T O P
dec92010

These are my favorite


TemporaryTelevision6

Basically all the vegan nuggets I've tried have been good, seems super easy to emulate.


dragon_fate

OP I fucks with you


dankblonde

Those look nice and crispy!


[deleted]

They were! 💕


Good-Profession-1869

really upsetting that the comments in this thread turned out to be so negative! your food looks so yummy!! (also jealous you can still eat outside, need warm weather back up here)!!!


[deleted]

Thank you hun! 🥰 and you’re right, the weather is always pretty good over here in the Caribbean!


veganactivismbot

Need help eating out? Check out [HappyCow.net](https://www.happycow.net/) for vegan friendly food near you! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcamp.org/reddit)!


DashBC

I think animal testing still counts as cruelty.


[deleted]

That would depend on how you’re defining cruelty… I oppose animal testing too btw! However, I think that technological advancements in vegan food production like impossible foods, beyond meat, lab grown meat, etc. are what are going to end up changing everyone’s attitudes about veganism. I suspect that the whole world will finally go vegan when humans realize how ridiculous it is to continue to commit an animal holocaust when we have stuff that tastes 100% the same, without any of the environmental destruction or animal suffering (unfortunately, I think that’s what it’ll take). So, whether or not those people test on animals (I’m not sure if they do), the small amount of animal testing that occurs to put those products in the market (some places require animal testing on new products by law, unfortunately) might be justified if it’s going to turn the world vegan sooner rather than later… and all that would make the consumption of these products ethical. What do you think? Are you a pure deontologist and think that harming animals is never justified, no matter the end result? Or do you think that some amount of animal harm (even if you oppose it) might be justified if the outcome is positive enough?


DashBC

Well, something can't be certified cruelty free if it's tested on animals. I think it's fair to state that as well. By definition it's not vegan. Vegan means no animal exploitation. There's no real way to quantify 'saved lives'. How many lives did you save eating this? None. You contributed to an animal testing company. That's all. It's a negative net gain when vegans eat this, since you weren't going to eat chicken flesh anyway. Stop trying to rationalize and jump through hoops. Animal testing is wrong. Any argument for it is speciesist. End of story.


dragon_fate

That's just so reductionist. You either missed their point or didn't care enough to address them.


DashBC

The argument is fundamentally speciesist; I'm not going to waste my time in the weeds when the concept is morally bankrupt.


[deleted]

Well, you can claim it’s speciesist if you want, but I hold the same position across the board. Some amount of human suffer might be justified if the outcome is positive enough too. Think of the trolley problem. I don’t think murdering 1 to save 5 is justified… but what about murdering 1 to save 100,000… or a 1,000,000? It might be. The answer is just going to depend on your normative ethics. And veganism is just something that follows from my values as an applied ethic. I think this technology is promising and it might be the key for a vegan future faster. These are moral grey areas, not all vegans are going to agree in every single point (specially when we might have fundamental value differences). I might be wrong about this, of course (it might not be justified), and would change my mind about it if a good counter-argument is presented, as I did when going vegan in the first place. I don’t think there’s anything morally bankrupt about exploring these concepts, though. Cheers!


DashBC

Veganism states it's against animal exploitation. It's explicit in the definition. It's explicit about being against cruelty. It's explicit about animal free alternatives. None of that justifies or tolerates animal testing. Veganism is not utilitarian. It's not about sacrificing some for others. Otherwise those half plant half meat burgers would be considered vegan. There is no grey area. If animals are being exploited, it's not vegan. The plant based folks will happily welcome you, as they don't trouble themselves with things like standards.


