this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
61 points (100.0% liked)

Wikipedia

2636 readers
47 users here now

A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.

Rules:

Recommended:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
61
Vegaphobia (aversion to vegetarians) (en.wikipedia.org)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

One explanation for vegaphobia is founded on the meat paradox: many people who eat meat do not like harming animals. Vegans remind them of this cognitive dissonance, and one way to resolve this inner conflict and reduce dissonance is to maintain prejudice against vegans.

I find it quite interesting how often meat eaters in the west will be prejudiced against people who eat dogs - as if there's any other difference than the cognitive dissonance of seeing one as a pet deserving of a dignified life and the other as a tasty steak to chow down on.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What's not mentioned is going to a group lunch or dinner with someone who has a very restrictive diet and can basically only eat at one place.

Not excluded, not belittled, but you hear a collective sigh/moan when that person joins.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago

In CA, we have so many vegan/gluten free/kosher/halal/etc options that I'm spoiled. Most restaurants have items accommodating those folks. I can see this being more challenging in some areas. Generally, I go by myself to more adventurous/eclectic restaurants and have a standby list of places with broad menus that I go with friends.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

My intuition is that this is mostly projected insecurity. For somebody who's doing something ethically questionable, it's pretty handy to have some group on hand to blame for being self-righteous and insufferable and so on. Very convenient indeed.

PS: ethically questionable does not necessarily mean "bad" or "wrong", but it is undeniable that vegans and vegetarians cause less animal suffering and environmental damage than the rest of us. Anyone who can take a deep breath and look at things rationally should be able to admit that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

it is undeniable that vegans and vegetarians cause less animal suffering and environmental damage than the rest of us

this just isn't true. I don't cause any animal suffering. most people don't. (except pests, or by accident)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If you buy basically anything from the meat, or dairy, or egg, aisle of your supermarket then you are creating demand for something whose production involves quite a lot of suffering.

So, yes, it is true. You may not want it to be true, but it is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you buy basically anything from the meat, or dairy, or egg, aisle of your supermarket then you are creating demand for a product whose creation involves quite a lot of suffering.

demand does not causally lead to production.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Of course it does.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I bought a PlayStation. Sony isn't going to put it back into production, despite proven demand.

producers are free agents, so the only phenomenon that can be said to cause their actions is their own will.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a silly sophistry and you know it is. Demand is what incentivizes supply.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

the theory of supply and demand is a price discovery theory. it's not an immutable law about when factories turn on production.

your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Fair enough. Others will judge for themselves.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Producers would not produce meat if nobody bought it. There's a direct causal link between the two. Just because this specific cow didn't die for you to specifically eat it doesn't remove the link between your choice and the death.

At least that's my non-vegan perspective.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Producers would not produce meat if nobody bought it

iphones were produced before anyone bought one. producers can't know whether a product will sell in the future.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

iPhones also weren't produced with the hopes that people would buy them, Apple did extensive market research. Had they found that people wouldn't buy them, they wouldn't have produced them. Have you ever looked into how product development happens?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

it was still hope. they couldn't possibly know the future.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, it's not hope, it's market research and statistics. You do understand the difference, right?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

they don't know the future. they hope their research is correct.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Then everything for the future is purely hope. You eat a steak? I sure hope it doesn't turn into lava in your stomach! You enter a car? Better hope it doesn't turn into a crocodile and swallow you!

Must be a strange life you're leading, but anything you can tell yourself to ease your conscience. Surely the same number of cows would be killed if nobody ate any meat, they could always hope that tomorrow people start again!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

to an extent you're right, but I understand the laws of physics. markets are not dictated by anything like the laws of physics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Better hope the laws of physics don't magically change!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

if they were subject to the whims of irrational actors, I might worry more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Better hope they aren't!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

cows were killed before anybody bought meat. there is no reason to believe that will stop even if you stop buying it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Are you a bad faith troll, or is this supposed to be a serious argument?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean what I say.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's sad, what an illogical approach to an ethical dilemma.

"Oh well, people died before laws were introduced, may as well go on a killing spree" - right? Nothing else matters?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Oh well, people died before laws were introduced, may as well go on a killing spree"

this is a strawman. my argument is more like "you may object to killing animals for food, but your method is not an effective way to stop it"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Which is an incredibly stupid point, because it presupposes that reducing needless deaths only has value if absolutely every single death is prevented. This, of course, is completely illogical - even one death that was prevented has value.

But we don't care about silly things like "logic" here, right?

Not to mention that your original point was that you bear no responsibility for the deaths of animals you consume, but who cares as long as you can keep giving stupid arguments ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

your original point was that you bear no responsibility for the deaths of animals you consume

right. and this speaks directly to that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

even one death that was prevented has value.

but that has never worked, has it?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=%7EOWID_WRL

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

What the fuck are you talking about? Your response has nothing to do with my point. Complete non-sequitur.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

isn't your point that you think by abstaining from consuming meat, meat production will be impacted? the production grows incessantly. it's obvious that meat producers do not care whether you buy meat.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I really, really hope you're a bad faith troll, because otherwise I'm scared for you. A person with your level of intelligence can't survive on their own. Do you have anyone taking care of you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I will just mention “Troll 2” as the epitome of Vegaphobian movie.

If you are curious I also suggest you to watch “Best Worst Movie” (2009).