What is the Best Argument Against Veganism?

I think the short and decent live would be preferable to non-existence, but as I suggested, I don't think truly humane meat production has much commercial viability so this is mostly a philosophic, rather than practical, matter for the vast majority of people. I don't think womb time is relevant, it takes a bit for all mammals to develop after they are born.

Yes, and their mother's milk helps this. Instead of ripping the newborn calf from its mother and bottlefeeding it so humans can steal the infants's milk...
 
Yes, and their mother's milk helps this. Instead of ripping the newborn calf from its mother and bottlefeeding it so humans can steal the infants's milk...
Not sure how that relates to what I was discussing, I guess you were just taking an opportunity to cite a vegan meme. But the reality is that dairy farmers don't need to steal the milk of calves, you can milk cows while they fed their calves and this is what was done for thousands of years. It is only when farmers are trying to maximize profit, rather than the well being of their cows, that they will take the calves away and bottle feed them.

An argument against intensive factory farming is not an argument against the use of animals in general.
 
And I do believe animals enjoy their lives, even though I doubt very much that they fear death
A couple of hours in a slaughter house would change your mind on the latter, Tom.

'Terror' would be a better word than 'fear', mind.

'Terrified shitless', being 100% literaly accurate, would be a better term still.
 
Not sure how that relates to what I was discussing, I guess you were just taking an opportunity to cite a vegan meme. But the reality is that dairy farmers don't need to steal the milk of calves, you can milk cows while they fed their calves and this is what was done for thousands of years. It is only when farmers are trying to maximize profit, rather than the well being of their cows, that they will take the calves away and bottle feed them.

An argument against intensive factory farming is not an argument against the use of animals in general.

I was addressing your comment about mammals needing development time after birth. The milk of the mother mammal aids this process by nourishing the baby, keeping it close thus warm and safe, and giving antibodies not developed in the womb to the nursling.

The reality of dairy today is that the vast majority of cow's milk consumed in the west is not from happy cows donating their excess milk after their calf is sated at the teat.
 
I was addressing your comment about mammals needing development time after birth. The milk of the mother mammal aids this process by nourishing the baby, keeping it close thus warm and safe, and giving antibodies not developed in the womb to the nursling.
That comment was made in relation to another comment, namely, whether it would be better off for a animal to have experienced womb time rather than not existing at all. I don't think so, because the full range of experiences aren't observed until the animal is developed which doesn't occur for sometime after birth. The degree to which breast milk, rather than formula, aid in develop isn't that relevant to this issue but cows, like humans, can be raised on formula.

The reality of dairy today is that the vast majority of cow's milk consumed in the west is not from happy cows donating their excess milk after their calf is sated at the teat.
Sure, most milk comes from factory farms, but an argument against factory farms isn't an argument against using animals for their milk in general. Many people have the means to keep dairy cows or goats on their land and express their milk. Also historically calves weren't pulled away from their mothers, that is instead a recent practice done to maximize profit.
 
What I don't get, is why vegans would want to come up with the best argument against veganism.

Unless it's an opportunity to:
Discuss rebuttals to comments made by omnis against veganism, or
Just to have an echo chamber where everyone agrees that there is no good argument against veganism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52
^^^ this... perplexed me from the get go.
 
What I don't get, is why vegans would want to come up with the best argument against veganism.

Unless it's an opportunity to:
Discuss rebuttals to comments made by omnis against veganism, or
Just to have an echo chamber where everyone agrees that there is no good argument against veganism.


maybe just to debate the pros and cons. Nothing wrong with that, but maybe this thread should be in the debates forum.
 
What I don't get, is why vegans would want to come up with the best argument against veganism.

Unless it's an opportunity to:
Discuss rebuttals to comments made by omnis against veganism, or
Just to have an echo chamber where everyone agrees that there is no good argument against veganism.
I asked flyingsnail this before. S/he (unsure) said that vegans, by eating vegetables where inadvertently animals are killed in harvesting, etc, but not eating honey, we are somehow wrong.
 
What I don't get, is why vegans would want to come up with the best argument against veganism.

Unless it's an opportunity to:
Discuss rebuttals to comments made by omnis against veganism, or
Just to have an echo chamber where everyone agrees that there is no good argument against veganism.

^^^ this... perplexed me from the get go.

I find it helpful to know if other people think there are valid and convincing arguments against veganism. As I said the health argument for veganism is very weak. People have made comments to me about my veganism and in the past my vegetarianism and I would like to make sure I have an answer if I'm asked an awkward question.:)
 
I asked flyingsnail this before. S/he (unsure) said that vegans, by eating vegetables where inadvertently animals are killed in harvesting, etc, but not eating honey, we are somehow wrong.
I'm not sure how that conversation ties into what bean said but what I claimed is that its inconsistent for vegans to avoid honey while consuming crops that depend on harvested bee colonies for their cultivation (e.g., almonds, berries, etc).
 
