Should i stop being vegan ?

[Emerald]

@Schizophonia I don't think we're getting anywhere here. And I'm not going to engage with and debunk all the defenses because those are just you hiding the truth from yourself to paint a nicer picture of reality over top of the much grimmer reality that you may rather remain ignorant to.

You're just trying to justify over and over why it's okay to kill and exploit animals unnecessarily for your own pleasure... by making false claims about farms not causing animal's suffering until their deaths and their deaths being painless.

And others are a bunch of defenses... some that are false like the idea that animal farming is ecologically a good thing to do. And others are just throwing spaghetti at the wall and using what-about-isms to try to defend the practice of exploiting animals for pleasure like, "So what? People work in terrible conditions" or "So what? You're going to die too. And it might be painful." 

And yet others are just baseless appeals to some inherent idea of human existential superiority. And still other are ad hominem attacks.

But the commonality that all these defenses and logical fallacies have is that they are all a reflection of you desperately trying to shield yourself from the ugly truth and quell your own cognitive dissonance. 

They are all just another way of saying, "I don't want to face the facts, so I'm going to use this defense to try to hide from the truth."

But I get that you don't want to look at that. I really do.

It's a much prettier and nicer story that you're telling yourself of the myths of "happy meat" and "ethical slaughter"... and to justify, so that you don't have to admit complicity in that which is monstrous.

But if you're interested in what's actually true... go watch Earthlings or other videos of what happens in slaughterhouses. And you will see a more accurate depiction of what happens in the meat and dairy industry.

And it will dispel you of your naivety... and you will graduate from being the sweet summer child who live in a fanciful bubble to a disillusioned adult who looks squarely at the ugly ugly truth.

Also... to start with a little truth to dispel the mythos.. 99% of animals are raised in crowded factory farms.

And even the 1% of animals that are raised "ethically" usually have very minimum standards that the farmer has to meet to classify the animal as grass-fed or cage-free. 

So, even "ethical" farms (not that those actually exist) are few and far between... and the standards aren't much better, as businesses are just complying to minimum standards to get that designations.

[Schizophonia]

3 minutes ago, Jannes said:

You have to destroy a lot of flourishing nature with living animals to grow crops and built a place so you can raise all these animals. 
 

It's normal to transform nature.

3 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Its not like you create all of that in the middle of the desert and are therefore creating life that didnt exist before, you simply transform the landscape of nature into crop fields and lifestock. Alternatively you could even transform the space into a place where humans live. 

Actually the best way to fertilize a soil would be to raise livestock on it.

[Basman]

4 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Animals are also natural insecticides; If you have a vegetable garden it's great to have chickens because they eat everything they find.

I recently saw a documentary showing that crabs were being raised in rice paddies for this very reason, this time on a large scale.

Animals can offer a lot of value besides as food. Like for example sheep/goats are often used to keep grass area clear, like for example for a solar panel farm or for historical monuments that are located on grasslands. 

I think European farmers dealing with the now resurging wolf population should experiment with guardian dogs for livestock for example.

Not to mention the immense value that pollinators provide. We should think more creatively how we can harness animals for distinct purposes. They present solutions that works without the need for expensive machinery that drains resources or technological development. Just needs creativity and understanding of how these creatures work. We already have a past of employing animals to great effect. 

Edited 21 hours ago by Basman

[Jannes]

2 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

It's normal to transform nature.

Obviously normal doesnt always mean good or morally justified. 

I responded to this argument you made:

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

The real dilemma is would you rather be killed after a decent life (ideally) to be eaten, or would you rather have never been born? In this case the first option is a net positive.

If you didnt eat -> you wouldnt have touched nature -> things would have continued to live live in nature -> therefore: you didnt create life out of nothing. you did a lot of killing to create a new way of life for the animals, one that is likely much worse.

2 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Actually the best way to fertilize a soil would be to raise livestock on it.

There are many ways to do it, livestock is an option yes. Not industrical livestock farming though where the vast majority of meat comes from, that is simply destructive. 

[Schizophonia]

40 minutes ago, Emerald said:

@Schizophonia I don't think we're getting anywhere here. And I'm not going to engage with and debunk

 

You debunk nothing.

Quote

all the defenses because those are just you hiding the truth from yourself to paint a nicer picture of reality over top of the much grimmer reality that you may rather remain ignorant to.

 

I don't think you understand.

I come from the French countryside; I've visited loads of farms; I know people including in my family who work in this sector; I know loads of people who have chicken coops; I'm even friends with people who are studying agriculture.

You're an American city girl and the YouTuber you mention next is a metrosexual from London lol

It reminds me of when I was in high school and debating with vegans in the comments, they look like bots.