[deleted]

Whoa, there’s a lot here. Sorry if I don’t manage to be as concise as possible in my response. >Veganism states it's against animal exploitation. It's explicit in the definition. It's explicit about being against cruelty. It's explicit about animal free alternatives. No, The Vegan Society’s definition which you are quoting clearly states that vegans “seek to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of animal exploitation and cruelty.” Those important words “possible and practicable” are subjective and very much open to interpretation. Is it practicable to boycott products that are going to help abolish the animal holocaust faster and possibly even save the world from environmental catastrophe (products such as impossible, beyond, lab-grown meat, etc.)? I don’t think so… Btw I don’t strictly go by any specific definition of veganism. The word “vegan” just functions as a heuristic for me to find products that I think are ethical. If you want to say that I’m not vegan according to how you are idiosyncratically defining the term, that’s fine… I believe that I’m vegan according to the common definition. >Veganism is not utilitarian. It's not about sacrificing some for others. Very simplistic view you have there, my friend. Many utilitarian vegans are going to disagree with you. Veganism can easily extend logically from utilitarian values as an applied ethic (I think it’s obvious that a world without animal agriculture is one with much less disutility/suffering). I’m not a a utilitarian, though. I’m more of a threshold deontologist (in the trolley problem, I wouldn’t pull the lever to kill 1 in order to save 5. However, once a certain utility threshold is met, a rights violation might be justified in my view). Btw are you really saying that, in your view, no amount of good would ever justify a rights violation? That view leads you to reductios such as saying that sacrificing one animal would be wrong even if it saved the world or something like that. Also, where do you stand on the vaccine issue, for example? Is it immoral to get vaccinated in your view just because some amount of animal testing happened somewhere in it’s development? Even if it doesn’t even increase demand for further animal testing and it helps reduce the transmission of a deadly disease? Are you also an anti-vaxxer? Just wondering. >Otherwise those half plant half meat burgers would be considered vegan. I don’t agree. There is a clear unnecessary rights violation in the case of a half meat, half plant burger. It becomes less clear when we’re talking about whether or not it’s a vegan thing to consume products in which some amount of animal testing happened in it’s history, but 1) will not happen again (so, we’re not incentivizing future animal tests) and 2) might be the key to a vegan future. >The plant based folks will happily welcome you, as they don't trouble themselves with things like standards. Nope. I’m going to continue calling myself vegan and I’m going to continue enjoying ethical products like imposible foods. I have my standards and I doubt you’ll find any kind of inconsistencies in the ethical principles that lead me to choose vegan as an applied ethic. PS : Animal testing is indeed very unfortunate, it f*cking sucks and I wish we didn’t live in a world where that was seen as okay and even necessarily to approve certain products, medicines, vaccines, etc… I’m with you on that. We’re just disagreeing about how reasonable it is to boycott products that are very promising for the goal of animal liberation (and vegan, in my opinion).


TheAnonymousHumanist

Deontology was a mistake.


[deleted]

What do you mean? 😜


TheAnonymousHumanist

>Veganism is not utilitarian. It's not about sacrificing some for others. Otherwise those half plant half meat burgers would be considered vegan. > >There is no grey area. If animals are being exploited, it's not vegan. The plant based folks will happily welcome you, as they don't trouble themselves with things like standards. These are the types of people who will opt to let 5 people die in the Trolley problem instead of killing 1 to save 5. They think it's more important to remain pure than it is to pragmatically commit some harm to lessen future harm. Deontology is the notion that rights just kinda exist (they don't really often explain how or why) and that we have to respect those rights above all else (again not explaining why typically). Just lazy ethics, in my opinion.


Accomplished_Eye9829

What about the fields and factories that produce different vegan foods? When building these tons of animals and insects are displaced in this process. No human Sustenance is completely cruelty free.


DashBC

Yes, and isn't it an extra slap in the face when a 'vegan' company opts to do animal testing? What kind of screwball are you posting a reply a month later?


Accomplished_Eye9829

Didn’t know there was a time limit for response . Fun name calling too. Look animal welfare isn’t a linear thing, sorry you’re so much better than everyone else because you don’t eat impossible products but call other people with opinions rude names. Have a blessed life, sounds like you need a hug


thomase7

Actually, the ingredient that the company tested on animals, leghemoglobin, is not in the chicken nuggets. Of course if you are the type of person to boycott all products a company makes if not all their products are fully vegan, the don’t eat them. But otherwise the impossible chicken nuggets are no different than many of the other fake chicken products available.


