Comment by hjek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hjek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> For me, anyone who eats pretend-meat or pretend-dairy is a pretend-vegan.

I love that you can get all the taste without the violence and suffering. Eating is not always a single-person activity, so having vegan substitutes for meat and cheese is great when eating together with non-vegans who may be wary of falafels.

There are very few vegans who are vegans because of taste. Many are worried about the environmental impacts of mass animal agriculture killing trillions of animals every year.

The most prominent and outspoken animal liberation advocates — Ali Tabrizi and Ed Winters come to mind — are strong proponents of vegan-dairy, vegan-seafood and vegan-meat. It really doesn't make sense to call those people "pretend vegans". Check their talks and films[0][1], they aren't "making a joke of the whole idea of being vegan".

I don't get why carnists place such importance on real suffering and real death. Is it not real Adidas shoes if it isn't made by slave labour or something? Is it not a real car if it's not guzzling diesel? Why not cut down on causing harm when it's so easy? I don't get it.

[0]: Earthling Ed vs Infowars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScbeMdYkKDc

[1]: Land of Hope and Glory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF3VOpa3a7c

You're asking me whether I think two big-name vegans who make movies and give TED talks about veganism are pretend-vegans? For pushing pretend-animal products? Yes! Yes they are! It's like asking me if the Pope is a pretend-Christian for pushing pretend-faith and pretend-salvation if you just do what he says. Sure he is!

You want to be like saint in the world and reduce harm? Then don't go baptising nut mush as "cheese" so you can enjoy what you have sworn off and are pontificating against, like the apocryphal stories of Catholic monks baptising their meat "fish" so they could eat it on Wednesday. Stop advertising meat and dairy with your actions, contrary to your words. Stick to your principles and then come to preach to me about mine.

I was vegetarian for a while, and stopped because it turned out I wasn't willing to go without meat. Had really good meat substitutes existed at the time, things might very well have panned out differently, and I'd still be a vegetarian to this day.

Lots of people try and fail to become vegetarians because they don't find the substitutes acceptable. If you consider it a purely personal issue it probably doesn't matter, but if you're interested in lowering global animal product consumption, then I think ideological purity is the more morally questionable position than trying to develop a product that can convince the world to take up veganism.

You’re attempting to redefine ‘pure’ veganism as consuming no animal nor animal-like products whatsoever. I can see where a word for that might exist, but what is commonly considered ‘vegan’ is not your definition.

> ‘pure’ veganism as consuming no animal nor animal-like products whatsoever

Yes? This is what veganism is, is it not? Vegans don't eat animal products at all.

They can eat animal-like products though, such as Impossible burgers or nut cheese.

Well those can be argued as to not be animal-like at all, but plant-based. Similar to the point cheese_goddess is making here as well.

If vegans can redefine "cheese" then why can't I redefine "vegan"? You're saying that only vegans can distort commonly used terms to promulgate their beliefs? They can sell "vegan" cheese as propaganda for their ideals but I can't just say, well then, you're not vegan because you're eating cheese?

Why not?

> pretend-vegans [...] For pushing pretend-animal products?

I would agree that people who endorse pretend-vegan products are pretend-vegans. There are many products labelled as "veggie" that still contain egg, such as Quorn.

But your logic fails by assuming pretend-meat = pretend-vegan. You don't kill anyone by playing Doom, just like you don't eat anyone when eating vegan nuggets.

(Yes, there's an argument that violent games can lead to real-life violence, but are you really claiming that vegan meat-substitutes can cause harm by in some cases leading people to eat meat?)

> You want to be like saint [...] Then don't go baptising [...] then come to preach to me about mine.

I find it interesting how religious terms are used as an insult towards vegans. It's a very common and highly irrational defense-mechanism many carnists use when experiencing cognitive dissonance because of all the violence they're willingly and knowingly contributing to while also thinking of themselves as good people.

> Stop advertising meat and dairy with your actions, contrary to your words. Stick to your principles and then come to preach to me about mine.

