Ein Influenzer hat angefangen davon zu erzählen was mit den Tieren so angestellt wird. Bisschen selber nachgelesen und das hat gereicht.
Weißt du noch, wer das war?
Klar, Dekarldent (auf Twitch)
Habs Gefühl der hat so einige bekehrt. Mich hat er auch zum Umdenken gebracht dass ich mittlerweile zumindest vegetarisch lebe.
Ich fand's sehr interessant als er von seiner Studie erzählt hat, dass er seine Hunde vegan, aber mit vollem Nährstoffhaushalt ernährt. Leider hab ich von seiner fertigen Arbeit am Ende nichts mehr gehört.
Es ist nicht anständig, Tiere zu töten, nur weil sie gut schmecken.
Diesen Satz hab ich mal irgendwo gelesen. Und ich fand es so simpel, so richtig, dass ich eine Weile darüber nachgedacht und dann schnell verstanden habe, dass es in meiner moralischen Weltvorstellung - wenn ich ihr denn konsequent folge - einfach keinen Platz für unnötiges Tierleid gibt. Ich würde Fleisch essen, wenn ich auf einer einsamen Insel strande und das die einzige Nahrungsquelle ist. Aber in unserer Gesellschaft gibts aus meiner Sicht keine Rechtfertigung dafür, sobald man einmal darüber nachgedacht hat.
Hab nach dem Auszug aus dem Elternhaus kaum Fleisch gekauft. Und wenn dann war es beiprodukt bei convenience Sachen. Habe dann mich erstmal dazu entschlossen vegetarisch zu versuchen und bin dann auf einen Beitrag gekommen in dem erklärt wurde dass Milch Produkte das Tierleid ebenso hoch halten wie Fleisch Produkte. Da hab ich mir dann mit der Zeit immer weniger Käse etc gekauft bis es mir dann endlich einfacher viel vegan zu bleiben.
Ich mach mal den Anfang. Es waren wahrscheinlich mehrere Faktoren, aber ein herausstechender war die Dokumentation Earthlings
Die hat leider sonst niemanden in meinem näheren Umfeld überzeugt ¯\(ツ)/¯
Mir wurde nur davon erzählt was man da sieht... will das bis heute nicht anschauen :( Vegan lebe ich trotzdem
Bin kein richtiger Veganer, bin auf dem Weg dazu. Aktuell esse ich fast nie Fleisch oder Fisch, aber schon noch ab und zu Käse. Andere Milchprodukte sind schon ersetzt oder gestrichen, aber Käse ist fast nicht zu ersetzen. Werde einfach einmal beginnen müssen darauf zu verzichten.
Meine Motivation ist das Klima. Ich bin nicht derselben Meinung wie viele Veganer, dass es kategorisch falsch ist Nutztiere zu halten. Ich glaube wenn das unter bestmöglichen Bedingungen getan wird (so a la Oma aufm Land hat ne Ziege die sie liebt) geht das in Ordnung. Dass eine solche Tierhaltung wegen der minimalen Produktion tierischer Erzeugnisse mit einer fast immer veganen Ernährung einhergeht ist klar. Dann gibt es noch Menschen, die in Orten der Welt leben, wo eine pflanzliche Ernährung nicht möglich ist, beispielsweise Island oder die Mongolei. Das sind aber Extrembeispiele und bieten keine Ausrede für die 99% der Menschen die an anderen Orten leben und Fleisch essen schlicht weil sie es wollen - wie ich es selber auch tat.
War bei mir auch so, dass ich dachte, nie auf Käse verzichten zu können. War aber am Ende viel einfacher als gedacht. Käse einfach durch Hummus, Avocado sowie andere Brotaufstriche ersetzt. Schon nach ein paar Wochen hatte ich überhaupt keine Lust mehr nach Käse und nach ca. 3 Monaten hats mich richtig davor geekelt. Einfach machen daher mein Tipp!
Edit: Wurde genau aus dem Grund vegan, den Moby hier beschreibt. Man kann ja einfach mal die schlimmsten Verbrechen durchgehen, die Menschen anderen Menschen antun können (Mord, Vergewaltigung, Folter, Kindsmord, etc.) Und sich dann überlegen, ob diese Verbrechen in der Tierzucht angewendet werden und warum das dort plötzlich völlig ok sein soll.
