Is Veganism the Best Way to Reduce Suffering?

[invincibleIJIN]

In general, I consider myself a vegan. I don't eat meat, cheese, eggs, or animal products if I have an alternative. I do, however, sometimes eat certain candy bars, baked goods at events, etc... which have a small amount of butter, milk, or eggs in them. My reasoning is that if everyone on the planet reduced their consumption to the same extent as I did the animal agriculture industry would collapse and so the use of such products would cease to occur. Am I wrong to think so? Is reinforcing the idea of a "purity in veganism" counterproductive in convincing others to simply reduce consumption? Should I simply assume every baked good at an event (potluck, wedding, grad party, etc...) is not vegan, or should I inquire about every item, or should I simply accept that a small part of said baked goods is composed of a comparitively small amount of animal products? Should veganism be treated as a boycott (in which market demand is the focus) or as something else.

Whenever I tell people I'm vegan, one of the most common responses I get is something like, Wow, good for you. I could never do that! I usually tell them that while I also used to think I could never be vegan, as it turned out, going vegan was much, much easier — and selfishly beneficial — than I ever would have imagined. I went vegan for ethical reasons, after I finally faced the video footage of the way animals are used and abused for our consumption. It wasn't until after I made the decision that I found out there were actually a bunch of selfish benefits to being vegan, too.


While I still think the humane and environmental reasons to go vegan are most important, going vegan for its health benefits is great, too — and had I known about some of these potential benefits earlier, I probably would have changed my diet sooner. Whether you're concerned about preventing cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and death — or you'd simply like to feel more at home in your own body and in line with your values — there are so many reasons to give a plant-based diet a try.
You'll Significantly Lower Your Risk Of Cance
You'll Lower Your Risk Of Heart Disease
You Won't Be Consuming Dangerous Sex Hormones
You'll Lower Your Risk Of Diabetes
You'll Lower Your Risk Of Food Poisoning

[Lay Vegan]

I think you're writing more fanatically about this than I am, so maybe if you're trying to convince me that I'm the fanatic, then try not doing that. 

This is a poor attempt (tu quoque) to dismiss criticism of dogmatic behavior that alienates everyone, including other vegans. You seem incapable of countering anything I say, so you pivot the criticism back at me.

Your logical fallacy is; https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

I’ve explained in detail why obsessively scanning food labels for non-vegan micro ingredients is completely unnecessary and sometimes does more harm than good. The only sensible advice to give @DaRock would be not to worry too much about doing this. The goal of veganism is to reduce animal suffering to a reasonable degree. Anything beyond that (asking waiters to change gloves & annoying shop owners about the origins of the .002 grams of *possibly derived* xanthum gum) makes us look crazy, and isn’t likely to have any significant economic impact anyway. Again, if you have a legitimate allergy, there would be a reason too be cautious (your safety) but otherwise is pointless.

I also debunked your silly notion about “purity veganism.” If you can’t actually counter what I’m saying, then the conversation will end here.

Should I also ask if you read what I wrote because you still don't have the same opinion as me?

Clearly I'm reading your posts, since I'm taking the time to respond in pieces. No, it’s clear that we have different opinions, the problem is that your opinion is groundless; and you haven’t actually defended it. While I don’t care that some people prefer to eat a 100% “pure” vegan diet, problems occur in daily interactions with non-vegans, especially when these interactions are at non-vegan establishments. Vegans are already a minority group, so displaying obsessive behavior about what’s in your food will inevitably paint a bad image for the rest of us. Especially when the animal products present have virtually NO economic impact (as in the case of pre-buttered pans) and pose no health risk.

this topic is about reducing suffering, so I don't think it hurts that cause to be more particular about doing...

You're not reducing suffering by dogmatically requiring that your food be cooked on separate pans. It's common practice for chefs to prepare vegan burgers on pre-buttered pans. It's also common practice for french fries to be cooked in oils with animal fats. This doesn't increase demand in animal products. Actually by being so unreasonable, you may be doing more harm by making severs less inclined to cater to vegans in the future.

If you want to be vegan to the "highest possible standard" then please do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and stop eating at non vegan establishments.

(and it isn't all or nothing, just the best you can I think—well, If you don't like looking things up, fine, but telling me all about how it should be condemned is probably as much work to repeat as being fanatical in the first place).

Yikes, looks like you’ve doubled down on your tu quoque fallacy. And you’ve also provided no evidence or reasoning behind it.

Reading may not be your thing, but I suggest taking a look at that PETA article. If you respond once more without refuting my claims, and provide no counter-evidence then the conversation will end here.

[cornivore]

Clearly I'm reading your posts, since I'm taking the time to respond in pieces.

Thanks a lot! I think you're taking things out of context and being overly rhetorical about this, to the point of whatever fanaticism you're accusing me of for looking up what ingredients are animal derived (whether you want to call it something else, you're being too particular about not being particular). Well whoopadee doo to you. Why do you care (yet not)? I don't really see your point to that extent. Fine if you don't want to scare people away who might not want to bother, but beyond that what you're saying is nonsense, and more fanatical to that end. If people want to be vegan they shouldn't be allergic to looking up any information. It's a really simple concept and doesn't need pages to be written over it, beyond the references themselves, because there are a lot of ingredients (not that they have to be memorized, most people have phones and will stand in my way in stores looking stuff up anyway). Why not include the dictionary and call people fanatics for looking up words too, instead of simply redefining and misusing them? People do that constantly, but I don't agree with it either (besides some puns in good humor, and what you're trying to say is a bunch of bowel shit—there's one, ironically, because it really isn't, especially if you're eating bull shit). You want to call every person who buys a reference book a fanatic, apparently, so I think this was anti-intellectual to begin with. I'm not even trying to be intellectual about it though, and the point I was making initially was that the best way to reduce suffering is in as many ways as we can, and veganism is one of the ways (as is vegetarianism to whatever extent). If you'd rather say vegetarianism is the same difference, I don't know why you're even talking about veganism. I can understand that people may not have enough time to research everything before making a decision about what to eat, but that you'd spend any time criticizing someone for doing so is ridiculousy hypocritical to me. But I don't take it personally, as long as you're talking about reducing suffering, then good for you too.