The paradox here is this: The more you stick to your principles as a vegan, the more upset non-vegans can get, while simultaneously demanding that you do stick to your principles, because otherwise you're a hypocrite. I have heard these carnist proverbs before, and unfortunately they defy logic.

For instance, regarding sticking to principles, I choose to not sit at a table where animals are eaten, even if there's also vegan food available. I do this to stop endorsing meat, which is what you're demanding, but no doubt such a stance would upset you as well.

It's challenging to examine one's own beliefs. I've eaten too many animals myself. I hope you have a good day.

A lesson I learned early in life is this: just because someone is upset with what you're saying, doesn't mean your 're right, or that they're upset because you're right, or even that they're upset about what you think they are.

For example, what I find annoying in your comment is the casual attribution of thoughts, emotions, morals and life experiences to me that you have no way to know I have. But you go ahead and make the assumption I do anyway and then triumphantly proclaim you defeated my "logic".

For example, I am not a carnist. I don't even know what that is.

I don't believe it's immoral to kill another animal to eat its meat. I don't believe it's immoral to kill another animal violently to eat its meat. Killing another animal requires violence that cannot be reduced to zero. And if you don't know what you're doing, you'll make matters worse because the animal will know what you're trying to do and then it'll try to run away and resist and cry for its mother. I know this very well. I know where my food comes from. I see my food running around when I look outside the window. I don't have any cognitive dissonance to work through.

Maybe you've eaten too many animals. I'm prepared to bet you have, especially if you come from North America or Western Europe, where people eat way too much meat and don't really know what to do with food unless it has meat in it. I do not come from such a culture and I haven't eaten too many animals.

Finally, I don't know how I'd react if you refused to sit at the same table as me because I'm eating meat. Probably, I'd think your'e a bit of an entitled prick, but be upset about it? Why?

You're making too many assumptions about my motives and experiences, when all I've said is that if you are vegan then you should stick to your principles and not eat meat or dairy. Are those not your principles? Or are you the kind of vegan that's OK with eating meat and dairy?

> For example, I am not a carnist. I don't even know what that is.

"Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals." ( https://carnism.org/carnism/ )

> you should stick to your principles

You're measuring vegans by principles they're not claiming to have, such that eating plant-based meat and dairy substitutes is ethically wrong.

This is additionally double-standards: Criticizing someone who tries to reduce harm for not being perfect (because of this alleged transgression of eating plant burgers, wtf?!), while giving a free pass for those who don't care. Surely it is better to try to reduce suffering and harm than to be indifferent?

> Or are you the kind of vegan that's OK with eating meat and dairy?

No. But I'm fine with plant milk and plant burgers, because those are not made out of animals or animal products. I like the taste and, most importantly, it has made vegan eating more accessible for my non-vegan family.

(Actually, I'm not too much into Beyond Meat, because it tastes too much like flesh for my taste, while I love Linda McCartney sausages. But that's just my own taste buds, and I don't worry too much about what tastes other people like.)

> "Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals." ( https://carnism.org/carnism/ )

Someone made a webpage.

> You're measuring vegans by principles they're not claiming to have, such that eating plant-based meat and dairy substitutes is ethically wrong.

Are you measuring me by the principles I don't have? For example, do you think it's wrong for me to eat meat and cheese and any animal products I like, even though I don't think there's anything wrong with it, as you do?

> Probably, I'd think your'e a bit of an entitled prick, but be upset about it? Why?

Because you're really upset about some people substituting cheese with fermented nut butter while still calling it cheese. It's not really too far fetched.

> I love that you can get all the taste without the violence and suffering.

