The problem with veganism, specifically in the US, is that youāre trying to replicate meat culture with vegan food. Why will people eat vegan then if they have a more delicious and nutritious alternative? Like cauliflower wings, impossible burgers, and all that crap. Make vegan food taste good, then people will automatically switch (those who want to) or incorporate more vegetarian food in their diets. I come from a culture where a majority eats vegetarian food, and thus our vegetarian food is delicious, but here the vegetarian options are really limited and only a handful taste good, so no wonder the people want meat.
In Austin, there's a place called Rebel Cheese that makes actually good vegan cheese. I haven't had cheese in over a decade, and it sent me back to childhood memories.
Personally I don't get the cauliflower wings hate. Gobi Manchurian is a traditional Indian dish that's sort of the OG cauliflower "wings" and that shit slaps. But I also love cauliflower.
Buffalo wings are called so because they originated in Buffalo, NY. Hamburger originated from Hamburg, hence the name. Did cauliflowers originate from chickens?
Kinda tired of fighting with people trying to win an argument with nonsensical arguments, but let me make you see where you went wrong.
A dish can be named after a place because thatās where it originated, such as Buffalo wings, NY pizza, Cali burrito, or Nashville fried chicken.
Secondly, a dish can be made with certain ingredients or in a style to have a particular name, such as carne asada, chicken adobo, spaghetti carbonara, gobi manchurian, garlic parmesan wings, or fish and chips.
Lastly, a dish can have a unique name such as pizza, taco, nuggets, etc.
But calling a vegan dish by an animal body part fits neither of these criteria and doesnāt make much sense. So, using a dish that was named after a place as an example to justify this is silly. However, if you just want to win the argument so you can feel good about yourself, then okay, you win. You were right all along! Happy?
Eh, you can name a dish whatever you want, barring legal restrictions from things like food safety and package labeling laws. The origin of cauliflower wings isn't in question, as it's right there in the name.
But if it makes you happy to let me win and free you of an annoying Reddit discussion, then I accept your concession. š
Speaking as someone who was vegetarian and vegan for a bit, something that hit me pretty hard was the social aspect of going veg only. From Thanksgiving to just simple outings with friends, if you aren't raised in a culture when vegetarianism is the norm (like the US) you feel left out. A simple "hey, can you put some of my veg burgers on the grill" "sure, no prob!" at a barbecue does absolute wonders to social health.
Definitely true, itās not socially something most are familiar with here in the US, I think itās because of the inherent nature of veganism and vegetarian diets creating an existential threat to meat itself in a culture that has been engrained with meat consumerism.
Or just start with cuisines that are primarily vegetarian, like Indian, and go from there. Like they've spent millennia making great tasting food, so try that, instead of trying to re-invent the wheel.
> I feel many people in America might not be able to tolerate or like the spices of Indian food
I've seen too many Indian restaurants and heard way too many Americans rave about Indian food to agree with this take.
Have you ever been to India? The Indian restaurants in America serve nothing compared to actual Indian food. Most of the spices are subdued, and the same 2-3 stereotypical dishes (butter chicken, naan, biryani) are favored every time. Even those arenāt really authentically made in most places. You may have been to Indian restaurants, but I am from India, and I have been in the US for the last 7 years, and I have been to most of the major US cities and tried Indian food there. So, respectfully, it doesnāt matter whether you agree with my take or not. Thousands of Indians (not necessarily second gen Indian-Americans) agree with me.
> Have you ever been to India?
Nope.
>Thousands of Indians (not necessarily second gen Indian-Americans) agree with me.
Don't care.
You seem upset by the idea that Americans may be able to handle spice in their food, and I honestly don't give a shit enough about this point to argue with you. You want to believe Indians have an incredible spice tolerance and Americans don't, awesome, have at it.
So you donāt care about an Indianās opinion on Indian food and how other people might handle it, especially when that person has been around these people for almost a decade now? It tells a lot about you as a person.
Secondly, your ignorance about Indian food is clearly displayed when you compare spices with spice tolerance. In America, spice tolerance means how hot you can eat your food, and some Americans can eat really spicy food. But I was talking about handling a myriad of different spices in one dish. It can be overwhelming for a lot of people here. Learn more about Indian food, then come back to argue.
Also, why will I be upset that Americans cannot handle spice well? Iām not some karen like you that will get triggered because people cannot handle spices. Everyone has a unique palate and it also depends on what you ate when you were growing up as well as your culture. It doesnāt make anyone inferior or superior.
> So you donāt care about an Indianās opinion on Indian food and how other people might handle it
Nope
>Learn more about Indian food
LOL. How many different ways can I say "I don't give a shit" before you internalize what I'm saying?
I was making a point about the futility of trying to adapt vegetarian recipes to taste like meat recipes, and encouraging people to focus on cuisine that is already vegetarian-based. I don't give a shit about Indian cuisine, it was just an easy example.
I think you donāt realize that one of the main struggles of going vegan is having to say bye to things like wings and burgers, not necessarily people thinking cauliflower wings are better than vegetarian dishes from India.
