For some reason, only vegans get called out for making substitutions.
For some reason, only vegans get called out for making substitutions.
Burgers aren't a huge deal in Asia, for example.
Or, tl;dr: You do realize soy milk is very popular among vegans, right?
What I am trying to say is that vegans are trying to engineer a product. So this product the opposite of natural, so what is with the claims of health?
I don't know why I used the word "bad"
I find it frustrating as a person who only eats meat and vegetables to have to tolerate vegans who claim health benefits. Most vegans I've met are fat.
Asia is a big place, but for example in China pretty much everything has a small amount of pork as a minor ingredient/seasoning; "vegan" dishes are the pitiable food of the poor; and the word for household is literally a roof with a pig underneath it
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group...
People usually make your argument in bad faith because even when corrected you never had a moral interest in “minimizing plant suffering” to begin with. You just thought you had a good gotcha.
Not really. A person who eats both doesn't typically agonize over the morality of eating animals or plants like many vegans do. It's pointing out the fallacy of advocating veganism on the basis of animal suffering.
That of course is only one argument for veganism among many much stronger ones, but it doesn't make it a bad argument to make.