I don't believe you can, because I understand how cheese works and nut paste doesn't work that way. If you want nut paste to behave in a way that reminds of cheese, you have to stuff it full of gums and emulsifiers and stabilisers and all the additives that go into typical over-processed junk food. Cheese works the way it works because of a confluence of factors that developed over millions of years of evolution of mammals, and the bacteria that live in our guts and help us digest our food, including our mothers' milk. For example, did you know that cheese is made naturally in the stomachs of ruminants? When a young ruminant drinks its mother's milk, that milk ends up in the fourth stomach, the abomasum, where it is fermented by lactic acid bacteria and coagulated by proteolytic enzymes, pepsin and chymosin, and turns into cheese. I'm not sure why that is done so. Obviously the fermentation, that breaks down sugars, and the proteolysis, that breaks down proteins, helps the animal digest its milk, but why coagulate it also? One possible reason is that it helps the animal digest the milk slowly while it runs away from predators.

The same processes are also in effect in the human stomach and while I'm not 100% sure about this, human babies likely also make cheese in their little stomachs.

Bottom line is, cheese has evolved along with mammals over millions of years and there is no other process that we know that can create the same kind of substance. The vegan cheese substitutes we're discussing in this thread don't even come close.

As to vegan "meat", that's just vegetables. Why do you need to eat vegetables and pretend to eat meat? In another comment you accuse me of cognitive dissonance, but what is the mental process that allows you to eat cauliflower and call it a steak? To me it sounds like self-dellusion, make-believe.

But even if you really could reproduce the taste of meat and cheese "without the violence and suffering" as you say, then I'd think you just want to have your steak and eat it.

> I don't believe you can, because I understand how cheese works and nut paste doesn't work that way.

Totally agree. It's not quite the same. I'm prepared to occasionally abstain from certain well-tasting foods or use a less-than-perfect substitute out of solidarity with farmed animals and out of care for the planet. It's a trade-off. I agree.

> As to vegan "meat", that's just vegetables.

Yea, exactly. And sometimes mushrooms.

> Why do you need to eat vegetables and pretend to eat meat?

It's a good question. I think it's a bit more complex than pretending to eat meat. For me, personally, it's more about reclaiming certain dishes that we usually consider meat-based but that don't have to be, such as burgers and hotdogs.

For those who've just seen Cowspiracy or Earthlings and start to realize how harmful industrial animal agriculture is but also "can't live without their cheese and their meat", those meat substitutes are perfect. They substitute the taste but not the harm. They can make a zero-effort switch without changing any habits or learning to cook new dishes. It's the best of both worlds.

I love that 7-Eleven has started selling vegan hotdogs here. You get the choice of buying a delicious hotdog without having to worry about eating the body of someone who've been driven around in crowded trucks to then have their brains shot out with a pressure gun or being gassed. To me, it seems like self-delusion to buy the murder-hotdogs when the vegan ones are available.

I'm sure you've heard this one a thousand times before and you have the answer ready. I don't know the answer you have ready so I'm curious to hear it:

"Killing animals is not murder. Murder is when a human kills another human".

Go ahead then. Say your thing.

By the way, I think that hotdogs are gross and unhealthy and I wouldn't eat one, meat or no meat. Like I said in my original comment (from which it's true I digressed more than a bit) there are a ton of other things you can eat and enjoy that are vegetarian or vegan and that are not fake meat or fake cheese. I don't understand why some vegans and vegetarians prefer to substitute the meat and dairy they say they don't want to eat anymore with fake versions, rather than learn to cook and enjoy food without meat and animal products. That to me is just lazy and self-deceiving.

To "murder" is often used in the meaning of to "kill intentionally and with premeditation". Was that not clear from the context?

> there are a ton of other things you can eat and enjoy that are vegetarian or vegan and that are not fake meat or fake cheese.

We agree completely here.

> That to me is just lazy

Again, I agree. However, I think it's good that we're creating opportunities for lazy people to eat vegan too (or people who don't have time to cook, or parents with picky children, or traditionalist family that insist that you can't have Christmas without roast pig, etc.).

>> To "murder" is often used in the meaning of to "kill intentionally and with premeditation". Was that not clear from the context?

The context was that killing a non-human animal is murder. Murder is when a human kills another human. When a human kills a non-human animal it's just a "killing".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com