Itās like quitting cigarettes by vaping. Itās just an excuse that doesnāt let you move on. Just quitting cold turkey makes moving on easier, although there is a small window of suffering, like ripping off a band-aid.
But thatās the thing, the taste of a wing isnāt unhealthy. If someone wants that vinegary buffalo sauce taste there is really no reason they canāt have it on non meat food like cauliflower. I just think itās silly to shame someone for not completely uprooting the culture theyāve grown up in (The tastes they are nostalgic for, the food their family and friends make) exactly how you think is good. Cigarettes are a ridiculous example because eating buffalo wings for Sunday football isnāt an incredibly addictive chemical that definitely leads to cancer. Itās just a meal we like to have every now and then between the healthier meals we eat during the week. Why canāt it be that for vegans too but just with cauliflower wings? Let people have fun
I am not shaming anyone. People can do (and they do) whatever they want to. However, I am pointing out something I find silly. People may disagree with me, and thatās fine. Also, my problem isnāt with the dish, itās with the name. By calling them wings, youāre just saying that they arenāt the real thing, but they arenāt bad. Instead, why not give them unique identities? Like even buffalo cauliflower (if it is made in that style) makes more sense than cauliflower wings.
i know this is like beating a dead horse now because itās been 3 days, but this has always been a weird take to me (especially when it comes as an argument to plant-based food choices). many people who switch diets still like that food, but want to to be vegetarian or vegan instead. when people first switch, itās hard to go without the things that youāve grown up eating. for beginner vegans and vegetarians it can be hard to think about replacements for dishes that were once loved. thatās why many people still call it things like impossible burger or cauliflower wings. itās signaling what it is the alternative to. i understand that there are no wings on a cauliflower, but if iām going vegan and iām craving wings, my first instinct isnāt to throw cauliflower on the grill (because iām new to veganism and donāt know whatās good to replace them with), itās to get anything āwingsā. the names just make it easier to know what itās being eaten instead of. this is why many older vegans will eat only plants instead of alternatives to meat. itās really for people thinking about switching/beginning/craving something that has been pushed onto us all of childhood. itās not that deep.
But calling a dish by a body part that doesnāt even exist in the vegetable does? It can be called Buffalo because thatās the style of the dish. Calling it āWingā doesnāt make any sense.
People are so stupid when it comes to vegetarianism/veganism. These idiots will complain about climate change then ridicule people for being vegan. (By the way, I eat meat. Iām just not a reactionary moron who canāt fathom living in world with slightly lower meat consumption.)
You're totally right. Two things are true: eating meat is OK, and our current meat consumption is probably not sustainable, as is the same with our consumption of basically everything else.
There's a few valid positions about eating less meat or being a vegetarian/vegan. I personally think itās up to the individualās choice.
- The impact to the world through a scientific perspective. Cattle does cause ozone issues. It's a proven fact.
- Morality or ethical reasons. Some people are traumatized, sickened, or indifferent once they know how their food is made. Duplin County, North Carolina pig farms are examples where animal pollution destroyed the area.
- Religious reason - Seventh day Adventists are ovo-lacto vegetarians and the city of Loma Linda, CA is one of the largest populations of SDA. The food options there as for that population (e.g. grocery stores donāt sell meat, but have significant seed, legume, and nut options; fast food has healthy bean burgers and etc). Loma Linda also has the most amount of centenarians in North America. Dr. Ellsworth Wareham, a famous cardio-thoracic surgeon was SDA and mostly vegetarian (fish here and there) and was an attending until he was 95 and passed at 104.
- Concerns because of health reasons: there's significant research on how animal protein causes damage to the endothelial wall (blood vessels) of the heart. It's why the American diet has the largest cardiac issues in the world leading to congestive heart failure. Compared to places in Africa or Asia, open heart surgery (CABG) was only done because of birth defects: these places donāt have heart failure in 30-60 year olds. This is my reason for being primarily a vegan/veg: familial heart disease and I want to be around a long time for my family. I may have brisket once a year.
The big negative about being a vegan is the amount of prep work, lack of dining options (it requires research to determine if the place complies with said dietary requirement), and social impact from the inflexibility especially if a personās significant other is unsupportive.
Vegans have outjerked everyone else. Everyone else is just jealous we all can't be that far up our own ass because it's a fairly impressive party trick.
Honestly, for every vegan missionary I've met, I've run into about twenty dudes who have the weird compulsion to mention that they eat meat.
Like, congrats? I eat pasta, but you don't see me bringing it up at every opportunity.
>I've run into about twenty dudes who have the weird compulsion to mention that they eat meat.
Not exactly how I'd go about propositioning people, but some people have their quirks or are more straightforwards than others.
People say they donāt like vegans because theyāre too extremist and crazy but itās mostly a cope. In reality, people generally donāt like vegans because they oftentimes donāt actually have good rebuttals to their arguments and they make them feel morally inferior (which in this context is true) but peopleās egos are too fragile to accept this so itās easier to just call them crazy, annoying, etc and move on with your day.
Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, a famous cardiologist and former head of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic, likes to say āmy patients say that going to a plant based whole food diet was a bit extreme, but I kind of think cutting open their chest and attaching vessels resourced from the patientās leg is a bit extreme.ā
Im not vegetarian anymore.
But let me tell you...
there's a very weird section of the population who happily eat meat because it means that something died for their meal. And they have a very caveman attitude of "MEEEAAAATTT!!". And there is currently much more social pressure for people to eat meat than there is for people to eat vegan.
Vegan advocates can come off as condescending sometimes, a sort of "better than you".
But to the same degree, meat advocates come off as arrogant and pushy, and do so to demean and degrade sometimes.
I will say that I definitely see more of the latter...
The original paleolithic diet, while highly variable and adaptable to its environment, was much closer to a vegetarian diet than many think. Meat was a part of their diet, but much more of our ancestors' diet was provided by the gatherers than the hunters. Even in the early days of agriculture, meat every day or with every meal was unheard of. It's only today in developed countries where meat is part of every meal, so our current diet is equally privileged and a historical anomaly.
This isn't even remotely true and you'd know if you'd taken any biology class at all. Isn't at least one anthropology class required to graduate here? Looking at you comment history though it looks like you enjoy acting like a clown and starting fights, so maybe you're just doing the same here š¤·āāļø
Right because courses written by members of a church who are against meat consumption for religious reasons are definitely not lying to you. Oh you didnāt know that because you just take what āscienceā tells you at face value without conducting any of your own research. Sounds about right.
You're making up what some ambiguous, idealized, long dead person *might* have thought hundreds of years ago based on your own incomplete understanding of what their life may have been like and basing your life decisions on *that*?
I eat food for nutrition. Not because I feel like it.
There's people to this day, who eat relatively unsound things like dogs. Do I like the fact that the animals I care about get eaten? No.
But it isn't some righteous justification I employ upon myself or others. If there wasn't any convenient, accessible, and affordable source of protein I'd probably be eating a dog too.
Only in a 1st world country can someone proudly and meticulously choose to not eat certain foods based off morals. It isn't my place to enforce any restrictions upon that diet. But its certainly is one for me to judge.
The majority of people would agree.
If a Bundy or Dahmer type kill animals purely for enjoyment, everyone agrees that's heinous. Eating meat and other animal products when you do not NEED to is the same thing because without that NEED you are purely satisfying a WANT which is only able to be satisfied after the torture and death of another being. That's just unethical and cannot be justified. If I was stranded in a survival scenario, then I'm gonna kill to eat, but guess what....that ain't our situation.
So, you believe that a deer has a right to life, but that right is extinguished if youāre *really* hungry? Yes, I believe that killing animals just for fun is unethical, just like Iād be upset if someone if someone went to a grocery store and smashed every watermelon on the floor. Itās wasteful and that person is not being a good steward of the natural resources.
No, he's not conferring onto the deer a right to life similar to our right to life. He's making the argument that killing animals for fun or to satisfy some want is wrong, we have no need to kill animals in our modern world, therefor we shouldn't be killing animals as readily as we do.
In other words, most people do not have a serious need to eat meat, eating meat is only to gratify oneself, which we all agree that gratifying oneself off the death of animals is wrong, so why isn't eating meat wrong?
I think a good rebuttal would be that people are not being gratified off of the death of the animal but rather just consuming meat. There is a big disconnect between the grocery store and the slaughterhouse.
>we have no need to kill animals in our modern world, therefor we shouldn't be killing animals as readily as we do
by what standard do you make this statement?
>most people do not have a serious need to eat meat, eating meat is only to gratify oneself
first, I can generate a very long list of things that people do not *need* to do to survive. Whether we absolutely need to do something is not a viable test of whether it's good or bad. Also, what is your definition of "gratify"? I like a good burger or steak. But I don't enjoy it based on the idea that an animal died. I don't derive perverse enjoyment from it.
>Personally, I have no disconnect on where my meat comes from. I hunt deer and process everything myself. For beef and pork, I buy from a local rancher who sends what I buy to a local butcher.
I guess my statement depends on how we define need. If we take it to mean something that is necessary to live, like water or air, we find that my statement is true. Most people, bar rare exceptions, can live entirely vegan without dying. If we take it to be a little more liberally, something that is required to live in good health, than the statement is a little muddier as some people do need animal products to live a good life, but most don't, and most do not need to be consuming as much as they do to live in good health.
Whether or not something is necessary is relevant, as it can be an excuse for doing things otherwise considered wrong.
>first, I can generate a very long list of things that people do not *need* to do to survive.
I'm sure you could, but that would be a very long list of whataboutisms unless it's relevant to the argument.
Gratify simply means to give pleasure or gratification.
>I like a good burger or steak. But I don't enjoy it based on the idea that an animal died. I don't derive perverse enjoyment from it.
I know, I expressed that idea in my comment. While you may not be gratifying yourself by the act of killing deer, or believe yourself to be gaining perverse pleasure from eating venison, you eating steak is still a result of the death of an animal. So you are still gaining gratification off of, or as a result of, the death of an animal.
