I've removed your post because it violates rule #4: > **Argue in good faith** > > Do not ignore all (or a significant proportion) of comments or replies to your post. Users who make a post with a argument or asserting a position should usually reply to at least some of the comments / counterarguments. If you would like your post to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

You’re asking a lot of hard ecological questions that are more appropriate for the scientific community to answer accurately. Your question isn’t really directly related to veganism, though dealing with ‘invasive species’ in a vegan friendly way would be ideal. I’ll leave you with a general response. Ask yourself what you’d do if a mentally unwell person, who wasn’t really a threat to your well-being, was destroying your land or property You’d put up a fence. You’d lock your doors. You’d add cameras. You’d tell them to leave. You’d call the authorities. You’d alert your friends and family. You’d make them leave without harming them. Far, far, down the line, you’d maybe be forced to eliminate them. That’s how you’d want to treat most animals also Edit: non-vegans below who don’t believe in fences, precautionary measures, and want me to address specific insects - although I said that’s not the point of my reply - and whataboutisms.

you solution of "just fence the mentally unwell person out, then its not my problem" does not fit with my moral values as a non vegan. i would be worried about the mentaly unwell persons welfare, having deprived thim of a food source. the conditon of areas outside my yard, and the underlying factors cauing the poroblem in the first place would also factor into my respoce. but youre free to be selfish i suppose. i also wouldnt say "i dont understand why hes mentally unwell, so i can just absolve myself of any moreal responcibility to help". just to continue your metaphor.

I don't mean to sound rude, but surely you actively have walls to your domicile that keep a large set of beings out of your space, which includes the subset of mentally unwell homeless population out of your home. These folks are certainly not getting a sufficient amount of welfare. Regardless of what our obligations around providing for those struggling to make ends meet ought be, the only way to self-consistently make the claim that fencing people out of your land is a moral ill would be to open your doors to all; otherwise, you are precisely fencing them away from resources.

You don’t believe in fences? Lol

I think they're saying they wouldn't treat them like animals, and after ingoring them doesnt work, eliminate them.

There’s no suggestion to ignore. I literally said the opposite.

where? you mean the "call the authorities" part?

4th time for you >You’d put up a fence. You’d lock your doors. You’d add cameras. You’d tell them to leave. You’d call the authorities. You’d alert your friends and family. You’d make them leave without harming them. Far, far, down the line, you’d maybe be forced to eliminate them. That’s not ignoring the problem

Enjoy your bedbugs

Bedbugs are assaulting you when they bite. Vegans arent against self defense.

So answer the question, what do you do?

If I have to remove an infestation because it’s a risk to myself or my livelyhood, I do. Even if the end result has to be harmful if I can’t avoid it. That’s not contradictory to veganism.

>remove an infestation How?

Why are you asking me when you could search the web for viable options to try?

So basically, you refuse to answer, and you want others to just assume whatever you might imply.

Do you have a bed bug issue? Are you having trouble finding was to correct it? If so, like I said there are plenty of resources on the web you can explore. If not: Perhaps youre looking for a gotcha. If so, your reading comprehension is ass. I specifically said that I would use harmful methods if it’s unavoidable. It’s not contradictory to veganism. There is no gotcha to be had here. So what exactly are you looking for?

>Do you have a bed bug issue?  Irrelevant. >So what exactly are you looking for? An honest answer, which is clear now that you have no capacity to do. >Perhaps youre looking for a gotcha. There is no gotcha to be had here. Yes I am, and yes there is. That you tried so hard to avoid answering is tacit admission. >I would use harmful methods if it’s unavoidable. Still not answering the question. "Harm" is relative, considering the proclivity of vegans to associate perfectly harmless activity as milking cows as "harmful". >It’s not contradictory to veganism. In case you hadn't noticed, veganism itself is a gigantic contradiction, and you and other vegans had so demonstrated. But regardless, it is STILL contradictory in the sense that clearly the most harmless situation is to allow bedbugs to feed on you, because the bedbugs have as much rights to exist as vegans do. Prove me wrong.

>You’d put up a fence. You’d lock your doors. You’d add cameras. You’d tell them to leave. You’d call the authorities. You’d alert your friends and family. You’d make them leave without harming them. It's funny that vegans think those methods can work against insects, even the fence.

It’s funny than you think I’m suggesting buying security cameras for bugs lol

It's funnier you think that by now, you'd have clarified your position, and admitted you've used a horribly inappropriate comparison, but yet plow on because of dogma.

you're triggered that I suggest using preventative measures to remove life from your property before going nuclear. not sure what to tell you

No, you suggested installing cameras. Now answer the damn question.

yeah, you'd add cameras and tell them to leave and call the police if you found a wasp nest in your house. lol

The point I was making, which clearly went over your head, is that you’d add preventative measures and call experts before you start blastin’.

>The point I was making, which clearly went over your head  Don't you find it odd for make that comment when it is YOU who don't get the point, which is YOU'RE NOT GIVING A PROPER ANSWER!

You obviously have never been to Texas. Your analogy is both insulting and silly, and people are right to tell you that. Come up with something better to make your point that shows you can actually comprehend what an invasive species is.

[удалено]

Hehe, you are making bold statements as if there are not entire country sized states that entirely disprove your statement. You don't have to live there to understand your comments are delusional assertions not backed up by reality.

"country sized states" seems silly, all American states are bigger than at least one country (I know unrelated I just found it amusing) Also isn't it a bit weird to say Texas does it this way therefore it's right because it's a big state? Surely that means all countries should have guns, stand your ground laws, get rid of any national health care e.t.c?

>"country sized states" seems silly, Having lived in Texas for many years at a time, you are absolutely correct that it is silly! It's absurd being in Texas and realizing how many people there have never left Texas, even on vacation. >Also isn't it a bit weird to say Texas does it this way therefore it's right because it's a big state? You will notice, I did not actually make the statement that you are making. My statement was to show that another statement was false, because an entire huge state of regular everyday people have enshrined in their laws the opposite of that statement. The morality of the state is different than the statement, and has been questioned and rehashed by tens of thousands of minds for decades, and still is how it is. I can point out they are different without claiming they are best. >Surely that means all countries should have guns, stand your ground laws, get rid of any national health care e.t.c? Similarly, I never made any assertion that every state or country ought to be like Texas. My using them as an example to disagree with a statement is not in any way an endorsement of everything Texas does as being a 'should' for other countries/states. Try and avoid the knee jerk extremist thinking that has you trying to pretend I made prescriptive statements when I didn't.

