being vegan is a first world eating disorder.

I gained this insight after being vegan for 6 months.



and yes, I was a level 6 vegan. didn't eat anything that cast a shadow

So, ocassionally ground hog was ok?

The we shall eat in the dark!

You're not the boss of we!

And this is how fetish/horror movies start.

The point is taken, but yeesh this was one sided and pretty poorly thought out.

How can the consensual bring up slavery without realizing that a culture that rapes women is a slave culture? And if this society really does mirror our vegan/non-vegan society except with rape, how are there really any women available to be consensuals? How do some women avoid being rape slaves?

Aside from that minor world building quibble, the rapist guys come across as rancid, ignorant people and our perfect vegan, I mean consensual, is thoughtful, open minded, progressive and ethical.

This was clearly made for vegans and not to convert anyone, because even the most casual meat eater or vegan leaning omnivore is not going to be converted by a rape analogy. It's just so ridiculous and asks people to think about a normal and integral part of life as a repugnant crime.

The fact that animal husbandry has been transformed from a way of life to a factory system was inevitable due to population growth. People can't even imagine that factory farming as we know it has only been around for perhaps a hundred years and could, literally, be eradicated in as little as a hundred more. 200 or 300 years of bad practices compared to the time span that humans have been farming animals is pretty reasonable, in perspective.

The film was just so heavy handed and picked an analogy that almost no one could find acceptable. It's not like there aren't many people who would considerd veganism/vegetarianism if our society made it as convenient as meat eating. Obviously a more "fair" analogy wouldn't be as shocking and as worth talking about, and clearly going as far as paedophilia or black slavery wouldn't be acceptable to "norms".

I suppose the worst part of it all is that there is very real sex slavery of women and children going on, but this filmmaker still wanted to give a tongue in cheek poke at meat eating.

"if our society made it as convenient as meat eating" very much my feelings on the subject. If someone could make a fast food joint selling $2 vegetable-based cheeseburgers that tasted remotely decent (because wtf does McDonalds even taste like? Def not beef), it'd probably do pretty damn well. I eat mostly vegetables, with meats being a flavoring or condiment more than main dish, due to health concerns and the increasing cost of good-tasting meat. But vegetables take considerably more work than just browning meat and tossing in some starchy veg, and Americans are lazy as hell. I wondered if Soylent might meet this lazy-vegetable market, but other than mixing it with Coffee, it does taste rather bad.

The first few types of Soylent were pretty tasty - like an oatmeal shake. But they've toned down the flavor over time so that you can add your own like putting in some chocolate or cinnamon or whatever flavoring. Syolent 2.0 is all right, but not something that I'd say is "Not bad actually" like early Soylents.

For those of us who eat meat and are actively engaged in ensuring high quality of life for the animals who's flesh and byproducts we consume, I think filial canabalism would be a more fitting allegory.

It may be too abstract, that I can't imagine filial cannibalism being presented as realistically, believably ingrained as rape is in this video, which is integral.

The concept of "high quality of life for the animals" is addressed by the film's "But I only get women from facilities where they get spacious living quarters and access to natural sunlight! Some even get to roam freely in a fenced-in yard! And they give them names!"

I think that's where I found their metaphor to fall apart. It is possible to kill something humanely, and without suffering.

There is no rape without pain and suffering, often with long-term negative effects on the victim.

The other part I disagreed with was the argument that rape is for endorphins, which are beneficial but not essential. On a primal level meat can be necessary for sustenance, which is essential to life. Rapists don't rape out of necessity, it's a hate crime and in this instance, it's presented as an especially violent act.

That's another part that I found insulting. The douchebag character brags to the consensual that he raped a girl until she couldn't even scream anymore. If the metaphor is to hold true, that implies meat eaters get satisfaction, chose to, and even prefer that the animal suffer as well as provide intended sustenance.

Imagine you have several magical Bessy the Bovine animals (cows that regenerate meat cut from them instantly and even enjoy the experience) providing meat for the entire world. You don't honestly think for a second meat-eaters would be like, "Noooooo! It has to suffffffer!".

Everyone queasy about dead animals in their mouth has had at least one douchebag grin that very grin and lean in to bite down in a burger and moan Ooohhhh... so delicious and really rub in how they love it all bloody. It's a trope of mocking contempt, not desire.

Is that a projection or reality? Do you think someone enjoying the taste of rare cooked meat is mocking the dead animal and has contempt for it? Maybe I don't understand.

I think the douchebag in this case is mocking the vegan, not the dead animal.

Which again makes the comparison completely fall apart...

