Thanks for the warm welcome! 😃

Yes, I suppose you're right that veganism would be more like atheism in its absence or rejection of a traditionally dominant belief system & its concomitant behaviors, if someone was simply vegan and didn't do any activism/advocacy/promoting or "evangelizing" or proselytizing, which has a less religious connotation (which, to be fair, is most vegans. You only hear about the activists or vocal vegans because, well, they want to be heard & want to spread the idea of veganism or the often esoteric information & evidence related to it with the masses).

In that sense the kind of veganism which doubles as not just a personal position but also an actively pushed social movement is kind of like a hybrid between atheism & abolitionism/social justice causes I guess? Unless you count anti-religious people who actively oppose & challenge religion in a kind of philosophic activism, also termed New Atheism, but that's not as much of a "social justice" movement as such, though it can be related to a defense of those causes when viewing religion as a threat to them.

I don't personally find it to be too strange or unreasonable for vegans to invent a term or terms to recognise and describe the ideology/ies we're either rejecting or actively opposed to (carnism, speciesism, human supremacy, anthropocentrism, etc - many of which pre-dated veganism & even weren't strictly born out of animal rights discussions but rather human psychology in general). If veganism is the absence of certain beliefs & practices, it makes sense to put a name to those beliefs & practices, no? Otherwise veganism remains a rather nebulous concept without a clear goal or reason, and can often seem like simply an idea or practice in itself rather than the dismantling of such. Doing so also helps to de-otherize veganism in a similar way to how terms like "cisgender" help to de-otherize transgenderism by establishing that the norm is in fact identifiable & describable in itself & does have its own clear set of characteristics. I'm happy to use "non-vegan" (which does contain the otherizing of veganism issue) in case the term carnism brings offence, but I would wager any offence it causes is likely to stem from the challenging nature of what it exposes & addresses, as it's quite literally just holding up a mirror to larger society's choices & attitudes with as much accuracy as possible, without any inherent judgment as a matter-of-fact descriptor (not that judgment can't be placed on it). Terms like this intend to foster honest discussions about the truth of our nature. If people don't like what they see (which to me indicates an acknowledgement of some tangible problem worth addressing that's separate from any word used to capture it), or take issue with the word used, they're free to propose a different term since that's not what's important, but the reality is there isn't another term to accurately describe the phenomenon really. Though it builds on ancient concepts, this kind of discussion itself in this form is rather recent & underdeveloped, and so the language used is, too.

To me the fact that the majority of people (which as we know are non-vegans) don't want to associate with the places in which discourse among vegans occurs, speaks more to people's resistance to the difficult ideas (or even facts) it raises & brings to light, or the contentions it makes, than it does the specific nature of those communities. I think it's inevitable and understandable that people hate vegans & seeing vegans discuss things as veganism poses a threat to their current way of life (a philosophical & moral threat at least, if not a physical one).

That said, there are all different kinds of vegans, and they're just people like anyone. Far from perfect, & flawed in many ways. So there are bound to be toxic vegans, especially on the internet, just as there are in any community or among people in general. I'm not sure that there's a higher prevalence of that phenomenon among vegans or vegan groups, and from my experience vegans are usually (not always) pretty civil with each other. The "drama" comes when talking with non-vegans, usually (not to claim whose fault that is, as it's probably brought about equally by both parties, or just a natural consequence of their fundamental value differences & how those ideas conflict, or rather are not aligned consistently, even if there is significant common ground).

However, I have to be honest that it seems a little wrong to me to suggest that veganism as a philosophy or ethical stance, as independent from any people who adopt or follow it, can be ruined by the actions of one vegan (or even any number of vegans). I'm sorry you feel this way though and I hope you're able to form a more positive impression of it, or rather the vegan community, by whatever means that may be possible. In my experience it's a pretty welcoming community to vegans or those who are ready to make the change to being vegan or are curious about it, but somewhat understandably (but still often regrettably) not so much toward those who argue against the vegan position or tend to defend their choices to "use" animals (for lack of a better way to summarize the behaviors). And, frankly, it seems unreasonable to me to take out your annoyance at what some humans did (vegan or not) on innocent non-human animals. Since your issue is with the vegans and not the deer (or whatever animals), the punishment there is being directed at the wrong individuals, no? Just some food for thought.