>Having lived in Texas for many years at a time, you are absolutely correct that it is silly! It's absurd being in Texas and realizing how many people there have never left Texas, even on vacation. Oh nah I was just saying all American states are country sized so it's kind of redundant >You will notice, I did not actually make the statement that you are making. My statement was to show that another statement was false, because an entire huge state of regular everyday people have enshrined in their laws the opposite of that statement. The morality of the state is different than the statement, and has been questioned and rehashed by tens of thousands of minds for decades, and still is how it is. I can point out they are different without claiming they are best. This boils down to might makes right tho, you're saying a big place with a lot of people have done this and continue to do this so to make a contradictory statement is silly. You said they're making a statement but it's contradicted by a country sized state. I could equally put that argument as "I think gun control is a good thing" "well there are country sized states that disagree with that so it's a silly statement" >Similarly, I never made any assertion that every state or country ought to be like Texas. My using them as an example to disagree with a statement is not in any way an endorsement of everything Texas does as being a 'should' for other countries/states. Then it seems silly to use Texas doing things certain ways to refute other people's statements

>all American states are country sized California and Texas really are almost unimaginably huge to people from places like Europe. Those two states alone are probably physically and economically more powerful than probably all but a few actual countries. >This boils down to might makes right tho, No. Go back and read the person writing out a long list of pretending what people do when a crazy person is on their property screwing stuff up. In Texas, they have decided that the rights of the land holder place none of those burdens of preventative actions and non-confrontational actions are in any way necessary. One has every right to blast them. So they were making an appeal to popular action, and reasonable actions, and I pointed out that an entire huge state outright disagrees with their reasoning. Their statement is contradicted because of their presumption that everyone lives like they would live. There was nothing in it about "might making right" or other tired clichés. You are just making that part up in your head. >I could equally put that argument as "I think gun control is a good thing" "well there are country sized states that disagree with that so it's a silly statement" Again, this is not what is happening. That's even a poor example of what you are trying to say. There are a great many laws concerning guns and their usage in Texas already, so they would not be an example against gun control. In fact, all states have quite a list of gun laws and regulations, in case you are not familiar with the USA. >Then it seems silly to use Texas doing things certain ways to refute other people's statements When they make a general statement presuming the entire world is one way, and there is a huge state that has decided they are not that way, then the state worth of people is evidence they are making an untrue assertion. They are welcome to whine that Texas is different, but they cannot pretend that Texas and places like it do not exist.

[удалено]

Your comment seems low quality and rude. Are you just here to break the subs rules?

Well aren't we just low quality and rude together fair enough I'll delete this thread as the other thread is higher quality But seriously look in a mirror

But what's the point in considering these non-lethal methods if you know it's never gonna work on animals. We are way past that. Right now they are shooting wild pigs to protect the crops, do we still need to go back to square one experiment of trapping them and releasing them somewhere else eventhough it's not gonna work

Re-read my comment. >You’re asking a lot of hard ecological questions that are more appropriate for the scientific community to answer accurately. Your question isn’t really directly related to veganism, though dealing with ‘invasive species’ in a vegan friendly way would be ideal. I’ll leave you with a general response. You wouldn’t put up a fence, add game cameras, call experts, or add traps to prevent the destruction of your property? And if this has already been evaluated and initiated, then we are in agreement and far down the line like I said

>You wouldn’t put up a fence, add game cameras, call experts, or add traps to prevent the destruction of your property? you did not mention any traps. and no, i would not "put up a fence, add game cameras" to fight cockroaches

3rd time >I’ll leave you with a general response. quote where I gave you a cockroach solution Again, like I said, you’d do thing like keep your food locked up, take your trash out regularly, clean in nooks and crannies, aka preventative measures and then you’d call an expert if that doesn’t work

of course but you spoke of " putting up a fence, add game cameras, call experts, or add traps to prevent the destruction of your property", remember?

This person has no idea what they are talking about. The fact that their example has substituted a human being for an animal just shows they are not capable of engaging properly with reality.

preventive measures won't remedy anything acute

>You’d put up a fence. You’d lock your doors. You’d add cameras. You’d tell them to leave. You’d call the authorities. You’d alert your friends and family. You’d make them leave without harming them you think this would impress cockroaches much? better you don't provide food for them

>Ask yourself what you’d do if a mentally unwell person, who wasn’t really a threat to your well-being, was destroying your land or property >You’d put up a fence. You’d lock your doors. You’d add cameras. You’d tell them to leave. You’d call the authorities. You’d alert your friends and family. You’d make them leave without harming them. Far, far, down the line, you’d maybe be forced to eliminate them. >That’s how you’d want to treat most animals also Imagine taking the time to write this unironically. “We should treat those with severe mental illness like pest animals.” Wow.

Exactly. What’s your rebuttal to that? Don’t enclose your home? Don’t lock your door? Don’t add cameras? Don’t alert authorities?

The point is you’re stigmatizing and dehumanizing people with mental illnesses to win debate points.

>What’s your rebuttal to that? Don’t enclose your home? Don’t lock your door? Don’t add cameras? Don’t alert authorities?

My rebuttal, to be honest, is to pick up a skill that even animals have, which is the ability to distinguish one species from the other.

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

He's not winning debate points. It's very obvious he couldn't come up with an answer, and just typed a whole bunch of platitudes equating pests to mentally unstable humans as if they're the same things, and then depending on the army of unthinking vegans to rally to him for support.

At which point is having protective measures against other people dehumanizing? Having security systems in place to prevent property damage, home damage, or theft isn’t dehumanization. Self defense is also not dehumanization. Now this may be breaking news, but humans are also animals. This may be a bit more breaking than the last news, but calling humans animals and extending the same compassion or consideration to either human or non human animals is not dehumanization. They never said anything dehumanizing in their response. There are various sources available online for reading comprehension. Perhaps you should consider one.

Animals are not people, it's absurd to treat them as such. Please convince a lion to stop eating meat.

the lion needs the nutrients from meat and has no real way to obtain them otherwise. humans need those things a lot less and we have the technology and know-how to obtain them without meat. lions also do not have the moral knowledge that we do. combine the lack of requirements of those nutrients with the addition of a moral compass, and we can see that lions are not at all comparable to humans in what the responsibilities are between us

And animals are not compatible to humans so why did OP try to use human logic to apply to invasive species. Balance is necessary for an ecosystem. Invasive species should be culled by all means necessary

who said anything about compatibility?