The comparison seems spot on to me. The guy in the film dripping exaggerated spittle for the feigned torment of his rape lust is trolling someone who cares about his victims, which he considers enjoyable products he regularly purchases and whatever.

Outside of straight up psycho killers, please find me anyone that has mocked a rape victim by raping someone in front of them and going "oooo! So good!" or similar.

Thanks.

I think you're missing the point. The goal of this person doing the raping or burger eating has nothing to do with eating or raping; it's trolling the other person. It could be someone eating a chocolate chip muffin and dropping most of it on the ground in front of someone who is very hungry or throwing trash on the ground in front of someone who hates littering.

It's not the act itself, it's being a dick to make someone else mad.

Yeah, and that has 0 relevance to real life when it comes to rape. I didn't miss the point, I am saying the point is being poorly, and insultingly made.

It's a replacement of one awful thing most don't care about with another awful thing which most do, as a learning tool.

Yes, I get it.

It's still poor taste and insulting, with literally no parallel to real life.

Sorry, I get you feel strongly about it, but I will personally eat an entire cow just to piss off the person that decided this was a good way to convey this concept to anyone.

Ah. For me, the positions played here in the intentionally ridiculous scenario are near perfect parallels to real life, which is why I posted it. Others here seem to have what it takes to also empathize. For example, it shows how someone can reject the premise of another so strongly as to be overwhelmed with the spite to hurt themselves and others.

See, it's because the premise is insulting that I am willing to be spiteful. As someone that knows sexual assault survivors, and is one, I really don't like my tragedy being compared to a fucking hamburger.

This is not me just being an ass and hating vegans, normally, I wouldn't give a shit how someone feels about their food or mine. However, it is because of the tactics used by vegans (pseudoscience, appeals to emotion, and well... THIS) that I feel like damage SHOULD be done to people's worldview and feelings that would readily do this.

I hope you find some healing for your own damage.

mechanical contrivance has it right. They give no thought whatever toward a product like an animal. The joy is in trolling someone who would.

The only possible reason I can imagine someone doing that would be in response to a vegan trying to push their beliefs on the guy just trying to enjoy his meal.

Try imagining a little harder, something like "No, thanks, I don't eat meat." "No? Why not?! It's soooo delicious." The film captured my experience fairly well, obviously cranked up several notches for reception.

Some people are dicks. That's not hard to imagine.

The raper's position that rape is for endorphins was a tongue-in-cheek direct swap out for the oft call for protein, which is well abundant enough in plants. Beyond rare circumstances we need never face, meat is not necessary for sustenance, is only an easy pleasure at others' expense.

Of the billions killed yearly, how many do you believe were treated like family, lived happily, lives ended short without suffering? How about in your grocery store, among the stacks of plasticized muscle and canned soups? The film addressed the question better, I thought, during the clip referencing the middleman's niece.

Do you really not see how offensive it is to equate women to meat?

Comparing is not equating, of course. That's not how analogies work.

That is the implication when you make a comparison. Can you not see how offensive it is to even suggest that women are comparable to meat?

Really, this is the crux of the issue, I think. You're horrified that I would eat something that can respond to stimuli. I'm horrified that you would value human life so little as to consider it at all like livestock.

The comparison is how you hopefully feel when watching this video, believing the world it presents during its short time, to how vegans feel daily. It's being alone.

No one here or you've ever met has ever considered human life as livestock. That should be obvious to you, foobar.

This may help you:
http://imgur.com/a/BqPzT

All right, I'll bite. In what non-offensive way are women comparable to meat?

Both contain muscle.

Yeah, I really wasn't expecting you to have an answer.

I agree with slaytanik; I think the film's spin on quality of life doesn't hold up. The chickens, pigs and cows I eat lead pretty damned great lives, and when it comes time to die, it's over in seconds. No one abuses them and leaves them traumatized for life. No one inflicts pain and suffering for their own enjoyment. In fact, they do their very best to avoid it all together.

None of my friends and family that have died went out anywhere near so well as the creatures I eat; instead, they suffered long, drawn out, painful and humiliating slogs to the grave. A quickly slit throat or a pneumatic bolt through the skull would have been far more merciful.

I'm all for reducing my own meat consumption, primarily for ecological, economic and health reasons, but I have no moral problem with eating animal products when done humanely. I do realize that I have the luxury of eating animals raised on farms within easy driving distance of my home. I have the good fortune of meeting the animals and the farmers who raise them. I have the financial resources to pay an extra 30% for meat and dairy products to cover the reduced efficiency of production. (Although I probably eat significantly less than half as much of those same products as the average American, so I'm probably actually saving money.)

