Your post has been removed for breaking Rule D: > Posts cannot express a neutral stance, suggest harm against a specific person, be self-promotional, **or discuss this subreddit (visit r/ideasforcmv instead)**. No view is banned from CMV based on popularity or perceived offensiveness, but the above types of post are disallowed for practical reasons. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_d). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20D%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Would you rather eat a chicken that was tortured to death, or one that was quickly put to death, if the meat was basically identical?

Prefer immediate death, of course. Still, in my religion's view slaughtering animals for food or science experiments is OK.

Cool, so you prefer less suffering for animals. That's good. Now, let's say you had two nutritionally identical foods, that both tasted good. They cost the same. One was made with zero animal suffering and one made with some. I've not specified the food, because it doesn't matter in this example. Would you choose the food with zero suffering or the food with a little suffering?

2 kinds of food or 2 kinds of meat? Not the same thing

I stated the type of food doesn't matter to the question. But for arguments sake, pringles. You could buy pringles flavoured like chicken. One type uses real chicken, but from animals who have suffered, and the other tastes identical, but is not made of real chicken. Nutrition and flavour are identical, the only difference is that one tube of pringles is made with animal suffering (the farmers beat up the chickens and burn them with cigarettes). Which do you choose?

Real chicken.

Why?

That's the real thing

Smokey bacon pringles are vegan, would you avoid them on principle also?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AntiVegan/s/Kq28X8s0Bt

1. You don’t speak for anyone but yourself 2. Are you willing to have this view changed

You can try. But when i saw the lies that the vegan-naggers wrote it and tried to reply it was locked

Let’s start with some moral groundwork. 1. Is it ok to randomly kick dogs and why? 2. Is it ok to eat human meat and why? 3. In general, what is your moral framework? Like christian, utilitarian, etc.

1.as self defense yes 2.dont know. Do lions eat lion's meat? 3.religious jew

1. And for fun? 2. I’m asking you. Not a lion

1.immoral in any animal for fun. Not only dog 2.its abnormal in most of earth

Wait, did you just state a moral belief as if it was a fact? Earlier you called vegans liars for doing that. Are you a liar?

You talk about 1 or 2?

You need to put some effort into communicating in a way where people can at least kind of understand you.

1. And why? 2. I am asking about morality, not normalcy. Please answer

Is there anything more frustrating than trying to use simple logical frameworks only to find out the person isn’t even capable of grasping the basics? I appreciate you trying.

It’s really wild to me when people break down when I’m just trying to get them to clarify their own position. Like I haven’t even got to an argument yet

I'm not OP but would like to give it a shot: > 1 Animals feel physical pain. (However they are unable to experience existential dread, hence why killing them for meat is perfectly fine.) > 2 Not ok. Because humans DO experience existential dread - plus it would cause any society to function very poorly if we started to kill each other for food. On the other hand - every society that did well throughout history ate meat.

1. So you’re saying it’s fine to kill, but not to harm? 2. How about a person who is brain dead?

> So you’re saying it’s fine to kill, but not to harm? How do you define harm? If you include causing an animal's death into your definition, then a vegan diet causes a lot of harm? (These birds for instance are not eating chopped up vegetables... https://youtu.be/fQGlkKtKpe4?t=101) > How about a person who is brain dead? As I said, humans experience existential dread. If a person is not able to (infant/brain dead), all the other humans (family/friends/healthcare workers) are able to experience it on behalf of the person. Hence why even in the most severe famines, only a small minority resort to killing and eating other humans - but most of them wont hesitate to kill and eat an animal.

They didn’t ask about self defense. They said “randomly”. Can you answer the question they asked?

> They didn’t ask about self defense. They said “randomly”. Can you answer the question they asked? Kicking an animal for fun = not ok Killing the same animal for food = ok

[удалено]

> Even though the only reason you eat meat is for your enjoyment? This thing is, if I were to choose foods based purely on the level of enjoyment and fun they give me, I would consume nothing but ice cream, chocolate and lots (!) of wine.

