definitely be better off.
Of course there are deplorable and even disgusting excesses concerning pet ownership, but my point is that it is pointless to criticize people for their desire to have pets in such a way.
Everything humans do has a cost. You might not like pets, another might not like cars, another might not like cities, another might not like to eat meat (or cookies), and another might not like kids...
This point is unassailable. I agree completely. This however does not reflect on those who do take good and appropriate care of their pets.
There are a lot of homeless and un-cared for children too....
Last edited:
These are good points that I do recognize and agree with, and I made my own point too hastily in my argument yesterday: I should have included the words "pets" and drawn a distinction. Incidentally, I happen to come from a background where working dogs were directly linked to our survival, so in this case it was a simple mistake of the typing. But the simple facts are that while non pet dogs are awesome and I happen to love dogs and cats on a general, non specific level, "pets" who serve no purpose make up far and away the vast majority of the species worldwide, and working dogs are only being used in this example to bolster your argument.
My original point wasn't to bash on pets or pet owners, but rather to point that if you own a cat or dog and are a vegan you're a flipping hypocrite.
I'm pretty sure your pets aren't a necessity either considering sled racing is not a necessity on itself but more of a sport.
I don't think my dietary habits don't make me morally superior to anybody.
Neither do I though that was irrelevant to what I said.
No, you made a false equivalence about my dog ownership: your comment would only be relevant if I happened to think that in the matter of consumption (in this discussion the "consumption" would be vegan/non vegan food items) I was somehow morally superior to other people who did not share my own view on said consumption, in which case I would be a hypocrite based on my own dog ownership. I don't, therefore your point is irrelevant.
I never made claims on moral superiority, I merely debunked the notion that sled racing dogs were not a luxury. As I said, your post is irrelevant, to be precise, a strawman.
Original points have a tendency to get lost in discussions.
I do doubt though whether the original point can be made without limitation either.
It depends on a persons motivations for being a vegan. Owning a cat or dog does not have to be in conflict with those motivations.