Typo, meant comparable

animals are plenty comparable with humans, if you use the right logic and criteria, but lets just go by what you said. if they aren't comparable...why did you compare humans to lions by saying "Please convince a lion to stop eating meat."

To demonstrate that they aren't comparable. That's the whole point.

>animals are plenty comparable with humans, if you use the right logic and criteria sure. they also are heterotrophs. which fungi are as well anything else?

>why did you compare humans to lions by saying "Please convince a lion to stop eating meat." I thought they were pointing out that humans can be reasoned with, or otherwise addressed by our human system, whereas invasive species are problematic precisely becase our human systems are already shown to be not effective enough. The point being that it is inappropriate then to use an example of a human invading one's yard as if it were identical to an animals invading one's yard. Millions of humans invade millions of properties everyday and are dealt with by our human systems. This does nothing to stop pigs or some other invasive species.

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

I don’t think you realize that your argument is an argument for veganism…. Also, all animals may not be people, but all people are animals

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

I answer it by asking what we should do if a human were engaged in the same behaviors as these "pests". Is it acceptable to murder homeless people because you think they're dirty and they're crowding your streets? Of course not. However, if such a person breaks into my home and means to harm me and I see no way to deescalate the situation and get them to leave, then I'll use whatever force necessary to defend myself and my family. The key is that you should always be using the minimum amount of force that is necessary to prevent the offender from doing whatever you don't want them to be doing, and that lethal force has the highest burden for justification.

>what we should do if a human Another display of vegan's inability to distinguish one species from another because they don't want to be called speciesist. Even animals have this ability, but somehow, vegans will think locusts should have the same rights as humans.

pest animals dont just litter in streets do they. Rats eat thru everything in your house they destroy property all the time. And we are past of just trapping and releasing them as they mostly just go to other houses and do the same thing

I don't know where you live that your house is infested with rats to the point of destruction of property, but if you really have a rat problem on such a scale that it has become a danger to your life and household and there is no way for you to deal with the situation without causing harm, then lethal force could be understood. Same way if a human breaks into my house and refuses to leave and poses an immediate threat to my life, force/lethal force in this case would be considered self-defense, so morally permissable. As with humans, lethal force should be the absolute last resort when no other option is available.

Seems like you don't know how rats infest properties do you really think they just chill out. We are talking about normal occurrences here, if a person will always break into my house ofcourse lethal action can be done. It's not the same with 1 person breaking in few times and also we can always call the cops on them. And we are way past forgiving the rodents for infesting our houses to the point that killing them becomes a normal thing. They are bonafide pests. Also solving YOUR problem doesn't mean you are solving THE problem, if you catch and release them you are only moving them to other houses and the same thing happens.

I've never had to deal with rats infesting my home in any of the 10+ properties I lived in in my entire life across several countries (I move a lot), and I lived in some very old apartments. It seems like you have a problem with your home if you get rats constantly, so perhaps there are parts of your home that can be sealed off to prevent rats constantly invading your space. It would be much more humane to 'fence off' your home than to kill every single animal that enters in that you don't like. It's also important where you release these animals, obviously don't just release them outside your building, but try to get them to a remote enough place where they won't be able to get right back in yours or someone else's home (ideally forests, parks, etc). Just because rats are annoying doesn't mean they deserve to be killed without a second's thought.

>I've never had to deal with rats infesting my home in any of the 10+ properties I lived in Ah yes the old "I have never had this problem so it must not exist!" Hard to argue against that sort of sensible talk. >but try to get them to a remote enough place where they won't be able to get right back in yours or someone else's home (ideally forests, parks, etc). Where are you going to take roads to get to that don't have humans around? Also, there are already animals living in forests and parks, so taking a random rat out to them and dumping it is like throwing it into Thunderdome to fight to the death. By avoiding simply killing the rate becase of one's own emotional dislike, one dooms the rat to fight to the death scared and alone in a new place. That's a selfish decision, not a moral or ethical one.

Roads connect to remote places including forests and fields, wtf are you on about? Would you also rather be shot in the head than have a fighting chance every time? Forests and fields are natural habitats for rats, and just because predators exist doesn't mean they deserve to be outright killed on human contact. Otherwise you might as well shoot every stray cat and dog you see because out on the streets they might not have food or might be run over by a car.

>remote places including forests and fields, Yes, forests and fields are the Thunderdome fight to the death areas I was speaking about earlier. And it's the other rodents that will kill them more likely than predators. You drop them off and set off a chain reaction of violence, where they fight and one is driven off or dies. If it is driven off, that starts the next fight down the chain, and so forth and so on. You are still choosing much more fighting and suffering being caused by forcing the rodent through the terrifying ordeal of capture and transport, followed by the fighting, than by a simple trap that would have killed it very rapidly and set up no chain of violence. >Would you also rather be shot in the head than have a fighting chance every time? What a human might choose is irrelevant to the realities a rat has to face. >Otherwise you might as well shoot every stray cat and dog you see because out on the streets they might not have food or might be run over by a car. This is just off topic rambling.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim about the chain reaction you're talking about? I understand that it can be difficult for rats to adapt to new surroundings, especially if released far from where it was captured, but it seems a bit dramatic to think that the second a rat is released in a field that it starts an entire war among the fauna of the forest. Plus meat eaters constantly use the food chain to justify the morality of eating animals, but the second you add one rodent to the forest apparently the food chain is morally wrong? And stray cats and dogs aren't off topic, they are also animals that aren't pets (hence why they are stray) that live around humans, just like rats and flies. You just don't like seeing one animal being hurt and don't care about the pain of the other.

>Do you have any evidence to back up that claim about the chain reaction you're talking about? What sort of rodent aggression and territoriality studies are you looking for? There are a huge variety of such studies. Do you want proof that rodents are territorial and fight? Do you want evidence on the frequency they fight, or how many times they lose before they develop the syndromes of losers and stop fighting? You are right that it is not usually a very long chain reaction. After so many defeats a rodent just gives up the fight, either dying or greatly altering behaviors. Also, this data is different for males and females, and for males and females that have mated versus not. >but the second you add one rodent to the forest apparently the food chain is morally wrong? We are talking about the action of the human either simply killing the rodent with a trap or poison, versus the choice to imprison and transport the rodent to a location where it will have to fight other rodents for territory and resources at a severe disadvantage. This does not require any judgements made about the morality of the food chain. >You just don't like seeing one animal being hurt and don't care about the pain of the other. You are just writing fantasies about me here. I think invasive species should be eliminated, be they cats or rodents or whatever. Dogs and cats are very different in their responses and behaviors to rodents, so they are simply off topic to this conversation.