DashBC

Yes, I boycott companies that test on animals. It's a pretty fucked up world where the people who are supposed to defend animals and oppose animal testing are defending it, and putting down vegans who are speaking up against speciesism. Give your head a shake if you're not actually a troll.


proud_basic_bitch

How far back to you go with your boycotting? Nearly everything that's become a "junk food vegan staple" was tested on animals at one point. I think PETA does some great activism, but I found it kind of hypocritical when they tried to tear down impossible foods while advertising beyond as a good substitute. Pea protein isolate had to be tested on animals before it could be FDA approved and put in the beyond burger. It's unfortunate, and we should definitely work to change it, but I don't think it's fair to boycott a company that is trying to move in the ethical right direction for operating within the standards put before them.


DashBC

Impossible can do what they want, why does it have to be called vegan if they test on animals? Where does this stop? A burger that's half meat 'saves animals', are we going to call that vegan now too? It isn't an ethical direction if it requires unethical steps. We'd never have cruelty free shampoo or laundry detergent if your thinking were used. These ethical gains happen when people say no. They were probably told the same lies that animal testing was required, yet here we have these cruelty free products. Further, no vegan needs to eat Impossible products, there are plenty of alternatives. This is just lazy. But to answer your question, vegan certification orgs typically say 20 years after testing and those ingredients can be used in vegan certified products. I think that's pretty reasonable. As for supporting a company that tested on animals and refuses to commit not to, you'd have to be a speciesist non-vegan to be okay with that.


[deleted]

Damn you must be fun at parties


DashBC

Damn I clicked on this thinking you might have had something meaningful to say.


[deleted]

damn you were clearly mistaken


W00bles

Surely every aspect of your life excludes animal cruelty, yes?


hurst_

honestly that's very admirable of you. assuming you only shop at vegan grocery stores or maybe just grow your own veggies? either way, keep it up.


soyslut_

I can't believe how much these disgusting products are still being posted about on a "vegan" subreddit. It kills me that vivisection is the intersection of speciesism in this subreddit just like most social platforms.


DashBC

Speciesism is as speciesism does. It's so ingrained in their mindsets they don't even see it.


soyslut_

There's plenty of cruelty sadly, impossible foods tested on animals. Vivisection isn't vegan. There's plenty of vegan nuggets that are vegan on the market and many recipes available. Ahead of time: they were not required by the FDA.


pmvegetables

For the record, the ingredient they tested was used in their burgers but not the nuggets. Does that make the nuggets vegan in your view?


soyslut_

Not at all, because the company itself willingly chose to test on animals and they weren't required to. I will always avoid this company as I see it as any other company that harms animals knowingly.


hyrtz_hyro

“they were not required by FDA” Source? Also in case it’s a matter of semantics (like it technically not being required but essentially is in a de facto sense), I believe any view of animal testing as a superior metric by the FDA to alternatives to put the FDA at fault.


soyslut_

[https://www.greenmatters.com/p/does-impossible-foods-test-on-animals#:\~:text=Impossible%20Foods%20no%20longer%20tests,heme%20was%20safe%20for%20eating](https://www.greenmatters.com/p/does-impossible-foods-test-on-animals#:~:text=Impossible%20Foods%20no%20longer%20tests,heme%20was%20safe%20for%20eating). [https://www.livekindly.co/ceo-impossible-foods-animal-testing/](https://www.livekindly.co/ceo-impossible-foods-animal-testing/) Testing on animals isn't vegan, I'll keep saying it until someone actually comes with an argument or a real sentence.


[deleted]

They haven’t tested on animals in like 3 years, I think you should give it a rest


soyslut_

You went through almost 100 days of posts to say this? *cracks knuckles* One round of testing is already too many and they have conducted three rounds of testing so far. This seems to be due to the fact that the original trials were rejected and the certification was originally denied (the company was wildly successful while operating without the certification). We have absolutely no guarantees that the company will not conduct further tests in the future. They have stated they will test in the future if "necessary”. Which is disgusting because they were never required in the first place.


[deleted]

I actually just found the thread through a google search, but if it makes you feel special we can can totally pretend I was going through your comment history 🙃


soyslut_

No response to the logical argument. Average Burger King customer. ✌️


[deleted]

So uhhhh, you free Friday night? I feel like we’re really hitting it off


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]