Quote

 

You're just trying to justify over and over why it's okay to kill and exploit animals unnecessarily for your own pleasure... by making false claims about farms not causing animal's suffering until their deaths and their deaths being painless.

 

And others are a bunch of defenses... some that are false like the idea that animal farming is ecologically a good thing to do. And others are just throwing spaghetti at the wall and using what-about-isms to try to defend the practice of exploiting animals for pleasure like, "So what? People work in terrible conditions" or "So what? You're going to die too. And it might be painful." 

And yet others are just baseless appeals to some inherent idea of human existential superiority. And still other are ad hominem attacks.

But the commonality that all these defenses and logical fallacies have is that they are all a reflection of you desperately trying to shield yourself from the ugly truth and quell your own cognitive dissonance. 

They are all just another way of saying, "I don't want to face the facts, so I'm going to use this defense to try to hide from the truth."

But I get that you don't want to look at that. I really do.

It's a much prettier and nicer story that you're telling yourself of the myths of "happy meat" and "ethical slaughter"... and to justify, so that you don't have to admit complicity in that which is monstrous.

But if you're interested in what's actually true... go watch Earthlings or other videos of what happens in slaughterhouses. And you will see a more accurate depiction of what happens in the meat and dairy industry.

And it will dispel you of your naivety... and you will graduate from being the sweet summer child who live in a fanciful bubble to a disillusioned adult who looks squarely at the ugly ugly truth.

Also... to start with a little truth to dispel the mythos.. 99% of animals are raised in crowded factory farms.

And even the 1% of animals that are raised "ethically" usually have very minimum standards that the farmer has to meet to classify the animal as grass-fed or cage-free. 

So, even "ethical" farms (not that those actually exist) are few and far between... and the standards aren't much better, as businesses are just complying to minimum standards to get that designations.

I have nothing particular to say in response because it is essentially a mixture of pseudo-puritanical idealism and bigs propagandistic bullshits.

Edited 21 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

1 minute ago, Jannes said:

Obviously normal doesnt always mean good or morally justified. 

Morality is just a thing in your head.

There's nothing special about clear-cutting a forest to do things there.

3 minutes ago, Jannes said:

If you didnt eat -> you wouldnt have touched nature -> things would have continued to live live in nature -> therefore: you didnt create life out of nothing. you did a lot of killing to create a new way of life for the animals, one that is likely much worse.

Lol what do you narrate

 

Animals exist because you make them reproduce among themselves in large numbers.

Your idea is unclear, perhaps you could rephrase it 👍

1 minute ago, Jannes said:

 

There are many ways to do it, livestock is an option yes. Not industrical livestock farming though

It was to troll you a little, in reality nobody is going to bother raising livestock in the desert/a place where there is nothing yes.

1 minute ago, Jannes said:

where the vast majority of meat comes from, that is simply destructive. 

Industrial farm is a very broad term; it basically refers to farms that aren't certified organic.

But yes of course, there's bad stuff there.

 

[Jannes]

28 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Morality is just a thing in your head.

There's nothing special about clear-cutting a forest to do things there.

Normal is just a thing in your head. 

I vaguely said "good or morally justified" on purpose. 

There are better and worse things to do. Raping is on the not so good category. I dont want to make any complicated distinctions here between good, moral, goodness etc. this is not what this is about. 

28 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

There's nothing special about clear-cutting a forest to do things there.

Yes there is something special about it, it kills a living ecosystem. 

28 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Lol what do you narrate

 

Animals exist because you make them reproduce among themselves in large numbers.

Your idea is unclear, perhaps you could rephrase it 👍

I dont know if you want to misunderstand me on purpose. 

Isnt this literally your own point? Again:

3 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

The real dilemma is would you rather be killed after a decent life (ideally) to be eaten, or would you rather have never been born? 

Aka saying that animals that are eaten did at least get a decent life until this point. If they wouldnt be eaten they wouldnt be raised and would never exist.

If thats not what you meant, could you explain it?

28 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

It was to troll you a little, in reality nobody is going to bother raising livestock in the desert/a place where there is nothing yes.

Industrial farm is a very broad term; it basically refers to farms that aren't certified organic.

But yes of course, there's bad stuff there.

 

It doesnt just have to be deserts, you can make the point that other habitats can flourish with small livestock.

But almost all meat comes from industrial live stock and grass fed beef is expensive and could only feed a small part of the population. 

[Ramasta9]

@Emerald Your wasting your energy, you can put evidence right in front of their eyes and they will reject / dismiss / deny it.

They will do everything in their power to deny anything that is not in alignment with how they are living and eating, no matter the consequences, because deep down they are terribly afraid that it might just be true, ignorance remains blissful.