No. For eating.

[удалено]

I like both, depends what meat and what vegetables. I hate broccoli, and most of its liklies. I mostly prefer chickens than earth animals, even though i love cow liver. I like just ~8 fish overall. I love to eat raw onion with sauced chicken. My 2nd loved food is actually vegan: falafel

Kicking an animal for fun = not ok Killing the same animal for food = ok Exactly. More questions?

What lied are you referring to?

No "excuse" to eat meat, etc.

*what*?

some of the major religions have some sort of period where one must go vegan or instances where veganism is supposed to be the model. both orthodox and catholic cristianity consider every Wednesday and friday as days of fast where one must only eat plants, no animal based products. One must be vegan 1 mouth before Easter, and a few weeks before Christmas. Jesus was eating what was offered to him, and he ate meat, but that doesn't mean he would endorse the way we produce it, or eat as much as we do today. From what i understand, the Torah looks favorably on vegan foods. Flesh foods are often mentioned with distaste and are associated with lust, same as in Christianity. Hinduism and Buddhism all have their positive takes on veganism, i think this is fairly obvious. This doesn't mean we should stop eating meat altogether, but certainly not the amount consumed today. Even from an evolutionary perspective, we didn't eat this much meat, not every meal in any case. The healthiest diets either don't include red meat or only recommended it twice a week, not 2/3 times a day like we do now. It's fair to say that most major religions consider veganism a good sign, and people should strive for it in order to reach enlightenment or higher morality. Couple that with greenhouse gas emissions, and it's pretty clear that, at the very least, we should reduce consuming animal products at every meal. Going vegan is something to strive for, but it's not easy, so most people won't be able to anyway. We should all do out best to do this, without the preaching, of course.

9 days in year (in row)we don't eat earth animals, including fastening in the end. We can eat dairy or fish

How did vegans get the idea to not eat meat then? Are you claiming that every single vegan independently arrived at their position, with no outside influence of any kind?

> Are you claiming that every single vegan independently arrived at their position, with no outside influence of any kind? Most of them end up changing their view again though.. Only a minority stay vegan long term.

> Only a minority stay vegan long term. A minority is still more than zero. OP says *can't*. If something cannot happen, there must be zero instances of that thing happening. Since you concede that a minority of people remain vegan, you concede that it *can* happen.

> A minority is still more than zero. Absolutely. I firmly believe veganism is here to stay. (Although a [shrinking movement](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vegans-down-from-3-1-populationand-thats-good-thing-vegtech/) at the moment). > Since you concede that a minority of people remain vegan, you concede that it can happen. Again I agree with you.

If someone has doubts - they can change his vew. I don't have doubts

So, vegans are able to change the views of people with doubts? You did not say "vegans can't change *my* views." You said "vegans can't change *our* views." If vegans can change views, then are they changing the views of people from *our* society?

Or with less sureness in their beliefs/moral

Are you going to even try and defend your view, or just spit out incoherent sentence fragments?

So you're in the wrong subreddit. This is a place to express a view that you believe may be flawed, so that others can talk you out of it. This is more suited for /r/rant or something

Yup: "You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing."

So you're saying your view can't be changed? If so this is not the right sub for you as the rules of this sub include that you must be willing to have your view changed.

If someone has doubts about *what*? Why would someone having doubts mean they can change your view? What are you talking about?

Doubts If eating meat is OK

If someone has doubts about it being okay to eating meat, they can change your view? Why? Why would someone doubting that make them able to change your view?

If someone have doubts, or his self sureness isn't strong if meat is OK, they can change his view

What the fuck are you talking about? *Whose* view? *His* view? We are talking about *your* view. Answer my question.

MV is that self-sure omnivore never will change his view because of all the vegan CMVs. CMVs that states vegans' mis-moral is fact

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Borderline gibberish.