Anyway, I think the film is very clever, and maybe it will have some positive impact. I think most of the criticisms expressed in this thread are probably due to the fact that we are not really the intended demographic. Many of us have already thought quite a bit about the morality of animal consumption and come to our own conclusions. This film is targeted to those who have always taken it for granted.

Just wanted to say I'm similar on meat consumption. Paying an extra 30-50% for better quality, local meat really isn't the cost it sounds like. Tastes so much better I never eat as much of it.

Also seafood, especially the small critters, generally tastes outstanding, while involving much less cruelty and ecological impact. My vegetarian friends don't muster anywhere near the opposition to sea-bugs. Sad that some people are so allergic.

I would say that this isn't targeted at people considering veganism/vegetarianism, but rather it's a feel good film for vegans and a real display of moral superiority.

Yeah, I think there's a big dose of that in there, too. I don't think it's targeted at people considering it, but at those who have never really thought about it.

It's a film presenting what it feels like to be a vegan in today's society. Vegan's already know what it feels like, indeed probably appreciate having a shared experience, as I did. It uses analogy and exaggeration to help others understand as well.

And that's exactly why people can't take vegans seriously.

Why, because of the exaggeration?

Yeah man. I mean, I get that you can draw a very tenuous connection between the rape of humans and the killing and eating of animals for food.

However, pretty much throughout history and up until maybe a hundred years or so ago, humans didn't farm and slaughter and consume animals the way we do now. Our current animal product state is a historical anomaly. It's not very a pleasant a lot of the time and it's maybe not necessary, but it's really difficult for most people to put it on the same level as rape.

And if vegans want to think that those of us that use animal products are "raping" the animals, I get that too. I do. But don't call me a rapist for it, don't even subtly suggest I'm a rapist because that is about the worst way to get me on your side. (not you specifically)

The way to get me on your side is to get us to a point where healthy vegetarian choices are easy, wide spread and affordable.

If I could walk into a fast food joint and spend 4 bucks for a snack that was not only vegetarian, but tasty, healthy and low cal I would do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, the raw vegan places expect me to put out $15 to $20 for the same amount of food as I'd get for $4 somewhere else.

That's what needs to change to really get people moving that way. It's not that we're all so in love with meat and rape, it's that meat is, first and foremost, tasty as fuck to a lot of us, and it's an relatively affordable and filling protein for a lot of people. Obviously protein can be had from vegetable sources, but for a vast swath of humanity, meat is "normal" and not something they should feel bad about eating.

Ideologically I agree with vegan/vegetarianism, but it's not easy and it's not cheap. I bought a raw cookbook years ago to try and make more stuff for my vegetarian leaning towards vegan ex-wife and soooo many of the recipes were about approximating meat recipes and required a lot of steps, a lot of prep, a food deyhdrator and a lot of time. It was prohibitively inconvenient to eat that way without going all in.

All this to say that yeah, proselytizing vegans are hard to take seriously, especially when they say they feel like they live in a world where everyone rapes women but them.

My experience is the opposite of yours. I'm not vegetarian or vegan, but I tend not to buy meat for the sake of money and convenience. I'm cheap and lazy, so I buy food that's cheap and fast to prepare and clean up after. It just so happens that most of those foods don't have meat in them.

Taco Bell has bean burritos and 7-layer burritos. McDonald's here has a 2€ decent enough vegan sandwich. As there becomes more demand for it, there are increasing options. Thought pieces like this film spur demand.

The vegan raw bio places are indeed crazy expensive, and unnecessary. The cheapest foods in the world are vegan and the healthiest: beans, rice, veggies, fruits, grains, etc. Once you stop seeing animal products as food, then all food is vegan and people everywhere around you are unbelievably putting dead animals in their mouths.

Taco Bells are few and fare between in Canada and the only vegetarian options at McD's are things like fries, muffins and one salad. Not really what I would call healthy and cheap eats.

Ultimately, I guess that's where people like you and I differ. To me, there's nothing wrong with putting dead animals in my mouth, as long as it's cooked the way I like it. Humans have literally been doing it for tens of thousands of years.

I'm sorry you don't have or know of healthy and cheap foods convenient enough that you may easily abstain from unnecessarily hurting animals and our environment.

As humans evolve cultures in directions considered more civilized, they reevaluate and push to leave behind what is judged unethical whenever doing so becomes possible. For example: wars, slavery, rape, theft, hunting animals to extinction, forcing animals to fight for our entertainment, etc. If pigs were reevaluated as having the same rights as dogs, to whom they are roughly equivalent in intelligence and ability, that would be an enormous improvement on many levels beyond the pleasure and ease of taking from those weaker than us.