There is no saving these ones, they first need to climb out of their own hole to even meet us eye to eye.

Edited 19 hours ago by Ramasta9

[Ramasta9]

When we eat and live in ways that has yet to be grasped by others it instantly becomes a threat to them. Yet to connect the dots.

Those who have truly found peace in their diet & lifestyle need not defend it so outrageously, rather it reflects the opposite is true.

Edited 19 hours ago by Ramasta9

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Ramasta9 said:

@Emerald Your wasting your energy with such people, you can put evidence right in front of their eyes and they will reject / dismiss / deny it.

They will do everything in their power to deny anything that is not in alignment with how they are living and eating, no matter the consequences, because deep down they are terribly afraid that it might just be true, ignorance remains blissful.

There is no saving these ones, they first need to climb out of their own hole to even meet us eye to eye.

I do know that I won't shift his perspective. And in actuality, even though I consciously operate like that's my intention and I want people in general to wake up to their harmful way... it's not that important to me in this micro-context that he individually changes his perspective... as the argument is what I seem to be looking for.

Like, if he was like, "Oh yeah. I guess you're right." I'd be like, "Okay cool." And then I'd move on to try to find another person to battle it out with... because the real driver is to seek a debate.

I'm just like Brer Rabbit when he fights the tar baby and gets all caught up in the tar. And I just struggle to stop myself because it gives me something to be in "battle mode". But it's draining.

It could be that I get to battle with a person that I can see as a symbol for the macro-cosmic dynamics that I find untenable. So, instead of arguing at the reality... I can duke it out with some random person on here and feel the simultaneous effectiveness and ineffectiveness that leads to rage.

But these are what I think the reasons are...

The first reason is that it gives me an outlet to feel rage and spin my wheels, which creates an "unstoppable force, immovable object dynamic" where I am the unstoppable force and he is the immovable object. And it puts me in a space where I can find this ragey-feeling holding point and connect to my suppressed rage in a way that is cold, controlled, and intellectual.

The second reason is that it gives me the ability to spar it out and express my rage in a low-stakes reality. Like, I'm not worried about tip-toeing around sensitivities like I usually am. I can be direct and confrontational.

The third reason is because it helps me form my thoughts by engaging in debates and putting my thoughts in writing. It's like argumentative journaling. And there's an inner work component to it... because it helps me know certain parts of myself more.

The fourth reason is that it may have an impact on the perspective of those who are onlookers to the debate. 

But at the same time, it all feels draining because it wastes a lot of energy. But it's like I can't resist this process.

[Ramasta9]

@Emerald Yeah well i felt the part of you that felt drained and I responded as a reflection to that, if something becomes draining, its no longer healthy and possibly even a micro-form of abuse, take care of yourself first and foremost.

[Emerald]

47 minutes ago, Ramasta9 said:

@Emerald Yeah well i felt the part of you that felt drained and I responded as a reflection to that, if something becomes draining, its no longer healthy and possibly even a micro-form of abuse, take care of yourself first and foremost.

Yes, I've been trying to do that by not going on the internet for anything other than work for 6 out of 7 days of the week... which I've mostly been sticking to for a couple months.

It just feels so draining to go anywhere on the internet... like watching YT videos, going on social media, going on here, etc. It just feels overwhelming in some way.

And I broke that habit several days ago and have been going on here too much. And the thing that makes me break that habit, I usually think of as curiosity. And that's part of it.

But it occurred to me a couple days ago that I'm looking for spaces for my anger to exist... and that's what attracts me here. So, it's a very magnetic pull to a space that feels kind of draining to me. But it's meeting a need in some ways.

I'm going back to my 6 out of 7 days "no internet" habit tomorrow because I feel better the way. But I have something to solve now that I know what need it's meeting.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

43 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But it occurred to me a couple days ago that I'm looking for spaces for my anger to exist... and that's what attracts me here. So, it's a very magnetic pull to a space that feels kind of draining to me. But it's meeting a need in some ways.

Maybe - harkening back to your other thread touching on this - the anger is disowned from your experience. This place may be acting as a safe space for you to allow this.

Perhaps there could be some suppression.

Coming on here could be a function of healthy expression. But I am sure there are other conduits for this. 

The anger could be masking something else.

I always tend to take a good hard look at amplified emotions.

💚💚💚

[Ramasta9]

@Emerald Yes you always come first, after all, our bodies were never designed for this "online world" we overuse, and yet surprising we adapt. 

What I have come to realize is that if we spend more time online, which is mostly mental energy, than the other valid energies (physical, emotional/spiritual), we soon after become out of balance and out of alignment with ourselves and our true needs.