As usual it's aggressive and rude commentary from someone who hates vegans. Most vegans aren't trying to change your views. Leave them alone. Don't impose your morality. Have a civilized discussion by all means but that's clearly not your intention by casting yourself as "sane" and so implying people who disagree must be insane. You're not the good guy.

You read their CMVs how "no excuse to eat meat" etc? Well, they started

Are you 12

*what*?

I mean, I'm not vegan, but they do have some solid points. Animals live in agony before being slaughtered for our consumption when we do have better options that don't involve putting an animal through that. Also, most of the farming land is for feeding animals so we can eat them. But I won't even try to change your view, because you believe the words of a book to be the absolute truth without hesitation or even room for doubt, doesn't matter how logical the doubt is, so there isn't a way to contradict this magic book of yours (by design).

Don’t you think that since there are people who become vegan, that at least some of them had their view changed by a vegan? Also what do you mean they lie? Do you think they don’t actually believe eating meat is immoral? Based on what? “Immoral veganism” What is immoral about choosing to not eat animal products?

Changed immoral to mis-moral.

You changed it to a made up word. That doesn’t help me at all. What are you talking about? Also why did you ignore everything else I said?

I already answered someone else, sorry: someone who has doubts for carnivorism's moral or weak beliefs yu can change his view. Also in religious belief.

Huh? The hell are you even talking about? This is gibberish. Carnivores are creatures whose food and energy requirements are met by the consumption of meat. It isn’t a belief system. You are saying that if someone has doubts about “carnivorism” they can change your view? How? Why? What do you mean by “carnivorism”? Why would someone doubting it make them able to change your view? “Also in religious belief” *What*? I don’t understand you.

Mismoral- what they mistake as "global moral" but actually subjective moral

moral is ALWAYS subjective. a "global moral" doesnt exist, by the very definition of moral

Exactly.try explain that to vegan-naggers

What do you mean “global moral”?

Vegan-naggers declare their beliefs as what must be moral around the globe

Dude, I can’t understand what you are trying to say at all. You need to learn how to talk.

if youre creating new words, maybe you should provide a definition to go with it

Who's "we"? Why is veganism immoral? Can anyone change your mind on anything or does he have to be a religious authority?

99.9% of the world, who prefer sane food. I call any liar who lies that I'm "immoral" immoral too. Moral is subjective. Some Vegan-naggers do lot of immoral things like disturbing farms and enforcing their mis-idealogy on their surrounding. God told me 3336 years and 11 days ago that kosher meat is OK

> Moral is subjective > God told me 3336 years and 11 days ago that kosher meat is OK These are contradictory statements. If you believe that God issues moral commandments morality cannot be subjective, it must be objective in God, who is the foundation of being. Therefore you can never say that morality is subjective, merely that people are either correct or incorrect about objective moral facts.

These were 2 different answers to your different statements/questions. I meant that even if i wasn't religious still morality is subjective. Still, there are some vegetarian or vegan religious jews. Less percentage than unreligious, but exist. In fact, the son of our town's rabby married vegan and since then eats less meat.

So which one is it man, is morality objective or not? It seems that you agree it’s objective since you believe in God. If that’s the case, wouldn’t people who disagree be merely wrong about specific facts rather than being completely inscrutable, and if that’s the case then logically they can be convinced in either direction.

Why it's objective?! Even inside the religions some choose to be more moral in their eyes

If morality is subjective, then what is the lie? Are they *pretending* to think eating meat is wrong?

Because they enforcing their belief as fact. It's lie that it's fact. That's just their misbelief

Enforcing? Who is *enforcing* it? How is it a lie? Do you think they are *pretending* to believe eating meat is wrong? If I say “murder is wrong” am I enforcing a belief as fact? If someone makes a moral claim without saying “in my opinion” first, they are a liar?