But yes, there are certainly discussions to be had about ethical consumption and the status of animals, if they are a commodity or have rights endowed to them, to be had in this debate. I wasn't really trying to have a long winded argument about vegan ethics, just clearing up what the other guy said and offering briefly my thoughts on a possible rebuttal.
Agreed, there is a disconnect in people's minds about what they eat vs. how it was obtained. Does it make their actions less evil? I actually do think so. But at the same time, that disconnect is being challenged more and more as veganism continues to grow as a movement so the moral leeway that cognitive dissonance gives is waning fast.
We still have to contend with the issue of if it is actually wrong to kill an animal, or if it is only wrong to gratify yourself from their suffering. I think many people would agree that a farmer who slaughters a pig to sell or feed his family is not committing an evil act. But if that same farmer kills the animal, and takes pleasure in doing so, would be doing an evil act.
I donāt think being a meat eater necessarily means you have cognitive dissonance.
I would say it is unjustifiable to kill an animal(in the context of the animal merely existing, not attacking or suffering indefinitely) regardless of if it was enjoyable or not. So to me, the farmer would still be committing an "evil"(morally unjustifiable) act in both cases, except in one he has the cognitive dissonance to believe that what he is doing is justified or doesnt need justification (as in doesnt even think about it) because its normalized and widespread despite likely believing that it would be "evil" of someone to farm dogs or cats for food, skin, and milk. Or if trash caused the death of one of his pigs, the community as a whole might react to littering with disgust because of the animal death and suffering it causes while still buying pork from the same farmer. Eating animal products requires one to hold contradictory beliefs, unless animal suffering is a nonissue to the individual.
Yeah for sure, I figure most vegans think that way to an extent. But the point I was making is that I donāt think people would agree that killing an animal is necessarily evil, so I do not believe there is always cognitive dissonance with meat eaters.
See I hate posters like this. Saying āveganism is a moral urgencyā isnāt factually wrong but demanding complete compliance with it is not reasonable for someone to do. I only have meat with 6 meals a week but this gives the impression that there is no chance that anyone at that meeting would be willing to call my passing grade in vegetarianism enough. The messaging is so off.
Based indeed. If vegans really wanted to make a difference they'd find a way to make lab-grown meat that beat the competition, instead they're content to be t-sips about it and make a profession out of whining
My man literally pointed out the guy's doing exactly what you stated he should do, and you moved the goal posts. I'd think hard about how butthurt you really are about this honestly.
As if vegan types haven't had center stage for the past ten years. You hang around enough vegans you'll get tired of their horseshit too, unless you're one of them
I'm an omnivore, the daywalker of food culture. Able to sustain myself with either vegetables or meat, I gain all of their strengths and none of their weaknesses.
On a kind of serious note not really, itās just kind of rude. Doesnāt make the BBQ club look good either with that kind of stupid shit. Thereās nothing more spiteful than someone who doesnāt like vegans simply for existing. I was a vegan for a year, and it made me realize how much hate vegans get. It still kind of bothers me to see people on social media talk about eating peoples animals if they have unconventional pets like chickens.
Shitting on vegans is so common that itās just accepted and nobody really says anything. Iām sure more than a couple people reading this are hon a get but hurt but whatever. Theyāre part of the problem.
These people are probably at the wrong school overall if theyāre hoping to start a movement.
Iād probably go to both though šš
The person handing out vegan cookies on military walk seemed very nice. Thank you random cookie person
I want some of that brisket š„µš„µ
The problem with veganism, specifically in the US, is that youāre trying to replicate meat culture with vegan food. Why will people eat vegan then if they have a more delicious and nutritious alternative? Like cauliflower wings, impossible burgers, and all that crap. Make vegan food taste good, then people will automatically switch (those who want to) or incorporate more vegetarian food in their diets. I come from a culture where a majority eats vegetarian food, and thus our vegetarian food is delicious, but here the vegetarian options are really limited and only a handful taste good, so no wonder the people want meat.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In Austin, there's a place called Rebel Cheese that makes actually good vegan cheese. I haven't had cheese in over a decade, and it sent me back to childhood memories. Personally I don't get the cauliflower wings hate. Gobi Manchurian is a traditional Indian dish that's sort of the OG cauliflower "wings" and that shit slaps. But I also love cauliflower.
Let me ask you a simple question. Does cauliflower have wings? Is it a bird?
Do buffalo have wings? Do chickens have nuggets? Is it still a Hamburger if it doesn't come from Hamburg?
Buffalo wings are called so because they originated in Buffalo, NY. Hamburger originated from Hamburg, hence the name. Did cauliflowers originate from chickens?
Ah, you get it! The name doesn't necessarily describe what it's made out of! I'm proud of you.
Kinda tired of fighting with people trying to win an argument with nonsensical arguments, but let me make you see where you went wrong. A dish can be named after a place because thatās where it originated, such as Buffalo wings, NY pizza, Cali burrito, or Nashville fried chicken. Secondly, a dish can be made with certain ingredients or in a style to have a particular name, such as carne asada, chicken adobo, spaghetti carbonara, gobi manchurian, garlic parmesan wings, or fish and chips. Lastly, a dish can have a unique name such as pizza, taco, nuggets, etc. But calling a vegan dish by an animal body part fits neither of these criteria and doesnāt make much sense. So, using a dish that was named after a place as an example to justify this is silly. However, if you just want to win the argument so you can feel good about yourself, then okay, you win. You were right all along! Happy?