Dude, fuck off with your self righteous moralizing.

I don't find eating animals unethical. Treating/raising/slaughtering them inhumanely is unethical, but eating them is not.

This is why, although I disagree, I have sympathy for people who are anti-abortion.

Having a religious family helped me empathize with that one: abortion = baby murder. Also sympathizing with their despair for my soul in ever-fire.

It's a tricky spot having such depth of concern within a mocking community, facing contempt for best intentions while remaining involved and somehow unjaded.

That might help you see why this is offensive. Do you not see protesting outside an abortion clinic as disrespectful?

Sure it is, but from their POV, saving lives is far more important than being respectful of murderers. If I thought abortion was murder, I'd feel the same way.

I think war is murder, but I don't heckle someone in uniform on the street.

Would you if you thought it might actually save a life? Seriously.

Hell, it might.

Then I think you are morally obligated to start heckling, foo.

Or I could recognize that people can disagree without getting personal and nasty. Plus, I can save a life by donating 30 cents to the Red Cross, but I'm not doing that either.

According to the vegan *ahem* consensual, just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should.

That cuts both ways.

Agreed. I get grief here for even saying that I have close friends and family whom I respect, even though they have very different beliefs than I do. I love a few Trump voters, a couple of Catholic priests, a lobbyist, and quite a few vegans, among others. None of them are stupid, ignorant people, and because I do care deeply for them, I can't help but sympathize.

I've gone vegetarian for brief stints, and had no big issue with it per se- but we are omnivores by nature, and animal protein is supposed to be in our diets. Our human bodies cannot synthesize B12, which is one of the important ones.

A friend of my wife went vegan for a time and found that she was feeling gradually more ill as time went on. One day she ate a piece of chicken and her ills went away. She's now mainly vegetarian, but incorporates some chicken into her diet. This is a highly educated woman, frighteningly smart, one who grew up on a farm and raised her own chickens and currently lives in one of the developing nations where she still has to kill her own dinner.

In essence, I'm not willing to take the plunge into being vegetarian or vegan because I'm not convinced that it's truly healthy. I realize that in India there are people who are full on vegetarian and seem to live just fine that way, but unless I had been raised that way I'm not sure it would work for me.

Oh, and my niece as a child ate what my sister ate, which was low fat everything and low calorie stuff and started getting ill. Her pediatrician informed my sister that growing kids need those fats and animal proteins for neurological development, so once a week they would go out and get her some chicken nuggets for her health.

B12 pills are super cheap, last years, and have been synthetically made and widely available for ~35 years, actually the very first synthetic vitamin.

I find it odd that there are people who don't take a multivitamin every day.

There are plenty of reports that suggest taking multivitamins is a waste of time and money. It does nothing.

It should be an easy thing to test. Have there been any clinical studies?

B12 floats 50% in your blood and 50% as a reserve in your liver. A few pills should be absorbed enough to last someone months. I've heard it considered adding it to toothpaste like fluoride, we need so little. When people get older and can't absorb it from food as well, B12 shots are becoming regularly recommended, last about 3 years.

Most B12 pills offer something like 20,000% of your daily recommended dosage as there is no taking too much, and what sticks gets stored for later.

So you're agreeing that it's an unhealthy but morally superior diet, and don't worry, we found a work around for the B12 deficiency!

The WHO recommends a vegan diet for health.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/

When someone gets cancer or heart disease, every doctor initially and automatically recommends giving up red meat.

Read the whole thing.

Nowhere does it mention vegansim as being recommended. In fact, it DOES mention cheese and fish (not in excess of course) which I believe you have restricted yourself from in violation of their proposed healthy norms.

SCUBA systems have been available for about a hundred and fifty years, but that doesn't make you a marine mammal any more than those pills stop you from being an omnivore.

I'd like to be
under the sea
In a vegan rapist's garden
in the shade

Maybe I'm missing something- what does this have to do with being a vegan in today's society?

edit- OK 'punch line' at the end. Oh, btw, spoiler alert.

It's an allegory.

Meat is murder rape.

Also, poultry is slavery and fish is grand larceny.

I see you've discovered humans' most characteristic traits.

I hear "meat is rape" is the title of Morrissey's new album

Counterpoint:

If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans - Ultra Spiritual Life episode 35

A better (and shorter) film about being a vegan in today's society:

Mitchell and Webb - Dinner Party

I have the utmost respect for vegetarians/vegans- but I dislike eating out with or cooking for them unless I specifically plan for it.