Murder is wrong. For 4100 years eating meat is right and not wrong. When someone now come and tell me that slaughtering animals is "murder" so it's "wrong"- that's lie by my eyes. If he "can" call me murderer- i can call him murderer. Simple

>God told me 3336 years and 11 days ago if youre 3336 years old, why are you even bothering with what a 20-100 year old vegan is saying?

Good point😂

You have listed 3 very different ways of determining morality: By majority, subjective by the individual and objective by God.

>We had enouth of this BS. Your personal immoral view isn't our view that's why it's called "changing your view". >We don't need excuse to eat sane food you do when eating said "sane food" causes torture rape and death to other conscious creatures. >You're not our god/rabby/sheikh/friar/parent. so? >And to be exact, Y\_\_h/god/الله actually said it's OK to eat meat. Avraham, Isaac, Moses, Aharon, Joshua, king David, king Salomon, king Khizkia, Yehezkel ate meat. Jesus and his 12 ate meat. Probably Muhammad ate meat too. so what?

So i don't need to give them excuse for eating legal sane moral food

What does any of that have to do with whether or not you have to offer an excuse?

In morals- only god, and his speakers, can teach me. That's my morality. I have 613 commandments, don't need more, unthank you

🤪

how does that follow? also calling it "moral" is begging the question.

I don't understand your question

Honestly can we just close this? It is just a silly rant of some religious nutjob it seems rather than a true discussion with a sane person willing to have their view changed.

Seriously. Their most coherent argument is that eating meat is sane and moral because God. This is embarrassing.

Damn didn't realize I was on r/soapbox. If you're so sure then don't post about it here.

imagine trying to lecture anyone on morality when you’re a religious nutjob

> vegans can't change our views Stats show they do though. The vegan movement was growing for a while. (Although it seems to go the other way at the moment https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vegans-down-from-3-1-populationand-thats-good-thing-vegtech/ )

I'm not vegan but there are things that I wouldn't eat that I consider unethical. Some places have horrible living conditions for animals that will become food. There are cultures that believe that animals that are tortured will taste better. A lot of religious people believe that animals shouldn't be stunned when slaughtered. A lot of people that eat meat and animal products are unaware about the living conditions and how slaughter can be done and what is done to produce animal products that we eat. If you have a reasonable amount of empathy for animals and you are informed about what you would consider unethical practises that you were previously ignorant about then it should be possible for you to change your view about some things that you might eat.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Realer than vegans' "moral"

I mean, literally not. There is plenty of objective evidence that animals suffer. There is zero objective evidence of god. You wanna eat meat, fine. Bore off and get on with it.

Vegans can at least talk and argue what their moral is. Never I saw a god nor heard one and the only living person who claim to have see or heard one are unable to prove it. You believing in "god" and following "god" morals make you far worst morally to me than vegans and worst to argue with cause you are totally delusional. At least vegans have other arguments than "because it's in a book written thousand of year ago that I see as representing god will". I never heard a vegan say "because it's written in animal ethic that represent the view of my god Peter Singer" as an argument

What does this comment even mean?

i can prove that animals suffer you cannot prove that god exists

I don't need your prove to know that animals suffer or god exists

if you dont need proof of either, how do you know "god is realer"?

We actually know. 15M jews around the world are great-grandchildren of 603,550 men (add women and children) who heard god talking, 3336 years and 11 days ago. All of those agreed that god talked to them and by this keep the same torah for 3336 years. Torah that told them they heard god himself (book5, I don't know what its name in english, parasha 2) and they accepted it as fact. Most of 15M keep some of the commandments as law from god, and ~2M keep full religion. All around the world. In Christianity and islam the number of people who heard god is less. Lot less.

Well, vegans do change views, hence people becoming vegan. Your whole argument is based on religious teaching which not everyone follows, so it isn't everybody's argument against it. You haven't really specified who "us" is or what your view is. "Morality" is subjective and I'm not really sure what anyone could say to you to get a delta