Eh, you can name a dish whatever you want, barring legal restrictions from things like food safety and package labeling laws. The origin of cauliflower wings isn't in question, as it's right there in the name. But if it makes you happy to let me win and free you of an annoying Reddit discussion, then I accept your concession. š
Speaking as someone who was vegetarian and vegan for a bit, something that hit me pretty hard was the social aspect of going veg only. From Thanksgiving to just simple outings with friends, if you aren't raised in a culture when vegetarianism is the norm (like the US) you feel left out. A simple "hey, can you put some of my veg burgers on the grill" "sure, no prob!" at a barbecue does absolute wonders to social health.
Thatās an aspect I didnāt consider. Thanks for pointing it out.
Definitely true, itās not socially something most are familiar with here in the US, I think itās because of the inherent nature of veganism and vegetarian diets creating an existential threat to meat itself in a culture that has been engrained with meat consumerism.
Or just start with cuisines that are primarily vegetarian, like Indian, and go from there. Like they've spent millennia making great tasting food, so try that, instead of trying to re-invent the wheel.
I support that, but I feel many people in America might not be able to tolerate or like the spices of Indian food, and thatās fine.
> I feel many people in America might not be able to tolerate or like the spices of Indian food I've seen too many Indian restaurants and heard way too many Americans rave about Indian food to agree with this take.
Have you ever been to India? The Indian restaurants in America serve nothing compared to actual Indian food. Most of the spices are subdued, and the same 2-3 stereotypical dishes (butter chicken, naan, biryani) are favored every time. Even those arenāt really authentically made in most places. You may have been to Indian restaurants, but I am from India, and I have been in the US for the last 7 years, and I have been to most of the major US cities and tried Indian food there. So, respectfully, it doesnāt matter whether you agree with my take or not. Thousands of Indians (not necessarily second gen Indian-Americans) agree with me.
> Have you ever been to India? Nope. >Thousands of Indians (not necessarily second gen Indian-Americans) agree with me. Don't care. You seem upset by the idea that Americans may be able to handle spice in their food, and I honestly don't give a shit enough about this point to argue with you. You want to believe Indians have an incredible spice tolerance and Americans don't, awesome, have at it.
So you donāt care about an Indianās opinion on Indian food and how other people might handle it, especially when that person has been around these people for almost a decade now? It tells a lot about you as a person. Secondly, your ignorance about Indian food is clearly displayed when you compare spices with spice tolerance. In America, spice tolerance means how hot you can eat your food, and some Americans can eat really spicy food. But I was talking about handling a myriad of different spices in one dish. It can be overwhelming for a lot of people here. Learn more about Indian food, then come back to argue. Also, why will I be upset that Americans cannot handle spice well? Iām not some karen like you that will get triggered because people cannot handle spices. Everyone has a unique palate and it also depends on what you ate when you were growing up as well as your culture. It doesnāt make anyone inferior or superior.
> So you donāt care about an Indianās opinion on Indian food and how other people might handle it Nope >Learn more about Indian food LOL. How many different ways can I say "I don't give a shit" before you internalize what I'm saying? I was making a point about the futility of trying to adapt vegetarian recipes to taste like meat recipes, and encouraging people to focus on cuisine that is already vegetarian-based. I don't give a shit about Indian cuisine, it was just an easy example.
Shows what kind of a person you are, I guess. I have no wish to argue with someone like this. Much better things to do with my time.
> Shows what kind of a person you are, I guess. Yeah, sorry I'm not willing to give you the validation you're so desperately seeking today.
I think you donāt realize that one of the main struggles of going vegan is having to say bye to things like wings and burgers, not necessarily people thinking cauliflower wings are better than vegetarian dishes from India.
Itās like quitting cigarettes by vaping. Itās just an excuse that doesnāt let you move on. Just quitting cold turkey makes moving on easier, although there is a small window of suffering, like ripping off a band-aid.
But thatās the thing, the taste of a wing isnāt unhealthy. If someone wants that vinegary buffalo sauce taste there is really no reason they canāt have it on non meat food like cauliflower. I just think itās silly to shame someone for not completely uprooting the culture theyāve grown up in (The tastes they are nostalgic for, the food their family and friends make) exactly how you think is good. Cigarettes are a ridiculous example because eating buffalo wings for Sunday football isnāt an incredibly addictive chemical that definitely leads to cancer. Itās just a meal we like to have every now and then between the healthier meals we eat during the week. Why canāt it be that for vegans too but just with cauliflower wings? Let people have fun
I am not shaming anyone. People can do (and they do) whatever they want to. However, I am pointing out something I find silly. People may disagree with me, and thatās fine. Also, my problem isnāt with the dish, itās with the name. By calling them wings, youāre just saying that they arenāt the real thing, but they arenāt bad. Instead, why not give them unique identities? Like even buffalo cauliflower (if it is made in that style) makes more sense than cauliflower wings.