My problem as a vegan I don't get to keep it for myself. I try to eat my lunch in peace but my collegues make it their topic of conversation. I try to mind my business, but it's the first thing people use when introducing me. HR heard I was vegetarian, so every month when we have company breakfast she makes sure I know where to find the cheese sandwishes. It's horrible how people make it pop to the forefront. I'm also fat, so I get very concious about people paying attention to it.

Horrible.

That's pretty considerate of them if they provide vegan cheese for your sandwiches.

They do not. Regular milk cheese with calf stomach in it. And point is, I don't even want any sandwich. But time and time again that cheese sandwich haunts me.
No one else has the bosses wife coming along, pointing out the cheese sandwiches, or any sandwich for them. But since she heard I am 'vegetarian', clearly I don't want the ham sandwiches.

It's horrible.

"No thanks, I don't want any." does not work btw. I tried that. I prepare and bring my own food, like everyone else. During coffee breaks, the company provides hard bread, cheese, butter and fruit, I go for the fruit, or rusks with peanut butter, once again my own provided. I try the same trick with the montly breakfasts, but I keep getting singled out.

And I'm not alone. Plenty of people don't have the breakfast for a number of reasons. Diets, pregnancies, taste preferences. But since I am the vegan (that must mean, I don't have meat) I clearly must want the cheese sandwich.

I don't want to eat animals or anything squeezed from an animal. I want to eat my own food, not talk about my food preferences to anyone and just let the conversation be about anything else than me being a vegan.

Hate it.

Me being a vegan came out due to a dietary preference list that went along, on which I wrote "vegan, if inconvenient I don't mind going without food" or something like that. And due to people coming along sticking their nose in my colourful plate, asking me "hey, what's this!"
I start telling them "Some beans, lenses, sprouts, carrots an-"
"No meat?"

And the cat was out of the bag. Now I must try to dodge cheese sandwiches.

Renet is made from genetically engineered bacteria these days, not calf stomach. So cheese is vegetarian but not vegan.

Same same. If there is cow milk, somewhere a calf is getting chopped up for it.

Why is a calf getting chopped up to get milk?

Some do, some don't. Basically with dairy farms, male calves that aren't needed for breeding, or kept to become beef or other products become veal.
I like veal.

Dairy cows are all female, and are inseminated periodically to make her pregnant and keep her milk flowing. When she births, her child is taken away directly to be killed.

The male cows make milk, too, if you do it just right.

There's an ancient joke about that, the punchline being something about the dairy cow in the field putting up a fight but actually being a bull.

That's just not true, and besides, it's absurd. Bull calves have value. Why would they be discarded? They live a normal life.

In your link with comic sans font, the male calves are killed likely within a year and a half as a best case scenario.

Then there's this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2152608/Baby-calves-shot-C4-documentary-People-right-complain-dont-inform-food.html

McDonald's won't say, but more than eight months as any younger would be legally veal:
http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/whatmakesmcdonalds/questions/food/animal-welfare/at-what-age-are-the-animals-slaughtered.html

A cow would normally live 15-20 years. Without dairy, these cows would not have been born for slaughter, no matter how early.

You complain about my link to first hand knowledge having a poor taste in typography, and respond with The Daily Mail? I'm not even mad, that's kind of funny.

Looks like 18 months is the standard age to butcher a beef cow. Like I said, they live a full and normal life.

Most renet. The packaging on some cheeses specifies the source of the renet. Some of it is still traditional.

And remember, they do not feel in any way, shape, or form that they are required to show you the courtesy of respecting other's beliefs as you may show them. I.E. You will/must provide vegetarian/vegan options for them. They are under no pretense that they must provide you anything you might believe in.

You may learn something from watching this video

Yeah, I watched it in its entirety. The argument is disingenuous.

First, the "sides" portrayed are extremes. The 'consensual' is simply minding his own business when he is physically assaulted by 'the other side'. Before even starting the conversation the author has created a perpetrator and victim role. Regardless of what the argument will be, creating a sympathetic situation PRIOR to your argument is manipulation of the viewer's empathy. It is no longer about the topic, but about the mean guy versus the nice guy. I could create the same situation by showing two people approaching each other to discuss farm subsidies, with one of the people knocking a full coffee mug out of the other persons hands, having it crash messily to the floor. Regardless of what side you might be on, that's rude and a viewer will set up mental defenses against the perpetrator of such rudeness.

Second, this isn't even good-cop bad-cop. This is bad cop, worse cop. The situation is set up to include a level headed (but obviously confused) speaker for the other side, and a douchebag. The douchebag represents both real and perceived slights experienced by the vegan side. Rudeness, isolation, exclusion, misunderstanding, accusations, superiority, etc. All the worst traits of any majority embodied into one asshole representation. Convienant that the vegan side didn't have any noticeable character flaws, pushiness, 'you brought this up first', 'I would never make my dietary restriction your problem', 'I'm trying to understand you, which is something you're finding too difficult to do for me', 'I'm just repeating your shitty arguments back to you.'