Hope I didn't upset you or anything, I was really just trying to be as sincere as I can 😅

Yes, you can go vegan and stop supporting animal exploitation.

It's always cruel. There's literally no way to make it not cruel, just less cruel in certain ways. Never "humane", only "more inhumane or less inhumane", and varying degrees of inhumanity

You've been deceived like most people, you really need to watch this documentary if you care about animals (especially cows and their calves), ethics, environment, etc. Even if health is not a concern to you.

This documentary, Maa Ka Doodh, goes into how the standard inherent practices in India's dairy industry are abominably cruel. There is simply no way to do it ethically, something vegans are well aware of, not to mention the majority is mass-produced and even more cruel than the very extremely rare cases that are barely commercially viable and can only cater to a select few wealthy people, and even those are still highly cruel, just less so. Is less cruel = not cruel? No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maa_Ka_Doodh

They made it viewable for free on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhTOLeevtQw

Additionally, Arvind Animal Activist on YouTube educates the public about the ethical, environmental and health imperatives to go vegan from an Indian perspective:

https://youtube.com/@arvindanimalactivist8192

And here is the full quote:

There are multiple benefits of a vegan or vegetarian diet in the management of CKD: (1) Intake of animal fat is associated with albuminuria, and other components related to meat such as choline and carnitine are converted by gut flora into trimethylamine and trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) that are associated with atherosclerosis and renal fibrosis.10 (2) Vegan dieting leads to a decreased acid load, whereas ingestion of animal-based foods increases acidogenesis and ammonia production, and this favorable alkalization of vegan diet may have additional effects beyond what would be provided by mere intake of sodium bicarbonate.11 (3) There is less absorbable phosphorus in plant-based protein given the preponderance of indigestible phytate as the main source of phosphorus and given that fresh fruits or vegetables are less likely to have added phosphorus-based preservatives that are often used for meat processing.12,13 (4) Higher dietary fiber intake, in addition to a favorable modulation of advanced glycation end products,14 enhances gastrointestinal motility and lowers the likelihood of constipation, which is a likely contributor to hyperkalemia. (5) A vegan diet based on fresh fruits and vegetables lessen the likelihood of exposure to potassium-based additives.15,16 (6) There are potentially favorable impacts on the gut microbiome leading to lower generation of uremic toxins such as indoxyl sulfate, p-cresol sulfate, TMAO, and other unfavorable substances.17 TMAO is not only elevated as a consequence of renal insufficiency but also likely contributes to the progression of CKD and the risk of mortality in patients with CKD.18 There are other benefits from a higher intake of plant-based protein, such as lowering the likelihood of kidney stones and decreased risk of cardiovascular disease due to higher intake of natural antioxidants including carotenoids, tocopherols, and ascorbic acid.19

Hi https://lemmy.world/u/TheTechnician27 (I don't know how to tag users, sorry), I just wanted to point out that one of your links is broken:

" * There are multiple benefits of a vegan or vegetarian diet [six listed, too long to quote here] in the management of CKD [...] —Journal of Renal Nutrition (2019) "

This sends us to a broken link:

https://www.jrnjournal.org/article/S1051-2276(19

Here is the fixed link I believe: https://www.jrnjournal.org/article/S1051-2276(19)30026-3/fulltext

Hope that helps, and to make it easier to find and correct if you want to, the broken link in your post is the 15th from the top, or 10th from the bottom, I think. :)

You might be healthy now but evidence shows you would be at more risk of health issues, diseases etc, and mortality risk, especially later in life, than if you ate a plant based diet, and have worse health-and-life expectancy.

Additionally, you're contributing to some of the worst environmental practices harming our planet and causing climate change.

Finally, the abuses of animals in other industries beyond meat production, not only are usually still contributing to the killing of animals for meat indirectly since animals are used for overlapping purposes, but are horrifically cruel in their own ways too.

Please watch this: Dairy Is Scary

You might as well say modern men are men by every scientific definition (and subsequently evolved to be able to dominate women). Regardless if that's true, that doesn't mean that men inherently need to dominate women. Just like omnivorous humans don't inherently need to dominate non-human animals. They can choose to be respectful and ethical instead since we're moral agents capable of rising beyond our basal, animalistic instincts and even our evolutionarily-programmed nature. We're also able to make more rational and informed choices about what benefits ourselves, other animals, and the planet the most, regardless of what's natural. Natural doesn't automatically equal better, in a lot of cases it's worse. This (your argument) is just an appeal to nature fallacy.

