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)!!!
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)!
That would depend on how youāre defining crueltyā¦ 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 everyoneās 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 thatās what itāll take). So, whether or not those people test on animals (Iām 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 itās going to turn the world vegan sooner rather than laterā¦ 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?
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.
Well, you can claim itās 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 donāt think murdering 1 to save 5 is justifiedā¦ but what about murdering 1 to save 100,000ā¦ 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 donāt think thereās anything morally bankrupt about exploring these concepts, though. Cheers!
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.
Whoa, thereās a lot here. Sorry if I donāt 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 Societyās definition which you are quoting clearly states that vegans āseek to excludeāas far as is possible and practicable, all forms of animal exploitation and cruelty.ā Those important words āpossible and practicableā 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 donāt think soā¦
Btw I donāt strictly go by any specific definition of veganism. The word āveganā just functions as a heuristic for me to find products that I think are ethical. If you want to say that Iām not vegan according to how you are idiosyncratically defining the term, thatās fineā¦ I believe that Iām 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 itās obvious that a world without animal agriculture is one with much less disutility/suffering). Iām not a a utilitarian, though. Iām more of a threshold deontologist (in the trolley problem, I wouldnāt 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 itās development? Even if it doesnāt 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 donāt agree. There is a clear unnecessary rights violation in the case of a half meat, half plant burger. It becomes less clear when weāre talking about whether or not itās a vegan thing to consume products in which some amount of animal testing happened in itās history, but 1) will not happen again (so, weāre 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. Iām going to continue calling myself vegan and Iām going to continue enjoying ethical products like imposible foods. I have my standards and I doubt youāll 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 didnāt live in a world where that was seen as okay and even necessarily to approve certain products, medicines, vaccines, etcā¦ Iām with you on that. Weāre 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).
>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.
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.
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?
Didnāt know there was a time limit for response
. Fun name calling too. Look animal welfare isnāt a linear thing, sorry youāre so much better than everyone else because you donāt eat impossible products but call other people with opinions rude names. Have a blessed life, sounds like you need a hug
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 donāt eat them.
But otherwise the impossible chicken nuggets are no different than many of the other fake chicken products available.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
āthey were not required by FDAā
Source? Also in case itās 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.
[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.
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 "necessaryā.
Which is disgusting because they were never required in the first place.
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 š
These are my favorite
Basically all the vegan nuggets I've tried have been good, seems super easy to emulate.
OP I fucks with you
Those look nice and crispy!
They were! š
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)!!!
Thank you hun! š„° and youāre right, the weather is always pretty good over here in the Caribbean!
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)!
I think animal testing still counts as cruelty.
That would depend on how youāre defining crueltyā¦ 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 everyoneās 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 thatās what itāll take). So, whether or not those people test on animals (Iām 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 itās going to turn the world vegan sooner rather than laterā¦ 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?
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.
That's just so reductionist. You either missed their point or didn't care enough to address them.
The argument is fundamentally speciesist; I'm not going to waste my time in the weeds when the concept is morally bankrupt.
Well, you can claim itās 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 donāt think murdering 1 to save 5 is justifiedā¦ but what about murdering 1 to save 100,000ā¦ 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 donāt think thereās anything morally bankrupt about exploring these concepts, though. Cheers!
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.
Whoa, thereās a lot here. Sorry if I donāt 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 Societyās definition which you are quoting clearly states that vegans āseek to excludeāas far as is possible and practicable, all forms of animal exploitation and cruelty.ā Those important words āpossible and practicableā 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 donāt think soā¦ Btw I donāt strictly go by any specific definition of veganism. The word āveganā just functions as a heuristic for me to find products that I think are ethical. If you want to say that Iām not vegan according to how you are idiosyncratically defining the term, thatās fineā¦ I believe that Iām 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 itās obvious that a world without animal agriculture is one with much less disutility/suffering). Iām not a a utilitarian, though. Iām more of a threshold deontologist (in the trolley problem, I wouldnāt 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 itās development? Even if it doesnāt 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 donāt agree. There is a clear unnecessary rights violation in the case of a half meat, half plant burger. It becomes less clear when weāre talking about whether or not itās a vegan thing to consume products in which some amount of animal testing happened in itās history, but 1) will not happen again (so, weāre 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. Iām going to continue calling myself vegan and Iām going to continue enjoying ethical products like imposible foods. I have my standards and I doubt youāll 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 didnāt live in a world where that was seen as okay and even necessarily to approve certain products, medicines, vaccines, etcā¦ Iām with you on that. Weāre 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).
Deontology was a mistake.
What do you mean? š
>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.
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.
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?
Didnāt know there was a time limit for response . Fun name calling too. Look animal welfare isnāt a linear thing, sorry youāre so much better than everyone else because you donāt eat impossible products but call other people with opinions rude names. Have a blessed life, sounds like you need a hug
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 donāt eat them. But otherwise the impossible chicken nuggets are no different than many of the other fake chicken products available.
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.
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.
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.
Damn you must be fun at parties
Damn I clicked on this thinking you might have had something meaningful to say.
damn you were clearly mistaken
Surely every aspect of your life excludes animal cruelty, yes?
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.
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.
Speciesism is as speciesism does. It's so ingrained in their mindsets they don't even see it.
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.
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?
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.
āthey were not required by FDAā Source? Also in case itās 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.
[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.
They havenāt tested on animals in like 3 years, I think you should give it a rest
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 "necessaryā. Which is disgusting because they were never required in the first place.
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 š
No response to the logical argument. Average Burger King customer. āļø
So uhhhh, you free Friday night? I feel like weāre really hitting it off
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]