Which brings me to the arguments made by the 'non-consensual'. They're pathetic. They're stuttered, with no thought put into them. "Thing I do is good because it feel good.". That's 5 year old logic, and done on purpose, because this obviously isn't about having a real discussion or comparison. I don't even know what they were trying to imply/compare with the raping women is ok, but someone raping his sister is not ok because 'family'. In a world where this would be allowed, there would be little to no empathy for the female plight. I'm assuming it was a reference to pets? We don't eat pets because 'family'? I digress.

What this comes down to is a dietary restriction by privileged people with different ideals than the general public. That's admirable to have ideals. However, ideals require work (on your part), they require sacrifice (on your part), and when they conflict with the general public you don't get a pass to make grandiose disingenuous comparison arguments to shame people that don't share your ideals.

My original comment is that veganism is a one way street. They want the general public to bend to accommodate their ideals, but they refuse to accommodate the general public (because that is part of the ideal! Convienant!). They have self-imposed dietary restrictions based on their feelings. That's fine, more power to them. However, it is contradictory to want people to accept your diet and then flat out reject theirs.

Furthermore, it is insulting and disgusting to set up a straw man comparison, without anything approaching equal argument, and use violent crime against other human beings as if the two topics are exactly the same. It's shock therapy, not an argument.

Life only survives by destroying other life. The vegans destroy/eat plant life using the exact same arguement as meat eaters. It's 'lesser' life so it's not bad. See? Now I'm simplifying their arguement unfairly, but perhaps turnabout is fair play?

Yes, it is not a documentary, nor is it an argument. Positions were indeed shown as extremes because it's stacking years of experience into twelve minutes. Nearly every story is a manipulation of the consumer's empathy.

Referring to dietary restrictions is a strawman argument, of course. The issue, the moral outrage and disgust, is not for what people put in their mouths but for the suffering of others which brought it there. There is also concern for our shared environment, whether climate change or our ongoing mass extinction of wildlife. The biggest push for lab grown meat or plant-based meat alternatives is from vegans and enviromentalists, allowing everyone to broaden their diets without dietary restriction or such negative impact on others.

What do you mean by the "suffering of others?"

Not to speak for you Nate, but let me take a jab at this.

At best animals are equal to human beings and at worst they are better because they are pure souls incapable of evil. When we eat them, it equates to murder and needless suffering.

If human beings were treated like animals, no one could swallow it down and move on like the consensual in this film and everyone in your life sympathetic to animals. It would all take fire.

Except that the acceptable living standards of animals and humans are quite different.

I think that's where the breakdown in sensitivity between vegans and the general public lies. Somewhere along the line, you (and I expect most vegans) started to believe that animals needed/wanted to be 'free', 'not enslaved to produce products', and 'not eaten'. However, I don't believe animals can know their plight. If all this was being done to humans, they would KNOW what is happening to them and that would be terrible.

Without humans - cows, chickens, etc. would be subject to the laws of nature. They would be hunted/eaten/killed by predators, not quickly mind you, but at the predators whim. They would be in same plight, but their killers wouldn't know what they're doing either. The key here is that the cow, the chicken, etc. wouldn't act ANY differently than they do now. They just don't care, because they can't. You can. You WANT them to care soooo bad. In fact you're going to care FOR them, damn the consequences.

We treat animals better than predators, but less than human. Not a bad deal for a creature who won't know the difference.

Ultimately though, vegans are the ones that have become oversensitive. THEY would not want to be slaves/eaten so NOTHING should be enslaved or eaten. Too far, try again. But you can't, because it's a sensitivity. It doesn't come from the rational part of your brain that you get to control. Instead, the irrational part makes the plea and you come up with the arguments.

If you want to know how WE feel (and yes I am speaking broadly for a large swath of people, so grain of salt please):

Vegans grow asparagus in an unnatural in-line formation of slave kennels, grows them to the ripe fruitful age of maturity, and then plucks them (murders them) from their safe homeland in the ground, then cooks the flesh of the asparagus so that its cruel master might live and his pee might smell. THAT... is how we don't feel. Neither do you. You don't care about plants. Living creatures that you consume en masse to further your bloodline.

We don't mind killing cows, chickens, etc. just like you don't mind killing asparagus.

We're ALL killing things so that we can live, you've just restricted yourself to nothing with a brain because it makes you feel bad. I sleep perfectly well after eating a burger. Both of those feelings are fine. The problem comes in when assholes from either side try to dictate/harass/shame what the other side kills to continue living.

