Used to think this until I got harassed by a vegan for eating eggs.

Not all of em are like that but goddamn do the bad ones make a scene.

Would smash actually.

It's hardly gymnastics at all.

The point is I see animals as food because of the fact they sustained me when plants alone would not suffice.

Can't see them as equals just because I get out of the country and move to a better life because that would necessitate feeling guilt that I contributed to the killing of thousands of equals in order to have a half decent quality of life.

I mean obviously we wouldn't kill thousands of people to make our one life better. But you acknowledge that people can eat animals to survive and you wouldn't judge them.

Thus their death is secondary to my comfort. Just as to animals, the suffering of other species they actively choose to make suffer is secondary to their comfort. The only difference is that I have the awareness to choose not to have the chicken in my backyard suffer in the moments before it ends up on my plate.

There is a fundamental incompatibility betwen the idea of preventing harm to sentient beings when given the option, and the fact that animals that are not our own species see no harm in hunting when other options exist.

Pigs are omnivores and will eat an unconscious human given the chance. And yes it has happened. Apes are largely herbivorous but do not shy away from eating grubs and lice off of each other. Hedgehogs will eat their young when threatened because in their minds, if the threat will kill their kids anyway, better they utilize the energy than a predator. Parasitic birds are technically capable of raising their own young but opt not to even at the expense of the young of other birds. Dolphins will bully puffer fish for their toxins in order to get high. They do not need to do this but they do. Orcas will body boats and animals alike and risk self harm because they think it is fun and challenging. Cats will kill for sport.

These are intelligent animals seeking comfort at the expense of other species. Because it is natural to prioritize one's own species over another, similar to how it is natural to prioritize one's family over another.

The counterpoint to this should be that as humans we are more advanced than animals and do not have to act like them. But then if we acknowledge that there is a difference, well... That difference is what allows us in the third world to eat them without guilt.

Thing is, if we grew up eating a mix of meat and vegetables to survive, we already value ourselves more than animals. Even if someone here does get rich, it is unrealistic to expect a sudden development of empathy for what we see as food.

The original statement the guy made was that there was no excuse to not be vegan. My argument breaks it.

Now unless someone countered my argument the issue becomes...

If we're "allowed" to eat animals because we're poor, who made vegans the authority to tell people with more than us what they should eat? This "permission" to eat meat comes off as a pity party for people without food.

It comes off as "look at them. They're so backwards they have to eat animals while we don't. I feel bad for them."

That is the undertone delivered. What happened to being treated equally?

We work so we can afford choice. Ease quality of life. Are we supposed to lose freedom of one aspect of our lives upon being capable of affording more than basic needs? Do we not deserve comfort for successfully pulling ourselves up?

And again, if we were not denied that in acknowledgement of our struggles, but people from first world nations are, is that not a pity party? A marker displaying the difference between them and us?

So when will we be viewed as equal?

Finally, social dynamics aside...

if people can justify our consumption of meat because we're poor then it is admission that animals cannot be prioritized compared to us. Because in a pinch, we are human and they are not.

Just use my argument. I've yet to see anyone counter it because it's true.

Veganism is anti poor.

People who advocate for "veganism at all costs" forget that third world nations exist.

When your country is surrounded by water and filled with forests, you don't have enough fields to feed everyone with plant matter.

And you don't have the economy to import a pure plant matter diet for everyone.

You fish, and you breed chickens and pigs because they're low maintenance and eat scraps for minimum waste.

Plus meat is denser in energy than plants. You need to buy more plant matter to get the same level of nutrition.

This is important because if your average daily wage is 1/4 of the US minimum wage, you can't afford to buy more food. You want the most nutrition for the least amount of food.

Meat is 5x more protein dense than plant matter.

This is important in third world countries like mine because going vegan means you need to buy more food to get the same sustenance.

Veganism isn't taken seriously here because we do not have the luxury of choice. It is seen as anti poor empathy for animals when we should be prioritizing each other.

We do not have enough fields to feed the country. We have forests and cutting them down for fields is ill-advised. We cannot depend on imports because again... Third world economy.

What we have in abundance are fish, being an island nation, and pork and chicken because they eat anything we can't and they fatten easy.

For context, I'm earning 5.5 USD per hour and that is twice the average daily wage. People around me consider me fortunate with that salary. I can't afford veganism. How can people with less than I?