Also historically calves weren't pulled away from their mothers, that is instead a recent practice done to maximize profit.

This is accurate.

Also, it is not necessary to continually impregnate cows in order to get them to produce milk. They need to bear one calf, and then they will continue to produce milk for however long that they are milked, whether or not they ever again have a calf. If they cease to be milked, they will eventually stop producing milk, but the milking needs to be stopped gradually, over time, to avoid agonizing pain and serious health problems, including likely death.

The repeated impregnation is also a fairly recent practice to maximize "production" and therefore profit.

Note that this is not intended as a comment on the ethics of using cows for milk, but people should be aware of the facts so that they don't look ignorant in their discussions about the ethics. It's easy to dismiss someone as an emotionally overwrought crank if s/he is ignorant of basic facts.
 
There is a problem with this, while it applies to some degree to hunted animals, farmed animals will cease to exist once we stop using them for food. So is non-existence preferable to an early death?
I mentioned someplace else (it might have been on another board) that if domestic animals were no longer bred, there would be habitat for wild animals to move into. Besides, if domestic animals were no longer being eaten, it wouldn't necessarily mean their extinction, although I suppose there would be far fewer of them.

And I'm still not seeing how someone could care about an animal's welfare and be okay with deliberately killing them in most cases. I even want to see veterinary hospice care (as a possible alternative to euthanasia) available for the animals we care about when they are nearing the end of their lives.
 
I mentioned someplace else (it might have been on another board) that if domestic animals were no longer bred, there would be habitat for wild animals to move into. Besides, if domestic animals were no longer being eaten, it wouldn't necessarily mean their extinction, although I suppose there would be far fewer of them.
Part of the habitat would have to be converted to plant crops, after all, people would have to replace meat by eating more plant crops and a lot of is land that isn't rich in wild-life to begin with. For example, a lot of cattle options in the central valley of California and this is a dry area with little water. But I'm sure wild-life would move back in to at least some of the habitat but the numbers would be much less. I don't think its a question of their extinction, but whether a short and decent live is better than non-existence.

And I'm still not seeing how someone could care about an animal's welfare and be okay with deliberately killing them in most cases. I even want to see veterinary hospice care (as a possible alternative to euthanasia) available for the animals we care about when they are nearing the end of their lives.
If you view the killing of animals for human ends as inhumane regardless of how its done, then these two issues aren't going to be separate. But this is a particular point of view that joins these two issues, ethically they are separate matters.

I prefer euthanasia for pets, unlike humans we have no way to know just how much pain, etc they are in.
 
Also, it is not necessary to continually impregnate cows in order to get them to produce milk. They need to bear one calf, and then they will continue to produce milk for however long that they are milked, whether or not they ever again have a calf. If they cease to be milked, they will eventually stop producing milk, but the milking needs to be stopped gradually, over time, to avoid agonizing pain and serious health problems, including likely death.
Yes, this is a common myth that one often hears when people are trying to demonize dairy....especially to vegetarians. The idea, I guess, is to associate dairy with meat...namely veal. I find the ubiquity of this belief a bit surprising since humans will produce milk more or less indefinitely after they've given birth so long as milk is continuously expressed.
 
Yes, this is a common myth that one often hears when people are trying to demonize dairy....especially to vegetarians. The idea, I guess, is to associate dairy with meat...namely veal. I find the ubiquity of this belief a bit surprising since humans will produce milk more or less indefinitely after they've given birth so long as milk is continuously expressed.

yes, but if you do buy dairy products you are supporting the process, whether that process is necessary or not.

Dairy can smell of meat, strangely...when I passed a rotting deer at the side of the road, last year, it smelled like some smells I experience at the milk bottling plant, I worked at once.....maybe it is the white cells in the milk, rotting?
 
yes, but if you do buy dairy products you are supporting the process, whether that process is necessary or not.
You mean when you buy standard dairy products from the grocery store? Sure....but you can buy other dairy that isn't from factory farms or raise your own animals.

Dairy can smell of meat, strangely...when I passed a rotting deer at the side of the road, last year, it smelled like some smells I experience at the milk bottling plant, I worked at once.....maybe it is the white cells in the milk, rotting?
I've never noticed this but I was never a bin fan of milk and never drank much, I use silk unsweetened soy milk on my cereal. But cheese, something I ate a good deal of growing up, can smell like feet!