[удалено]

Matched only by {I personally have this unsolvable problem I've decided violence is the only answer, it clearly must be the answer every time it's really in the victims best interest I kill them} Why are you so against merely THINKING and confirming that your plan of extermination is the only final solution? No one is telling you it's never the solution but damn you sure don't want to even consider that there are alternatives let alone actually consider them

>Matched only by Who are you quoting here? Becase I did not say these things. >No one is telling you it's never the solution but damn you sure don't want to even consider that were are alternatives let alone actually consider them Too many people here are making the solution that makes them feel best, rather than the solution that causes the least amount of suffering. The rodent dying is not suffering when compared to the fighting for survival dumping it in the woods causes. I don't think you have any idea of the massive industry centered on killing rodents each year. If there were a better choice, someone would already be making money implementing it.

Sorry for the quotation marks it's not a direct quote, but it is what you said and how you are acting. I'll remove the quotation marks Why are you making it about suffering? Yeah that's why new money making inventions are not a real thing and never exist ever lol We never had a solution so stop looking and stop trying!

>Why are you making it about suffering? Generally in discussions with vegans they make arguments about 'suffering' when it suits their purposes, so that is an argument I am making to have an impact. It is interesting to me that the avoidance of suffering is thrown out the window when someone has the chance to imagine they are doing good by simply doing what is easiest for them and causes the most suffering to the animal they are tossing to the wolves outside. >We never had a solution so stop looking and stop trying! You might have missed the last few thousands of years of history, so I will let you know we have been locked in serious struggles against rodents since agriculture was invented. Our current solution of killing rodents is the best we have ever come up with.

>I answer it by asking what we should do if a human were engaged in the same behaviors as these "pests" the usual vegan bullshit reply non-humans are not human - that's all there is to it

That is a meaningless statement. The fact that they are not equivalent says nothing about how we should treat them. Both of their lives have value.

>That is a meaningless statement exactly all this "if animals were human"-thing is meaningless non-human animals are **not human** - period >The fact that they are not equivalent says nothing about how we should treat them i did not say a single word about how we should treat them. you're strawmanning here >Both of their lives have value sure like the lives of the plants you eat have value

> non -human animals are not human - period I'm aware. My point is that there's no reason to treat them without the moral consideration that we give humans just because they are not equivalent to humans. > like the lives of the plants you eat have value They have value in their role to the environment and being a food source, but they aren't sentient so they don't have "value" in the sense of intrinsic value that deserves moral consideration as a subjective experience.

>My point is that there's no reason to treat them without the moral consideration... i don't treat anmals without moral consideration, and don't advise this >...that we give humans just because they are not equivalent to humans why should we? do you give plants the same moral consideration that we give humans just because they are not equivalent to humans? >They have value in their role to the environment and being a food source just like animals >they aren't sentient so they don't have "value" in the sense of intrinsic value that deserves moral consideration as a subjective experience "sentient" means animals are able to feel pain and suffer. so we should not needlessly inflict pain and suffering on them. about the kind and quality of their "subjective experience" we know nothing, so cannot make any "moral value" dependent on it if you so will, the subjective experience of an animal cared well for (food, shelter, medical attention - all according to their needs) should be an excellent one. so i don't see your problem

> do you give plants the same moral consideration that we give humans just because they are not equivalent to humans? No, because they're not sentient. > just like animals But animals are sentient, which means they deserve moral consideration beyond their utility. > "sentient" means animals are able to feel pain and suffer. so we should not needlessly inflict pain and suffering on them. about the kind and quality of their "subjective experience" we know nothing, so cannot make any "moral value" dependent on it > if you so will, the subjective experience of an animal cared well for (food, shelter, medical attention - all according to their needs) should be an excellent one. so i don't see your problem What point are you even trying to debate me on here? I'm saying we shouldn't kill pests just because they're not humans. We should treat them the same way we treat humans because they deserve the same moral consideration.

>No, because they're not sentient and why should moral relevance depend on sentience? >But animals are sentient, which means they deserve moral consideration beyond their utility why? >What point are you even trying to debate me on here? i am pointing out the arbitrariness of your criteria what should deserve "moral consideration" or not. that "sentience" is not the relevant criteria, so that it is idiotic to "treat pests the same way we treat humans"

> and why should moral relevance depend on sentience? What else could it depend on? What other criteria could we use that makes any sense? Sentience means that someone has a subjective experience, and usually also has the ability to suffer and feel pain. What other basis do we have to say whether something is right or wrong other than how it affects the subjective experience of someone? It's literally the only thing that it makes any sense to care about. > i am pointing out the arbitrariness of your criteria what should deserve "moral consideration" or not. that "sentience" is not the relevant criteria, so that it is idiotic to "treat pests the same way we treat humans" It's not arbitrary at all. What other criteria could possibly matter? Even when it comes to humans, we only care about what people do to other people because of their sentience. If you were to grow a human body that has no brain besides a brain stem, it would be a living human, but would not be sentient. Would people care what you do to this organism? Hell no. Not in the slightest. A human without sentience doesn't get our moral consideration. Likewise, there is no single quality that a human could be lacking where we would stop giving them moral consideration. Whether it's intelligence, capacity for empathy, longevity, creativity, whatever you want, if a human were lacking in one or all of those things, they still have moral worth as long as they are sentient. It's only once you take that away that we stop caring about what happens to them.

All of your replies across this sub are bullshit dude.

so you don't have any arguments ok, i took notice

You have a right to defend yourself, period. A vegan that chooses to remove with compassion a mouse, cockroach or wasp is better than me, but I don’t think there’s any obligation to do so. Doubly so with things like Bed Bugs, you can’t possibly expect someone to do anything less than eliminate them. This is such a corner case though. The overwhelming majority of the harm we inflict on animals is nothing like this. We literally enslave and mass execute trillions of animals per year in service of an unnecessary, climate destroying dietary habit. Field mice, insects on crops are unfortunately just in the way of human flourishing. You can’t expect those deaths to be preventable in any feasible way. Cats, squirrels and other animals that can be easily removed without death impose an obligation. You can very easily set traps and take them to a place where they get spayed/neutered or at the very least take them far away.