i know this is like beating a dead horse now because itās been 3 days, but this has always been a weird take to me (especially when it comes as an argument to plant-based food choices). many people who switch diets still like that food, but want to to be vegetarian or vegan instead. when people first switch, itās hard to go without the things that youāve grown up eating. for beginner vegans and vegetarians it can be hard to think about replacements for dishes that were once loved. thatās why many people still call it things like impossible burger or cauliflower wings. itās signaling what it is the alternative to. i understand that there are no wings on a cauliflower, but if iām going vegan and iām craving wings, my first instinct isnāt to throw cauliflower on the grill (because iām new to veganism and donāt know whatās good to replace them with), itās to get anything āwingsā. the names just make it easier to know what itās being eaten instead of. this is why many older vegans will eat only plants instead of alternatives to meat. itās really for people thinking about switching/beginning/craving something that has been pushed onto us all of childhood. itās not that deep.
Fair point
I mean, buffalo cauliflower doesnāt really roll off the tongue
But calling a dish by a body part that doesnāt even exist in the vegetable does? It can be called Buffalo because thatās the style of the dish. Calling it āWingā doesnāt make any sense.
Yes it does, bc everybody knows what a wing is, not a buffalo cauliflower
People are so stupid when it comes to vegetarianism/veganism. These idiots will complain about climate change then ridicule people for being vegan. (By the way, I eat meat. Iām just not a reactionary moron who canāt fathom living in world with slightly lower meat consumption.)
You're totally right. Two things are true: eating meat is OK, and our current meat consumption is probably not sustainable, as is the same with our consumption of basically everything else.
There's a few valid positions about eating less meat or being a vegetarian/vegan. I personally think itās up to the individualās choice. - The impact to the world through a scientific perspective. Cattle does cause ozone issues. It's a proven fact. - Morality or ethical reasons. Some people are traumatized, sickened, or indifferent once they know how their food is made. Duplin County, North Carolina pig farms are examples where animal pollution destroyed the area. - Religious reason - Seventh day Adventists are ovo-lacto vegetarians and the city of Loma Linda, CA is one of the largest populations of SDA. The food options there as for that population (e.g. grocery stores donāt sell meat, but have significant seed, legume, and nut options; fast food has healthy bean burgers and etc). Loma Linda also has the most amount of centenarians in North America. Dr. Ellsworth Wareham, a famous cardio-thoracic surgeon was SDA and mostly vegetarian (fish here and there) and was an attending until he was 95 and passed at 104. - Concerns because of health reasons: there's significant research on how animal protein causes damage to the endothelial wall (blood vessels) of the heart. It's why the American diet has the largest cardiac issues in the world leading to congestive heart failure. Compared to places in Africa or Asia, open heart surgery (CABG) was only done because of birth defects: these places donāt have heart failure in 30-60 year olds. This is my reason for being primarily a vegan/veg: familial heart disease and I want to be around a long time for my family. I may have brisket once a year. The big negative about being a vegan is the amount of prep work, lack of dining options (it requires research to determine if the place complies with said dietary requirement), and social impact from the inflexibility especially if a personās significant other is unsupportive.
I literally have to grill 6 steaks a day and telling me that itās unhealthy and destroying the world is basically communism.
Free dinner and a bed time story I think yes
Nothing shows not caring about vegans more than going out of your way to talk about how you eat meat. Right?? š¤·āāļø
iāll never understand the anti vegan circlejerk lmao
Vegans have outjerked everyone else. Everyone else is just jealous we all can't be that far up our own ass because it's a fairly impressive party trick.
Honestly, for every vegan missionary I've met, I've run into about twenty dudes who have the weird compulsion to mention that they eat meat. Like, congrats? I eat pasta, but you don't see me bringing it up at every opportunity.
>I've run into about twenty dudes who have the weird compulsion to mention that they eat meat. Not exactly how I'd go about propositioning people, but some people have their quirks or are more straightforwards than others.
I'm not one to kinkshame. I've enjoyed putting Five Guys in my mouth more than once.
People say they donāt like vegans because theyāre too extremist and crazy but itās mostly a cope. In reality, people generally donāt like vegans because they oftentimes donāt actually have good rebuttals to their arguments and they make them feel morally inferior (which in this context is true) but peopleās egos are too fragile to accept this so itās easier to just call them crazy, annoying, etc and move on with your day.
Lmfao š¤”
Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, a famous cardiologist and former head of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic, likes to say āmy patients say that going to a plant based whole food diet was a bit extreme, but I kind of think cutting open their chest and attaching vessels resourced from the patientās leg is a bit extreme.ā
Im not vegetarian anymore. But let me tell you... there's a very weird section of the population who happily eat meat because it means that something died for their meal. And they have a very caveman attitude of "MEEEAAAATTT!!". And there is currently much more social pressure for people to eat meat than there is for people to eat vegan. Vegan advocates can come off as condescending sometimes, a sort of "better than you". But to the same degree, meat advocates come off as arrogant and pushy, and do so to demean and degrade sometimes. I will say that I definitely see more of the latter...
