Philosophical Vegan Forum

I don’t think @Jebus would make this kind of argument because he’s referring to nutritional arguments for veganism, not reducetarianism (see directly below).

Jebus wrote:You are much more likely to have success in convincing someone to try a plant-based diet if you focus on the nutritional benefits.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:58 pm @Jebus I think the most compelling argument against using the nutritional argument is this:
Unintended consequences. People will often not take the whole message, and may just focus on the strongest points -- like the health harm of beef. If people end up not consuming beef because of those arguments and replace it with chicken, that could increase animal suffering because it takes more chickens to produce the same amount of meat, and they're arguably treated worse than cows.

Don't know if that's true or not, but it's something worth considering. The ethical argument is more likely to reduce meat across the board.

I agree that bad news for red meat usually means bad news for chickens, but from what I’ve seen many “dietary vegans" naively assume animal products in general are carcinogenic, and would probably not even bother to distinguish between red meat and poultry/fish (as WHO does in their monograph).

Basically, they’ll usually misinterpret reports like this to argue that all animal products cause cancer in order to scare people away from meat. https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

That said, I’m wondering if the environmental arguments pose similar problems, particularly if cattle are reported to produce more carbon/methane emissions and consume more resources than chickens. What are your thoughts on that?

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:01 pm I don’t think @Jebus would make this kind of argument because he’s referring to nutritional arguments for veganism, not reducetarianism

???The arguments for veganism and reducetarianism are the same, i.e. a plant based diet is more healthful.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:58 pmThe ethical argument is more likely to reduce meat across the board.

Or cause resentment and make certain individuals eat even more meat.

The thing that I like about the nutritional argument is that I can use it in all types of situations. I probably would have been fired a long time ago had I promoted the ethical superiority of a vegan diet while at work.

Jebus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:45 pm ???The arguments for veganism and reducetarianism are the same, i.e. a plant based diet is more healthful.

The distinction is that vegans health arguments typically focus on elimination, whereas reduceitarian health arguments focus on smaller, more incremental changes. In my experience dietary vegans use the nutritional argument to convince people to stop eating meat altogether, not to eat less meat, or to “switch” from beef to poultry/fish.

Mic the Vegan has continually argued that a plant-based diet is healthy and all meat = cancer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlhJU57KUdQ

I don’t think his overall argument was “It’s OK, just eat less meat!” or “Just eat chicken and fish instead” but rather “A vegan diet provides health benefits because it’s completely void of carcinogenic meat.”

The point is that people aren't necessarily going to believe one source, but they're going to kind of average out everything they hear, so the signal from vegans that all meat is bad may just trigger change against beef because they've heard elsewhere that been is bad and chicken is good.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:01 pm That said, I’m wondering if the environmental arguments pose similar problems, particularly if cattle are reported to produce more carbon/methane emissions and consume more resources than chickens. What are your thoughts on that?

Beef is the stand out culprit, but most animal products are an issue because they're all inefficient ways to convert food. Chickens, unlike cows, can't derive energy from cellulose, so they need a lot of feed in the form of things like corn and soy meals which are essentially human grade foods (if they'd been handled more carefully). The fundamental argument of feeding animals being inefficient still applies, and the issue of waste management still applies too. The only exception would be chickens feeding on pests or weeds (since it requires no inputs).

The difference in health factors is perceived to be much larger than the environmental difference, with chicken actually seen as healthy.