To be clear, us being omnivores means we've evolved to be able to eat from plant- or animal-based (as well as fungal, algal, etc) sources. That doesn't mean we need to eat all of them, we're capable of surviving on either, and evidence shows we actually thrive on a plant-based diet. It's also worth acknowledging that we originally evolved from frugivorous herbivores before we started hunting animals (yes, really), and our bodies, while they have developed some omnivorous adaptations, are still closer to that of herbivores than carnivores and lean more towards the herbivorous side even compared to most other omnivores. But that's mostly irrelevant to what we're actually able to do, what we're shown to be healthiest (and most longevous/long-lived) when doing today, what's most ethical, sustainable, etc. Just some food for thought.

I don't advocate breeding pets to put into our homes anyway, as it's an animal rights abuse and cruel in my view, but there is substantial scientific literature on the topic of feeding commercially produced, appropriately-fortified vegan pet foods to cats and dogs that are specifically tailored to them, indicating that it can be perfectly healthy when done appropriately and even produces better health outcomes in a lot of cases: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9860667/#:~:text=They%20had%20more%20ideal%20body,that%20were%20fed%20vegan%20diets. There is also research showing they enjoy it just as much if you find a kind that they take a liking to, much like animal-based versions. Animal-based pet food usually contains the scraps and leftover, rejected parts from the meat industry and feeds to these animals what would be considered unfit for human consumption due to its health risks. So it's not surprising that conventional commercial pet foods are associated with a range of health problems that vegan pet food largely bypasses. However, even pets fed raw meat diets appeared to fare worse than those fed appropriate vegan diets according to balanced appraisals of all the evidence.

The ASPCA are, much like the RSPCA, known to promote animal agriculture propaganda and are involved heavily with industries that exploit animals. A large part of their funding comes from grants & partnerships with animal agriculture. Not only are they an incredibly biased source, but they're also clearly not a scientific one.

The technician did a great job replying to most of what you said, but can I just add one more thing which helped me see veganism from a different perspective, in response to you calling veganism a religion (I know you changed your view already and probably didn't mean it literally but I just wanted to address it anyway):

Apart from the obvious that veganism (which I prefer to consider "the animal rights stance") is an ethical position/social justice movement more alike to something like feminism or pro-LGBT rights; and doesn't have any spiritual beliefs attached to it and is based purely in ethics/compassion, philosophy/logic/reason, as well as science/evidence (for the related environmental and health components), meaning it doesn't really cover any of the hallmarks of a religion unless we consider other, human rights-based justice movements religions too...

I almost see veganism as being the opposite of a religion, not just because it frequently rejects religion as being an excuse or justification for violating individuals' rights (though it is compatible with religion and there are arguments for veganism from religious perspectives like there are for other rights-based positions, e.g. the Quakers were actually pivotal in abolishing slavery in the US, and progressive churches make a case for homosexuality being accepted and for it to be sinful to victimize people on the basis of their sexuality, etc)...

But because veganism confers the ABSENCE of dogma, not the presence of it: that dogma being the normalized, ingrained societal/cultural belief system that accepts and assumes not just the superiority of humans and lowered importance of non-humans (human supremacy/anthropocentrism), and the differential perceived-value & treatment of certain species of sentient beings based on factors like their utility to humans or their endearment to us (speciesism), but also accepts & even promotes (and largely opposes the rejection of) carnism, or the systemic exploitation of & cruelty toward non-human animals for various purposes, which utilizes the "four Ns" of carnist conditioning as a validation mechanism; that to exploit animals for their flesh, secretions, skin, fur, etc. is "Nice, Normal, Natural, and Necessary"... which are views based not on science but on a willingness to believe in things without evidence or reason, often that suit one's pre-existing narrative and are convenient to enable them to maintain control over less powerful members of society, or vulnerable/innocent individuals/victims and continue acting according to the status quo (which is unfortunately how religion has often been used, though not inherently, and sometimes in the opposite way).

In this regard, you could argue that veganism is to carnism, what atheism/agnosticism is to religion/theism. I hope this makes sense.

Is that the one Natalie Fulton is endorsing?