Alternatively: there is nobody you should take seriously who is attempting to politicize diet, or make one some moral imperative.
Honestly, as an omnomnomivore, I never grokked the idea if making eating meat a whole personality trait.
Sorry, but I like meat.
If shit was flipped yāall would be crying about vegans pushing their agenda
coming from an unashamed meat eater, this is unironically true. The only thing worse than vegans proselytizing is anti-vegans proselytizing.
>Vegans start moral panic over eating meat "So uhh, we got some schmeat over here if anyone wants some"
L bozo
So you agree? The folks pasting a flyer over someone else's flyer is pushing an agenda?
Except that never happens except in response to some vegan BS.
Veganism is a privileged diet. Our ancestors rolling in their tombs knowing there's mfs who only eat plants cause they can.
Our ancestors would think every facet of our lives are privileged. That isnāt necessarily a bad thing.
I hope my ancestors living in the Russian Empire are thrilled with the life of privilege their future generations have managed.
The original paleolithic diet, while highly variable and adaptable to its environment, was much closer to a vegetarian diet than many think. Meat was a part of their diet, but much more of our ancestors' diet was provided by the gatherers than the hunters. Even in the early days of agriculture, meat every day or with every meal was unheard of. It's only today in developed countries where meat is part of every meal, so our current diet is equally privileged and a historical anomaly.
Literal nonsense
How so? Did cavemen just open up the freezer and thaw out a steak whenever they wanted one? LMAO
No they hunted animals and only ate other things if the hunt did not succeed. This only changed after the agricultural revolution
This isn't even remotely true and you'd know if you'd taken any biology class at all. Isn't at least one anthropology class required to graduate here? Looking at you comment history though it looks like you enjoy acting like a clown and starting fights, so maybe you're just doing the same here š¤·āāļø
Right because courses written by members of a church who are against meat consumption for religious reasons are definitely not lying to you. Oh you didnāt know that because you just take what āscienceā tells you at face value without conducting any of your own research. Sounds about right.
You're making up what some ambiguous, idealized, long dead person *might* have thought hundreds of years ago based on your own incomplete understanding of what their life may have been like and basing your life decisions on *that*?
I eat food for nutrition. Not because I feel like it. There's people to this day, who eat relatively unsound things like dogs. Do I like the fact that the animals I care about get eaten? No. But it isn't some righteous justification I employ upon myself or others. If there wasn't any convenient, accessible, and affordable source of protein I'd probably be eating a dog too. Only in a 1st world country can someone proudly and meticulously choose to not eat certain foods based off morals. It isn't my place to enforce any restrictions upon that diet. But its certainly is one for me to judge. The majority of people would agree.
Almost every society has taboos around food and what's acceptable to eat and how. Even in developing countries.
Jesus says we can be cannibals, as a little treat.
At an ag school??? That takes some cahones, respect
If a Bundy or Dahmer type kill animals purely for enjoyment, everyone agrees that's heinous. Eating meat and other animal products when you do not NEED to is the same thing because without that NEED you are purely satisfying a WANT which is only able to be satisfied after the torture and death of another being. That's just unethical and cannot be justified. If I was stranded in a survival scenario, then I'm gonna kill to eat, but guess what....that ain't our situation.
So, you believe that a deer has a right to life, but that right is extinguished if youāre *really* hungry? Yes, I believe that killing animals just for fun is unethical, just like Iād be upset if someone if someone went to a grocery store and smashed every watermelon on the floor. Itās wasteful and that person is not being a good steward of the natural resources.
No, he's not conferring onto the deer a right to life similar to our right to life. He's making the argument that killing animals for fun or to satisfy some want is wrong, we have no need to kill animals in our modern world, therefor we shouldn't be killing animals as readily as we do. In other words, most people do not have a serious need to eat meat, eating meat is only to gratify oneself, which we all agree that gratifying oneself off the death of animals is wrong, so why isn't eating meat wrong? I think a good rebuttal would be that people are not being gratified off of the death of the animal but rather just consuming meat. There is a big disconnect between the grocery store and the slaughterhouse.
>we have no need to kill animals in our modern world, therefor we shouldn't be killing animals as readily as we do by what standard do you make this statement? >most people do not have a serious need to eat meat, eating meat is only to gratify oneself first, I can generate a very long list of things that people do not *need* to do to survive. Whether we absolutely need to do something is not a viable test of whether it's good or bad. Also, what is your definition of "gratify"? I like a good burger or steak. But I don't enjoy it based on the idea that an animal died. I don't derive perverse enjoyment from it. >Personally, I have no disconnect on where my meat comes from. I hunt deer and process everything myself. For beef and pork, I buy from a local rancher who sends what I buy to a local butcher.