Yes, it would be horrifying to believe what you are eating was born into fear and wished to escape death but had no power to stop it.

If that's how you feel, then don't eat meat.

Don't tell others they shouldn't because it bothers you.

Yeah, comparing someone's taste in food to rape is super respectful.

That is absolutely not the comparison made in this video. Try again?

Care to enlighten me? I skimmed through it, but I'm not going to listen to 12 minutes of dudebros talking about rape.

It isn't comparing their taste in food to rape, more that rape is somewhat morally analogous to killing animals for food. They also seem to make the case that one does not need to kill animals for food in the same way that one does not need to rape women to enjoy sex (consensually).

Furthermore, they demonstrate the supposed experience of vegans in a society dominated by meat eaters intolerant of non-meat eaters.

Your second paragraph is spot on, the analogy used as a tool to present a common vegan perspective socially. As for the first paragraph, I don't believe animal agriculture and rape are being considered morally synonymous, only to spark similar feelings within a broader, empathetic audience.

You may be the first commenter here to have actually watched through the twelve minutes thoughtfully. It's some balm to be understood, thank you.

Not so much synonymous no, but I get that they're trying to demonstrate the moral outrage. Also in a broader way, the idea that we should strive for better in all aspects of our society. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean that it is acceptable. We, as humans, should do better because we know better.

At least that's what I got from it.

In some ways I agree, and in others I don't.

That's the thing; "moral outrage" isn't respectful. It's quite possible for you to hold beliefs on food preparation while also accepting that those who don't share them are morally equivalent to you.

The ethical disquiet is obviously not about people's food preparation.

Sure it is. Fucking Ghandi tried vegan ism and went back to goat cheese and milk. I doubt strongly he had any part in contributing to an animals suffering.

Neither this film, nor anything else supporting animal rights you have faced, was in response to Ghandi's goat or any similar relationship.

The issue, the moral outrage and disgust, is not for what people put in their mouths but for the suffering of others which brought it there. There is also concern for our shared environment, whether climate change or our ongoing mass extinction of wildlife. The biggest push for lab grown meat or plant-based meat alternatives is from vegans and environmentalists, allowing everyone to broaden their diets without dietary restriction or such negative impact on others.
(link)

Yes, it is, and besides, calling people unethical is disrespectful.

. . . more that rape is somewhat morally analogous to killing animals for food.

Um. No. It's not. Not even close, imo. The entire skit was based on a false equivalency. A false equivalency that vegans want omnivores to adopt. It's also using fabricated guilt as leverage. It's disingenuous and manipulative.

And who said omnivores are intolerant of non meat eaters? If anything, vegans are intolerant of omnivores, usually acting morally superior. At least in my experience, anyway. This film is just another example of sanctimonious prothletising a personal interpretation of empathy and the food chain.

I wonder if vegans drink bottled water, use plastic belts and shoes, use the internet, smartphones, or fossil fuels. If society wants to start "feeling" for animals, start with what a territory in Belgium did. Ban Kosher and Halal meat slaughter rituals. Not to mention other socially acceptable behaviors that affect humans. Pets get treated better than humans do in many parts of the world because humans have an emotional connection with dogs or cats. Is that fair? Where does that fall on the empathy scale?

There was no equivalency between actions, only a condescended and exaggerated analogy to create in you the emotional reactions those who try to live without killing other animals face with regularity.

Most vegans suffer disquiet silently, including myself and several SEers who prefer to keep their heads down. The consensual in this film seems representative, and perhaps you would not label him intolerant and accuse him of acting morally superior in his situation and reasoning, as the drunk douchenozzle had.

Kosher and Halal meat kills thousands. Industrialized animal agriculture kills billions. Any start is indeed a good one.

If you are implying, and I hope you are not, that you feel the same level of outrage and "disquiet" from watching me eat a burger, and watching a woman being brutally raped...

If those two "happenings" are on the same level for you; if that makes you "feel" the same way...

We're going to have to agree to disagree. :-/

No, I did not imply that, thank you for asking and not straight assuming.

It's directly comparing food to rape. That's rather the point of the video.

Meat eaters are rarely, if ever, intolerant of non-meat eaters. The entirety of the shade thrown at them is about their intolerant behaviour.

No one cares about kosher diets, because Jews don't try to push that on anyone else. If vegans could come to a similar peace about their beliefs, there wouldn't be an issue.

I've never experienced any intolerance from meat-eaters that I've met. Just polite curiosity. Don't you ever get an urge for a steak?* What do you eat at Christmas?** Which was why I so shocked at the level of vitriol I experienced when I mentioned the subject on SE.