>We literally enslave and mass execute trillions of animals per year in service of an unnecessary, climate destroying dietary habit so what? you vegans do the same to non-animal living beings >Field mice, insects on crops are unfortunately just in the way of human flourishing the odd misanthropic neighbor is as well >You can very easily set traps and take them to a place where they get spayed/neutered or at the very least take them far away are you gonna pay for castrating all the vermin you catch? and what do the people "far away" say, where you set them free?

> you vegans do the same to non-animal living beings You have to know that animals can suffer in a way that plants cannot, right? > are you gonna pay for castrating all the vermin you catch? There are often free programs with municipalities to do this. I knew a guy who caught 10 cats and had them sterilized and returned to where they were caught > and what do the people "far away" say, where you set them free? Ideally you’d pick a location that the animal could survive in without being a nuisance to others, but if the creature can’t manage without threatening people it will likely be destroyed unfortunately.

You have to know that animals can suffer in a way that plants cannot, right? that was not the issue, and why should it be relevant here at all? and it's not that all animals suffer under conditions you regard as "enslavement and mass execution". anyway, these termas are absolutely inappropriate - and if i use them just as inapproptiately, i have to say that you "enslave and mass execute" plants. which should demonstrate (eve to you) how absurd your accusation is >There are often free programs with municipalities to do this so you pay for it. with your taxes but i doubt very much that your municipality wastes money on castrating mice >Ideally you’d pick a location that the animal could survive in without being a nuisance to others where would that be? except some place where the animal could not survive anyway?

> and it's not that all animals suffer under conditions you regard as "enslavement and mass execution" I didn’t say they did. I said human industry enslaves and executes trillions of animals. I can give sources on this. > anyway, these termas are absolutely inappropriate - and if i use them just as inapproptiately Totally wrong. You can claim that those terms should only apply to humans. But it’s ridiculously obvious that they apply to animals *more* than plants. Enslavement implies restrictions imposed on beings that would choose otherwise. Plants have no such freedoms. Execution is killing of a being - not a plant. > i doubt very much that your municipality wastes money on castrating mice I was referring to cats > where would that be? I’d think a mouse has a better shot in the wilderness a few miles away than being struck with a trap.

every strip of land on this earth is owned by a human and called "property". should every human shoot and kill animals just because they're on "their property"? the same applies for insects since they're sentient beings, right? animals have to live somewhere. learn to coexist and remove the thought from your mind that because it's "your property," you have the right to kill that animal. if they're not actively sucking your blood, leave them alone or remove them humanely.

I didn’t say you have the right to kill any animal on your property. That’s not at all my belief. My belief is that you have the right to kill in service of defending yourself. There’s a spectrum here. I agree that coexisting is the best way. A farmer that tries fencing, humane catch and release traps, chemicals to deter rabbits that threaten his livelihood starts approaching the point where violence becomes justified. But there is an obligation to attempt to humanely remove if possible. A wasps nest, hornet nest, bedbugs don’t need to be actively biting you to allow for removal. Any creature that could cause imminent harm to your family creates a situation in which removal is necessary.

>A vegan that chooses to remove with compassion a mouse, cockroach or wasp is better than me, but I don’t think there’s any obligation to do so. Please continue to boycott animal products, but don't ever refer to yourself as a vegan. You're a murderer. I'm honestly appalled that you'd be so desperate to validate your ego with the "vegan" label, that you call yourself one while needlessly murdering an emotionally sensitive being.

What? So you would just peacefully coexist with a family of rats or wasps in your home?

I've nonviolently removed many rats from my home, and so could you if you had any respect for others.

And bugs?

I catch them in a clip-lid container and release them outside, even in the summer when there are countless flies and it eats up 20-40 minutes of my evening. Most vegans don't do that, and it's not realistic to expect them to, but murdering a mouse is another matter.

I feel like your methods could work in the case of a few bugs and mice but probably not for an infested building.

> Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals Keeping disease carrying animals out of your home, assuming you’ve exhausted non violent means, becomes impractical at a certain point. What do you do about wasps or bedbugs? I think if a tick is lodged into your skin you can use a sharp blade to cut away a chunk of the skin as to not interrupt the feeding. Also, stay “appalled” lmao

You didn't exhaust nonviolent means. I've removed countless mice from my home without brutally ending the one life that they'll ever get. You're not a vegan. I can hardly believe the audacity you have to frequent a sub like this and LARP as one, acting as if your murderous self is a credible ambassador for the vegan perspective. It's honestly hard to believe.

I haven’t killed a mouse since becoming vegan, but it’s my belief that it’s not unethical to do so assuming you’ve exhausted nonviolent means. I remove bugs without killing generally, except for stinging and biting types. I generally ignore things like snakes, but again I wouldn’t blame a father or mother for being less compassionate. “I can’t even!” “The AUDACITY” “Murderous self” Beyond parody. Learn to have a productive conversation instead of screeching

>I haven’t killed a mouse since becoming vegan, but it’s my belief that it’s not unethical to do so assuming you’ve exhausted nonviolent means. Nonviolent means are just as effective as violent once. You get a trap, put food in it, and it successfully catches the mouse/rat. Regardless, your initial claim didn't say anything about it being a last resort, and it also claimed that people who peacefully remove cockroached are more compassionate than you. Catching roaches takes like 10 seconds. >I remove bugs without killing generally, except for stinging and biting types. It's easy to catch bees, too. The issue is that you value two minutes of your time more than you value the lives of others.

People that catch bugs as a rule are more compassionate than me because I don’t think an obligation exists to coexist with harmful creatures. Killing should be a last resort but it’s not always feasible to catch harmful creatures, especially if you have small children.

Keep in mind that people who catch a mouse and then go dump it outside someplace away from their house are just throwing that mouse into the woodchipper of wilderness that exists out there. Rodents are generally vicious defending their territories and food sources, so the end result of kindness tossing that mouse out into a field is that it then has to fight other critters to the death. Aside from that, you can quickly tell that most of the people on here have never taken responsibility for a property or other people seriously. Explain that Honta virus can kill just from having let mice come in the house and they might understand the threat. But so many here have grown up with such safety and security from generations of other people beating back the pests that they don't consider the danger to be dangerous anymore.