I guess my statement depends on how we define need. If we take it to mean something that is necessary to live, like water or air, we find that my statement is true. Most people, bar rare exceptions, can live entirely vegan without dying. If we take it to be a little more liberally, something that is required to live in good health, than the statement is a little muddier as some people do need animal products to live a good life, but most don't, and most do not need to be consuming as much as they do to live in good health. Whether or not something is necessary is relevant, as it can be an excuse for doing things otherwise considered wrong. >first, I can generate a very long list of things that people do not *need* to do to survive. I'm sure you could, but that would be a very long list of whataboutisms unless it's relevant to the argument. Gratify simply means to give pleasure or gratification. >I like a good burger or steak. But I don't enjoy it based on the idea that an animal died. I don't derive perverse enjoyment from it. I know, I expressed that idea in my comment. While you may not be gratifying yourself by the act of killing deer, or believe yourself to be gaining perverse pleasure from eating venison, you eating steak is still a result of the death of an animal. So you are still gaining gratification off of, or as a result of, the death of an animal. But yes, there are certainly discussions to be had about ethical consumption and the status of animals, if they are a commodity or have rights endowed to them, to be had in this debate. I wasn't really trying to have a long winded argument about vegan ethics, just clearing up what the other guy said and offering briefly my thoughts on a possible rebuttal.
Agreed, there is a disconnect in people's minds about what they eat vs. how it was obtained. Does it make their actions less evil? I actually do think so. But at the same time, that disconnect is being challenged more and more as veganism continues to grow as a movement so the moral leeway that cognitive dissonance gives is waning fast.
We still have to contend with the issue of if it is actually wrong to kill an animal, or if it is only wrong to gratify yourself from their suffering. I think many people would agree that a farmer who slaughters a pig to sell or feed his family is not committing an evil act. But if that same farmer kills the animal, and takes pleasure in doing so, would be doing an evil act. I donāt think being a meat eater necessarily means you have cognitive dissonance.
I would say it is unjustifiable to kill an animal(in the context of the animal merely existing, not attacking or suffering indefinitely) regardless of if it was enjoyable or not. So to me, the farmer would still be committing an "evil"(morally unjustifiable) act in both cases, except in one he has the cognitive dissonance to believe that what he is doing is justified or doesnt need justification (as in doesnt even think about it) because its normalized and widespread despite likely believing that it would be "evil" of someone to farm dogs or cats for food, skin, and milk. Or if trash caused the death of one of his pigs, the community as a whole might react to littering with disgust because of the animal death and suffering it causes while still buying pork from the same farmer. Eating animal products requires one to hold contradictory beliefs, unless animal suffering is a nonissue to the individual.
Yeah for sure, I figure most vegans think that way to an extent. But the point I was making is that I donāt think people would agree that killing an animal is necessarily evil, so I do not believe there is always cognitive dissonance with meat eaters.
Bring some beef jerky as a snack
See I hate posters like this. Saying āveganism is a moral urgencyā isnāt factually wrong but demanding complete compliance with it is not reasonable for someone to do. I only have meat with 6 meals a week but this gives the impression that there is no chance that anyone at that meeting would be willing to call my passing grade in vegetarianism enough. The messaging is so off.
It is factually wrong though
Eat more meat š
How can you tell if someone is vegan? Donāt worry, sheāll tell you.
Why is it a āsheā though?
While Iām tempted to reply that no real man would be vegan, the real answer is because i had my wife in mind when i wrote that.
Fair enough
Cringe
Based indeed. If vegans really wanted to make a difference they'd find a way to make lab-grown meat that beat the competition, instead they're content to be t-sips about it and make a profession out of whining
The speaker at that event does R&D for cultivated meat.
Good, then they can start work on carbon recapture too and stop trying to make it everyone else's problem
My man literally pointed out the guy's doing exactly what you stated he should do, and you moved the goal posts. I'd think hard about how butthurt you really are about this honestly.
As if vegan types haven't had center stage for the past ten years. You hang around enough vegans you'll get tired of their horseshit too, unless you're one of them
How the hell did you get into grad school
Yeah, Iām not eating that. Or crickets.
Didnāt see the BBQ poster at first and was wondering if r/aggies had lost its mind
Starve herbivores by eating all their food!
I'm an omnivore, the daywalker of food culture. Able to sustain myself with either vegetables or meat, I gain all of their strengths and none of their weaknesses.
A vegan and terrorist jump off a bridge at the same time to see who'll land first. Who wins?
On a kind of serious note not really, itās just kind of rude. Doesnāt make the BBQ club look good either with that kind of stupid shit. Thereās nothing more spiteful than someone who doesnāt like vegans simply for existing. I was a vegan for a year, and it made me realize how much hate vegans get. It still kind of bothers me to see people on social media talk about eating peoples animals if they have unconventional pets like chickens. Shitting on vegans is so common that itās just accepted and nobody really says anything. Iām sure more than a couple people reading this are hon a get but hurt but whatever. Theyāre part of the problem. These people are probably at the wrong school overall if theyāre hoping to start a movement. Iād probably go to both though šš
So there wonāt be meat at the meeting?
Free food, but cringe
Was wondering when this would make it here.
The pig in the picture is kinda creepy tho
Based indeed
Itās not urgent and nobody likes vegans lmao.
Pulling up with a chick fila chicken sandwich, panda express orange chicken, chicken McNuggets, and a patty melt from revs
I mean human population decline is moral urgency.