* I've never eaten one, so no.
** My mum used to bake a delicious chestnut roast, but since leaving home I haven't bothered with Christmas so I just eat the same stuff as the rest of the year.

That's the thing. It appears ComposerNate had a bad experience (or multiple bad experiences) with meat-eaters who were intolerant of his dietary restrictions because they were different from the norm. Therefore, extreme turn about (Oh yeah?! Well you people who eat meat are similar to rapists!) appears an appropriate response to vent how the perpetrators made him/her feel.

Veganism in general, however, appears to be similar to the strict Christianity sects. It is not enough to BE a Christian your entire life, you must spread the Word. Sometimes you might need to be a little aggressive. Sometimes, you're going to need to call different-minded people rapists so that they understand how you 'feel'. Whatever it takes to get them to stop murdering our animal friends.

"I say the whole world will learn of our peaceful ways. BY FORCE!"

allegory [( al -uh-gawr-ee)]

a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another. (link)


This may help: http://imgur.com/a/BqPzT

"Oh yeah?! Well you people who eat meat are similar to rapists!" The film is actually not a response to people eating animals, but to how vegans are treated by those who do. A metaphor a larger audience may understand.

This argument HINGES on the watchers emotional response to rape, a violent act. If you wanted to compare a football player making fun of a guy who likes soccer, that would be an APT allegory.

If you feel that non-vegans are picking on you in the same way that someone who doesn't like rape (but has to live in a world full of rape) then you have unfortunately blown your sensitivity out of proportion. Both lifestyles are morally acceptable, reasonable, and natural (though you're a self-restricting omnivore which I don't believe any other animal does).

You can say all you want that the message from the video is about how vegans "feel" having to put up with non-vegans bullshit, but to compare eating meat to rape is not the way to go about it. It insults the "other side" in such a grand way that your message is lost.

I love cooking for vegetarians/vegans and friends with food allergies. Feels like Iron Chef -- make a tasty meal with (to me) arbitrary restrictions. Allez cuisine!

That's a good way to look at it.

I've long said that the only things I've learned for sure in life are that change is certain, and that everyone hates a preachy vegan.

Idgaf if people are vegan. I'm allowed to quietly find it a stupid thing to subject ones self to. But when vegan and/or vegetarians start telling me how it is, nutritionally, scientifically, morally, etc it makes me despise them.

I'm not watching this movie after reading the reddit comments. That was plenty stupidity for the day and I'm not even out of bed yet

I believe no one in the comments watched the video either.

Edit: And now slaytanik has!

The vegans sure did

Everyone hates a preachy X. It's just that at this particular time, vegans are the easy butt of the joke. It could be Amway, Scientology, Apple products, yoga, Jesus, barefoot running, etc.

Countless injustices provoked protests, some wars.

It's still ok to rape animals, though, right?

Only if you eat them afterwards.

Well, naturally.

I am not sure whose opinion about food I care less about, a vegan or the food on my plate.

That's the stuff right there.

You would consider of car ownership an abomination if you replace car with slave ownership.

The main argument for veganism it seems rests on whether food can think or have emotions, and that food does not want to be eaten.

I find that argument to be some what jejune. It is an argument outside of the natural world.
What I find about some vegans that irks me is their activism, which is intended to eventually ban all meat. They are the anti-abortionists of the culinary world.

Animals have emotions

And flavor.

Yes, which is why horses go bugnuts for apples

So lets assume BigAgra and industrialized meat production is cleaned up. Lets assume cows, chickens, pigs, etc, get to lead a wonderful life, free of abuse, and are extinguished in the most humane manner possible. Kind of like what it was like prior to industrialization of food. Then what? Still no good? I know you want absolutely no animals harmed whatsoever. What about fish or shellfish?

I don't disagree that the process is cruel, and the American public, and quite possibly other counties as well, need a re-set for how we view animal protein. As a culture, we consume far more than we should. Most families consume animal protein twice or thrice a day. Everyday. It's unnecessary and causes the industrialization of animal protein when coupled with capitalism, and ultimately abuse. Therein lies the bigger problem, imo. How do you feel about other animals that hunt and kill other animals for sustenance? Should we police the natural world and prevent untimely deaths and suffering? Provide tofu for lions and hyenas? Are we or are we not part of nature? We are, whether we like it or not, part of the food chain.

Humans are omnivores to insure survival. We cannot deny what we are. What we should do is mitigate the suffering, and give thanks that the earth has given us the bounty it has, and not abuse it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals

The normal emotional state for most non domestic animals is fear.