I notice when I am starting to clash a lot with people, or get drained, or things become repetitive, its a call to return to nature, to my body, to nourishing the other parts, to self-time, attending to the inner-garden... then when you feel nourished on all levels, you have the energy, you are more whole within yourself and yet detached from others, and then can provide more empowering words and support for those in need.

Kinda like when you exercise and move the energy through your entire body, not just your mind, you can rest and meditate more deeply afterwards, because you have physically and energetically moved the stagnation and over-stimulation out of the system.

Yes follow what "feels" best and most "natural" to you, that i feel is greatest importance in our lives.

 

[Majed]

@Basman yeah i do, i don't think about how the food that i eat affect animals, because it makes life way too impractical for me.

[Schizophonia]

15 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

@Emerald Your wasting your energy, you can put evidence right in front of their eyes and they will reject / dismiss / deny it.

They will do everything in their power to deny anything that is not in alignment with how they are living and eating, no matter the consequences, because deep down they are terribly afraid that it might just be true, ignorance remains blissful.

There is no saving these ones, they first need to climb out of their own hole to even meet us eye to eye.

Lolz

Edited 4 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

15 hours ago, Jannes said:

Normal is just a thing in your head. 

You're right.

I would have rather said "convenient"; something like that.

15 hours ago, Jannes said:

I vaguely said "good or morally justified" on purpose. 

There are better and worse things to do. Raping is on the not so good category. I dont want to make any complicated distinctions here between good, moral, goodness etc. this is not what this is about. 

You can declare rape as being bad if it pleases you, but fundamentally it's not for a such subjective reason it's forbidden. 

It's forbidden because it's a sociopathic behaviour who hurt others humans and their entourage; so the balance of power and interests has resulted to the fact that if you have the idea to rape another human some people will come to your house in uniform to put you in Jail.

15 hours ago, Jannes said:

Yes there is something special about it, it kills a living ecosystem. 

So what.

15 hours ago, Jannes said:

I dont know if you want to misunderstand me on purpose. 

Isnt this literally your own point? Again:

Aka saying that animals that are eaten did at least get a decent life until this point. If they wouldnt be eaten they wouldnt be raised and would never exist.

Yes

Are you saying that life isn't worth living if you're going to have problems and die.

If that's the case it's a projection of neurosis, of a mood disorder; it's as simple as that.

15 hours ago, Jannes said:

If thats not what you meant, could you explain it?

It doesnt just have to be deserts, you can make the point that other habitats can flourish with small livestock.

Yes

15 hours ago, Jannes said:

But almost all meat comes from industrial live stock and grass fed beef is expensive and could only feed a small part of the population. 

Industrial farm doesn't really mean much.

A pig can be fine in a typical industrial farm, and chickens can be stressed and cramped in "free-range" farms.

As a general rule, if I had to eat less meat, I would eat less chicken; a chicken produces much less meat, of course, but you can be pretty sure that a pig or a cow will be better cared for.

 

[integral]

On 11/15/2025 at 4:18 PM, Emerald said:

So, while processed foods are associated with worse health outcomes in general... there is a clear health advantage to removing even unprocessed meats from one's diet.

Extrapolation leap. "if less is better, none is best".

"If fasting is good for you, not eating is best"

"If exercise improves health, exercising all day is best"

"If reducing sodium helps blood pressure, eliminating all sodium is best"

"If sun exposure produces vitamin D, constant sun exposure is best"

"If caloric restriction extends lifespan, severe restriction is best"

"If antioxidants are beneficial, megadosing supplements is best"

"If sleep is restorative, sleeping 12+ hours daily is best"

"If reducing stress is healthy, eliminating all challenge is best"

"If some alcohol has cardiovascular benefits, more alcohol is best"

"If fiber aids digestion, maximum fiber intake is best"

"If cold exposure activates brown fat, extreme cold is best"

"If mindfulness meditation reduces anxiety, meditating constantly is best"

"If processed foods are unhealthy, eliminating all processing is best"

"If reducing sugar improves health, zero sugar is best"

"If stretching prevents injury, stretching for hours is best"

"If social connection improves wellbeing, never being alone is best"

This is the mistake every scientist makes and every salesman exploits.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by integral

[integral]

The bottom line is veganism is healthy IF you're heavily supplementing and tested. And after trial and error, it is found that your genetics and biology are suited for it.

If you're not serious and educated about veganism, then you're doing it wrong and you should stop.

Edited 4 hours ago by integral

[Carl-Richard]

17 hours ago, Emerald said:

I'm going back to my 6 out of 7 days "no internet" habit tomorrow because I feel better the way. But I have something to solve now that I know what need it's meeting.

Sometimes your feet need a break from stomping the juice.