They are a living creature, so no, eating them is not vegan. It’s not about the capacity of the animal to feel pain, it’s about the capacity of humans to harm animals that most vegans take issue with, at least most that I know. Just because something can’t feel pain, does that mean we should hurt it? I’m not vegan myself, and I don’t think it’s inherently wrong for omnivores to eat meat, but I do think that it doesn’t matter if the animal can supposedly feel pain or not. We don’t need to go looking for excuses to hurt other living creatures needlessly.
Bacterias are living creatures as well, yet I doubt most vegans have an issue with them
edit: I don’t even know why I picked bacterias as an example when I could just have chosen plants, which are by definition alive too
Just because something can’t feel pain, does that mean we should hurt it ?
Maybe we don’t have the same definition of hurting, but I can’t see how “hurting” works with something that can’t feel pain. Like can you hurt a chair ?
I’m not sure what you expect vegans to eat then. They can only reduce the harm they cause so much. Drawing the line at creatures that move around and actively interact with their environment, including avoiding injury and reacting to negative stimulus, is easier than trying to subsist on, like, nothing. As for bacteria, we can’t like, see them, or avoid them. It’s literally impossible to not ingest them. Plus the only time we actually target bacteria is when it’s harming us, and it’s not like vegans don’t believe in enacting self defense against something that attacked you first. But we can pretty easily avoid eating jellyfish. It in fact takes more effort to eat jellyfish than it does to not eat jellyfish. I mean you can try to get pedantic about it, like whether plants avoid negative stimulus or whatever, but again, vegans have to eat something, or they’d, y’know, die. Jellyfish can have an observable avoidant reaction to harm. It’s a relatively simple line to draw when you have to draw one somewhere.
And no, you can’t hurt a chair, because a chair is an inanimate object. There are humans who don’t have the ability to feel pain, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be hurt, as in harmed. It also doesn’t make them the same as a chair.
If you decide you want to be vegan then yes. If you don’t want to be vegan then I guess it’s up to you whether you want to draw a line anywhere or not, or where that line is.
They didn’t say anything about feeling morally superior, they just explained where and why many vegans differentiate between plants, bacteria, and animals. And let’s not pretend that other people, including non vegans, don’t also draw these lines at any other point, and don’t only bring up these supposed areas of debate whenever veganism is brought up. It’s a personal choice based on personal motivations, just because someone holds a different view from you that doesn’t automatically mean they feel superior to you. This comment is giving me the feeling you’re just looking for an excuse to rag on vegans, when they’re not even the ones who started the discussion.
Ok but how are plants not being exploited?
Also it could be said that you can get meat without exploiting animals, such as getting rid of invasive species.
At a certain point it’s not a diet it’s an ideology, and I feel they should have separate names. Because let’s say you’re just against exploitation of living organisms, then you’d be fine with eating invasive species, or meat hunted yourself, but deny eating anything from a farm.
They are a living creature, so no, eating them is not vegan. It’s not about the capacity of the animal to feel pain, it’s about the capacity of humans to harm animals that most vegans take issue with, at least most that I know. Just because something can’t feel pain, does that mean we should hurt it? I’m not vegan myself, and I don’t think it’s inherently wrong for omnivores to eat meat, but I do think that it doesn’t matter if the animal can supposedly feel pain or not. We don’t need to go looking for excuses to hurt other living creatures needlessly.
Bacterias are living creatures as well, yet I doubt most vegans have an issue with them
edit: I don’t even know why I picked bacterias as an example when I could just have chosen plants, which are by definition alive too
Maybe we don’t have the same definition of hurting, but I can’t see how “hurting” works with something that can’t feel pain. Like can you hurt a chair ?
I’m not sure what you expect vegans to eat then. They can only reduce the harm they cause so much. Drawing the line at creatures that move around and actively interact with their environment, including avoiding injury and reacting to negative stimulus, is easier than trying to subsist on, like, nothing. As for bacteria, we can’t like, see them, or avoid them. It’s literally impossible to not ingest them. Plus the only time we actually target bacteria is when it’s harming us, and it’s not like vegans don’t believe in enacting self defense against something that attacked you first. But we can pretty easily avoid eating jellyfish. It in fact takes more effort to eat jellyfish than it does to not eat jellyfish. I mean you can try to get pedantic about it, like whether plants avoid negative stimulus or whatever, but again, vegans have to eat something, or they’d, y’know, die. Jellyfish can have an observable avoidant reaction to harm. It’s a relatively simple line to draw when you have to draw one somewhere.
And no, you can’t hurt a chair, because a chair is an inanimate object. There are humans who don’t have the ability to feel pain, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be hurt, as in harmed. It also doesn’t make them the same as a chair.
Do you have to, though?
If you decide you want to be vegan then yes. If you don’t want to be vegan then I guess it’s up to you whether you want to draw a line anywhere or not, or where that line is.
That actually makes a lot of sense, i’ll probably steal some of your points for future debates :)
Are plants creatures, tho?
Bacteria aren’t animals. Veganism is an ideology of animal rights and excluding animals from exploitation. Bacteria and plants are out of scope
oh it makes more sense with this definition instead of just “living beings”
Vegan logic
They didn’t say anything about feeling morally superior, they just explained where and why many vegans differentiate between plants, bacteria, and animals. And let’s not pretend that other people, including non vegans, don’t also draw these lines at any other point, and don’t only bring up these supposed areas of debate whenever veganism is brought up. It’s a personal choice based on personal motivations, just because someone holds a different view from you that doesn’t automatically mean they feel superior to you. This comment is giving me the feeling you’re just looking for an excuse to rag on vegans, when they’re not even the ones who started the discussion.
Ok but how are plants not being exploited? Also it could be said that you can get meat without exploiting animals, such as getting rid of invasive species. At a certain point it’s not a diet it’s an ideology, and I feel they should have separate names. Because let’s say you’re just against exploitation of living organisms, then you’d be fine with eating invasive species, or meat hunted yourself, but deny eating anything from a farm.
deleted by creator