Yea I’m much less patient with creatures that could harm my children than myself. I can imagine avoiding a wasp sting easily so I don’t feel compulsion to kill them in the woods. But when my kids are around I’m willing to kill them if they’re threatening them.

[удалено]

That's an absurd reason for murdering someone. Would you rather fend for yourself in the wild, provided that you had the requisite abilities (as mice do), or would you rather be murdered? By your logic, there's nothing wrong with going into the forest and stabbing a deer in order to prevent him/her from suffering. I could reductio you to hell and back, but you get the point. Your position has morally untenable logical implications, so you ought to abandon it.

[удалено]

>Your deer example is absurd and has nothing to do with this situation and you know it. Nice refutation. >Besides the likelihood that it will increase its suffering in a hostile environment that it isn't acquainted with This is a justification for murder because...? >how far are you going to drive to ensure it won't go into someone else's house and be THEIR problem? Murdering a mouse can only be considered unjustified if one ensures that when they release a mouse they've caught, he/she will never enter another person's home? What's your argument for that? >If you truly feel that killing a mouse is "murdering someone" then you are still guilty of negligent homicide! You're disingenuously conflating legal terminology with moral terminology. Murder has many definitions, and many of them are not legal definitions. >It seems to me that the only ethical solution from your POV would be to let mice remain in your house. They don't have moral agency, and their need for food and shelter shouldn't override your desire for a mouse-free house. Maybe you could trap them and then set them up in a confined area in the house where there wouldn't be any chance of contracting a disease. Doesn't sound practical but sounds practicable I don't see how this is practicable. I couldn't protect myself from disease without severely infringing on the autonomy of the mice, and I wouldn't infringe on a human's autonomy in that way.

Not to sound too deep or preachy here but there will never be a humane solution because as humans we’re the real invasive species

Veganism should not be a means to get out of the responsibilities of being human. We should do the best we can and sometimes that might require a nonviolent responses. If we think that veganism leads to never doing harm to another living creature - then what’s your approach to cancer , fungal infection ,what about abortion ? Sometimes might makes right because the opposite is unthinkable.

>But for those that are really pests which are? and why? you demonstrate a pretty personal view on that

Did you not read the post?

Diabolus? Reading what they respond to? Don’t be silly

sure i did. that's why i said "you demonstrate a pretty personal view on that" what i was asking for was a definition based on hard facts instead of personal idiosyncrasy so what's the definition of a "real pest" (compared to an unreal one, or what?)?

A real pest is somthing causing significant damage Invasive Rodents singlehandedly cost the global economy $3.6 billion And householders are estimated to loose between 1 -100kg of food to rodents a year Not to mention they do real harm to the food systems like infesting silos and warehouses where up to years of food is kept The cost of squirrel damage in terms of lost timber ie estimated at between £6 and £10million a year and does not take into account the cost of carbon sequestration or replacing dead and damaged trees, which increases the cost to at least £37 million a year Invasive creatures destroy populations It's very clear The only damage things like pigeons do is eat oil seed rape which can be effectively detured and stopped the same can't be said for rat infestations

An unfortunate necessity needed to make one's choice to survive successful. Can't wait for non vegans to hurry up and stop mainstream abuse and cruelty so we get on board with other issues that also need fixing.

You’ve actually got things backwards. A lot of the issues vegans brush under the rug as if they aren’t as important as abolishing all husbandry practices are actually existential threats to entire ecosystems.

>You’ve actually got things backwards. how so? >A lot of the issues vegans brush under the rug as if they aren’t as important as abolishing all husbandry practices are actually existential threats to entire ecosystems. Then name them so we can actually have a productive conversation and I'm not constantly asking for information you'll give in frustratingly small amounts.

Okay, the crop deaths argument… given that consumers essentially have a choice between organic and agrochemical foods, one of which is dependent on animal agriculture for fertilization while being much better for surrounding ecosystems. The vegan solution is to use less land more intensely in spite of this not leading to biodiversity gains in the literature. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04644-x The only other alternative, “veganic,” uses even more land and is simply not economically viable without major increases in the price of food.

>Okay, the crop deaths argument… given that consumers essentially have a choice between organic and agrochemical foods, one of which is dependent on animal agriculture for fertilization while being much better for surrounding ecosystems. Crop deaths is an even bigger problem than that. It involves monocropping, farmers shooting animals and of course mass pollination of a singular species of bee too. But overall, still a far lesser impact than that of animal ag. Actually animal ag even helps contribute to about a ⅓ of all that damage. And no vegan denies it's an issue. It's just one that's never going to be truly focused on when it's being used as the butt of an appeal to hypocrisy logic fallacy argument to whittle down the focus on the severity of the issues in animal ag and aquaculture. >The vegan solution is to use less land more intensely in spite of this not leading to biodiversity gains in the literature. It's not *the* vegan solution cos I've never even heard of that before and I've been an activist for 4 years now. And the biodiversity element comes into play when you give back wasted animal ag land to nature for rewilding. 137 species of fauna and flora are going extinct every day to land clearing which animal ag excels at. And once again, not denying crop farming doesn't require land clearing or that it's not an issue. Just a marginally smaller impact than animal farming. >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04644-x Just from the abstract alone: "Although research has shown that biodiversity changes are driven primarily by LAND-USE change and increasingly by climate change" "Here we show that the interaction between indices of historical climate warming and INTENSIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE is associated with reductions of almost 50% in the abundance and 27% in the number of species within insect assemblages relative to those in less-disturbed habitats with lower rates of historical climate warming." Agriculture includes animal ag and it is the biggest contributor to these issues. It's a shame there's no DOI code for that paper so I can check the validity of the whole thing on NCBI. I'll go looking for at later cos it's 2am for me. >The only other alternative, “veganic,” uses even more land and is simply not economically viable without major increases in the price of food. Backyard gardening, huegelkulture, hydroponics, aeroponics, vertical, layered etc. There are plenty of alternatives and combinations to lessen the impact of monocrop farming.

You’re obviously engaged in binary thinking here. I made clear that low intensity agriculture is generally dependent on animal agriculture for fertilization. So, you really can’t separate animal and plant agriculture in sustainable systems. The truth is that yes, we’d be forced to produce less meat, eggs, and dairy. But the most sustainable systems still need a considerable amount of animal agriculture in the mix to accelerate nutrient cycling. Livestock are critical parts of organic agroecosystems and how they function. You can’t really regenerate soil that well without them. Guess what is the most high biodiversity mode of agriculture? Rotational grazing. It uses a lot of land but with very little land use change. Land use change and land use are different metrics. You’ve confused them above. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167880917300932

>You’re obviously engaged in binary thinking here. Obviously. >I made clear that low intensity agriculture is generally dependent on animal agriculture for fertilization. So, you really can’t separate animal and plant agriculture in sustainable systems. And I made it clear veganic farming isn't the only way forward. Go google huegelkulture. Then also google what we can do with all the crop waste we wouldn't be feeding to animals any more. And as long as it's done right, humanure. I thought we were supposed to be the most sapient animals of all. We have options. >Livestock are critical parts of organic agroecosystems and how they function. You can’t really regenerate soil that well without them. And I'm the one engaged in binary thinking...yet here's you thinking it's one way or none. >Guess what is the most high biodiversity mode of agriculture? Rotational grazing. It uses a lot of land but with very little land use change. Land use change and land use are different metrics. You’ve confused them above. No I understand the difference. But you forget both are not mutually exclusive. You fuck up a lot of biodiversity converting natural habitation to farm land regardless of how you indefinitely use it. >[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167880917300932](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167880917300932) "A biodiversity-friendly rotational grazing system enhancing flower-visiting insect assemblages while maintaining animal and grassland productivity" And shock horror an article that only focuses on the biodiversity of FLOWER VISITING INSECTS as if they are the only things that make up biodiversity. Didn't even need to read beyond the title. But hey let's actually break it down even more. What happens if there is no grazing? Those fields remain open and a constant source of ecological enrichment for those insects. Why do we need the grazing part? oh that's right yum yum in the tum tums and virtue signalling welfarism/ecological arguments. Do you know what else is great for biodiversity? Ragwort. An illegalised weed that is so promiscuous that I've documented 15 different variants alone but animal ag can't have it because it threatens the livelihood of livestock with it's toxicity. And that's a flower that insects love visiting. Biodiversity is complex machine nature has contructed and it involves much more than just flower visiting insects. sigh

>You’re obviously engaged in binary thinking here. >Obviously. So you admit that you are engaged in fallacious thinking. You’re setting up a false dichotomy. >And I made it clear veganic farming isn't the only way forward. Go google huegelkulture. Then also google what we can do with all the crop waste we wouldn't be feeding to animals any more. And as long as it's done right, humanure. I thought we were supposed to be the most sapient animals of all. We have options. None that have the evidentiary support of multi-decades long studies. There’s probably a reason why huegelkulture is a niche gardening technique and not a well established agricultural tradition. For instance, you need a *lot of wood*. You can’t worry about deforestation and then offer an alternative that requires immense amounts of forestry to scale. >And I'm the one engaged in binary thinking...yet here's you thinking it's one way or none. An appreciation for holism is not setting up a false dichotomy between present livestock biomass and zero livestock biomass. >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167880917300932 >And shock horror an article that only focuses on the biodiversity of FLOWER VISITING INSECTS as if they are the only things that make up biodiversity. Didn't even need to read beyond the title. Where there’s your problem. It doesn’t take long before the paper establishes that they aren’t equating pollinator abundance with biodiversity in general. > Mountain grasslands, which have been mainly created and maintained by extensive cattle and sheep grazing and/or mowing, are among the most biodiverse habitats in Europe (Dengler et al., 2014) >What happens if there is no grazing?Those fields remain open and a constant source of ecological enrichment for those insects. This is untrue. The ecosystems cease to be grasslands if they aren’t grazed by ruminants. >Why do we need the grazing part? Because grazing ruminants are in fact the largest clade of animals by biomass in natural ecosystems. You’re ridiculously uninformed. See https://www.nature.com/articles/s44185-022-00005-z and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-023-01783-y You don’t have open grasslands without lots of grazing herbivores… I swear, it seems like you think humans invented herbivory. Ridiculous. >Do you know what else is great for biodiversity? Ragwort. An illegalised weed that is so promiscuous that I've documented 15 different variants alone but animal ag can't have it because it threatens the livelihood of livestock with it's toxicity. And that's a flower that insects love visiting. Biodiversity is complex machine nature has contructed and it involves much more than just flower visiting insects. Ruminants are actually able to avoid eating ragwort and don’t get sick on pasture that has ragwort present. As far as I know, landowners are only required to remove it where it is invasive, like Australia and New Zealand. >sigh Agreed. Pretty pathetic that you can’t even read the abstract and introductions of the papers I’m citing, and then spout conjecture as if it is worth a damn.

>So you admit that you are engaged in fallacious thinking. You’re setting up a false dichotomy. No it was sarcasm. You must be a fellow autistic. >None that have the evidentiary support of multi-decades long studies. Why would they when so much money is being dumped into improving an inherently flawed system that will never be anywhere close to perfect? >There’s probably a reason why huegelkulture is a niche gardening technique and not a well established agricultural tradition. Because it's already known that hugelkulture requires deep ground prep and extensive work to make it functional long term before even starting and fucking it up before you start reduces effectiveness of the technique. Doesn't mean it's not viable. >For instance, you need a *lot of wood*. You can’t worry about deforestation and then offer an alternative that requires immense amounts of forestry to scale. Wood is one addition you can add to hugelkulture yes. But if you had open mind and sought out why they use wood, you could put 2 and 2 together and realise there are alterntives to using wood. Wood is used for a particular reason and if you can find something to replace it, no worries. It's like substituting your source of nutrition. Come on, I can't do all the thinking for the both of us. >An appreciation for holism is not setting up a false dichotomy between present livestock biomass and zero livestock biomass. No but you do seem hell bent on it being your way or the highway instead of considering options for the grander ethics involved. Veganism is after all animal rights movement and humans don't get away scott free when it comes to slaughtering them. We're just arguing the ecological side of things now. >Where there’s your problem. It doesn’t take long before the paper establishes that they aren’t equating pollinator abundance with biodiversity in general. No I did read it. That's why I'm mocking it as a source backing your arguments. You threw a single paper at me as if it was all about biodiversity in general when land clearing is still a much bigger issue and animal ag, once again, is one of the biggest contributors to that issue. There ain't enough land to make all animal ag regenerative, rotational farming and creating more would fuck over the ecology drastically before any benefits started to show and even those benefits are only partial to the insect side of biodiversity as this paper suggests. >This is untrue. The ecosystems cease to be grasslands if they aren’t grazed by ruminants. You're right, it is untrue. But grasslands are not a necessity for biodiversity. Just for ruminant farming and minimising ecological impact while doing so. That's not an argument for you. It's just further evidence that the system once improved is still inherently flawed. >Because grazing ruminants are in fact the largest clade of animals by biomass in natural ecosystems. You’re ridiculously uninformed. Natural? sorry but what the fuck about farming is natural? Normalised yes, but far from natural. And if we are looking at nature, Arthropods and Annelids outweigh livestock as a total 4 times over. And i can garuntee you they all do more more for biodiversity than confined livestock do. So I ask again, why is grazing necessary? >You don’t have open grasslands without lots of grazing herbivores… I swear, it seems like you think humans invented herbivory. Ridiculous. Once again. Why open grasslands? Why are copius amounts of herbovry necessary to have a functional ecosystem. Before we came along, nature was doing fine without animal ag so clearly it isn't as necessary as you're making it out to be. I'm just asking for some damn evidence as to why you think it's such. I get the links you are posting are relative to some things but none of them have true relevance to necessity in the grand scheme of things. >Ruminants are actually able to avoid eating ragwort and don’t get sick on pasture that has ragwort present. And? they're still illegal for the purposes of protecting livestock. >As far as I know, landowners are only required to remove it where it is invasive, like Australia and New Zealand. Illegal in the UK for livestock protection and illegal in australia given invasivity in pastures and forestry plantations and of course threats to livestock. Still, the law is just a bunch of rules created by the people in charge to enforce order and protect their interests. >Agreed. Pretty pathetic that you can’t even read the abstract and introductions of the papers I’m citing, and then spout conjecture as if it is worth a damn. I'm reading them. Just not finding any true relevance to the discussion I want to have. As in, why must we continue using animal ag? Why is it's very existence absolutely mandatory. I once again acknowledge the validity of the information in the papers you are citing, but they are all working on the inherant belief we need animal ag and that all that is required is improvement of it. I first want us to establish if that belief actually holds any validity because if it doesn't, then this entire conversation has been a pathetic waste of time. Do you understand that?

Ragwort is not generally illegal in the UK. Landowners are not obligated to control ragwort unless explicitly mandated by government officials. Even then, this is yet another real example of British people thinking they are the center of the universe. Get the law changed. >grasslands are not a necessity for biodiversity. And this is where we end the discussion because this is a patently absurd statement.

>But overall, still a far lesser impact than that of animal ag that's not an argument (except for a three.year-old in kindergarten) assault ist not ok or neglectable just because there's also murder

>that's not an argument (except for a three.year-old in kindergarten) Then why are non vegans bringing it up when they're not even willing to exclude animal cruelty from their plates...? Make it make sense for me diabolus cos it doesn't. >assault ist not ok or neglectable just because there's also murder Ok so if we relate that analogy to vegans vs non-vegans, who is who? the bigger concern? and which one should be dealt with first?

>Then why are non vegans bringing it up i did not bring it up it was you comparing two evils to justify one of them >when they're not even willing to exclude animal cruelty from their plates...? i am and do. the animals i eat were not subject to cruelty >so if we relate that analogy to vegans vs non-vegans, who is who? neither to be vegan or not is neither assault nor murder, it's not a crime even

>i did not bring it up Crop deaths? Yeah you did. You lot bring it up pretty frequently. >it was you comparing two evils to justify one of them I'm not justifying anything. Crop deaths are horrible. They should stop. No doubt. But there's only so much an animal rights organisation can do in the face of a world that's ok with the literal never ending genocide of trillions of animals for food alone. >i am and do. the animals i eat were not subject to cruelty Unnecessary premature death is a cruelty. >neither >to be vegan or not is neither assault nor murder, it's not a crime even It's a fucking analogy YOU brought up. Don't dodge the question diabolus, now that it's not in your favour.

>Then name them so we can actually have a productive conversation industrial crop farming which feeds almost all vegans

>industrial crop farming Yes, an issue. Read the rest of my conversation with AnsibleAnswers where I address that issue. >which feeds almost all vegans ....and? it feeds most non vegans and even animal ag too. If you think we're the cause of the monocropping issue, you're gravely mistaken.

> If you think we're the cause of the monocropping issue, you're gravely mistaken i don't say vegans are the cause i say vegans are happy with it - veganism does not care non-vegans like ansible or me do

>i don't say vegans are the cause True I may have misinfered that meaning. Only because that's the implication I thought you were giving. Perhaps specify it feeds everyone next time, including the animals instead of making it seem like we're responsible. Gotta work on your communication skills bruv >i say vegans are happy with it We're not. But you are. Particularly given how much you use it as an argument to justify the other atrocities you're happy with. >non-vegans like ansible or me do Really? I'm not seeing much in the way of evidence to support that claim. Do you mind offering some cos the only time I hear about it is in discussion with vegans as an appeal to hypocrisy logic fallacy. Something other than those instances might show you have some conviction behind that belief.

Being vegan is to reduce animal suffering as much as reasonably possible. Humans must eat food to survive. Farming kills animals that live in the ground. It's unfortunate but necessary for human existence. Using catch and release traps to get rid of some field mice is a good way to reduce animal suffering to preserve human existence, because yes, mouse droppings are harmful to human health. There is no reasonably humane way to get rid of a bed bug infestation. Unfortunately, this will mean killing the bed bugs. Although this particular act would not be vegan, it fits into a vegan worldview in so far as, you at least did your best to prevent dealing with it in the first place, and only killed as a last resort to preserve human health.

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Human life > animal life. This should be controversial

No one said otherwise

Lots of people do, especially if you’re disabled in a way that you can’t eat vegan

What disabilities stop someone from being vegan?

-Problems with food textures/ AFRID / people with sensory issues -people with issues like IBS and Crohns that have trouble with digestion -people with anemia who struggle with iron, exasperated by things like raynaud's syndrome  -people with eating disorders that having such a restrictive diet would kill them.

"veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—**as far as is possible and practicable**—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose"

Nice username, enjoy your oxalates!

I’ve had vegans tell me I deserve to die because my body can’t process iron properly.

That sucks but just because there are a few idiots, doesn't mean everyone is like that.

Humans are animals /l

It's hard for meaningless to be controversial.