Und sich dann überlegen, ob diese Verbrechen in der Tierzucht angewendet werden und warum das dort plötzlich völlig ok sein soll.
Weil die gängige Meinung ist, dass für Menschen und Tiere nicht dieselben Rechte und derselbe Schutz gilt. Deswegen sind die genannten Verbrechen nur Verbrechen, wenn sie Menschen angetan werden. Ob diese Meinung korrekt ist lasse ich dahingestellt - wollte nur die Frage beantworten.
Ja, ist mir klar. Macht aber für mich keinen Sinn, da die meisten Menschen all diese Dinge nie selber einem Tier antun würden. Manche vielleicht das Töten selber, aber nie die Qual.
An Orten an denen eine rein pflanzliche Ernaehrung wirklich nicht moeglich ist, waeren die Menschen dort trotzdem vegan, selbst wenn sie ab und zu Tierprodukte verzehren, denn Veganismus heisst, das Leiden von Tieren zu verhindern soweit wie es praktisch moeglich ist.
Ich hab eigentlich jeden Tag Fleisch gegessen, aber ohne jemals über irgendwelche Folgen nachzudenken. So richtig braindead. Ein Influenza wurde dann vegan und hat aufgeklärt, dann hab ich auch diese Richtung eingeschlagen :)
Ich finde solche ja/nein Fragen nicht so effektiv, weil wir alle denken natürlich "Nein!", aber Omni-Trolls sagen ja, lachen sich tot und sind weg. Und wir stehen doof da.
Hat auch schon jemand 'Yes.' kommentiert 😅
Wir müssen hier in der Vegan-Community ja nicht mit jedem Beitrag effektiven Aktivismus betreiben. Der Thread ist einfach nur da, um sich gegenseitig auszutauschen (so die naive Hoffnung).
Ja, verstehe. Ich wollte nur eine Beobachtung teilen, die ich mit der Zeit gemacht habe. :)
I say this to my begging cats anytime I sit down to have a snack.
Ich koche seit etwa 3 Jahren viel mehr selbst und fand es damals schon eklig mit rohem Fleisch zu hantieren. Es verdirbt auch so schnell. Dadurch hab ich dann sowieso schon weniger davon gemacht und generell mehr drauf geachtet was ich esse. Vor etwa einem Jahr hab ich Dominion gesehen und entschieden es geht nicht mehr.
Das wirkt sich natürlich auch auf andere Bereiche aus, wie Kleidung, Drogerieprodukte, Ansicht zu Zoos usw.
Weitere Einflüsse:
Was mich an der Bewegung stört, ist dass viele Leute nur schwarz-weiß denken und nicht den psychologischen Teil beachten. Meiner Ansicht nach sollte man nie erwarten dass es sofort (oder jemals) von 100 auf 0 geht. Alle haben ihre eigenen Sorgen, Traditionen, ein eigenes soziales Umfeld. Manche kennen keine Mahlzeit ohne Fleisch, für andere ist es normal auch mal was ohne zu essen. Die Hürde ist bei einigen höher als bei anderen. Dann auch noch auf Käse und andere Milchprodukte zu verzichten erscheint unmöglich.
Eine Alles oder Nichts Denke führt eher dazu dass Noch-Fleischesser abgeschreckt werden und in Abwehrhaltung gehen. Wenn ich mit Freunden darüber rede, gehe ich immer so vor dass ich sage, fang langsam an, probier hier und da mal, schau dir dies und das Video an. Ich bekomme normalerweise gespitzte Ohren und Nachfragen. Und ich lebe es halt einfach vor. Ich finde das ist ein guter Anfang. Einige werden weiter forschen und von selbst drauf kommen, andere sind einfach festgefahren.
Meine Mutter hat sich durch mich inspiriert auch damit beschäftigt und ist nun immerhin Vegetarierin. Ich denke für sie ist es schwieriger weil mein Vater noch nicht soweit ist und wohl nie wird.
Ich habe früher schonmal Earthlings gesehen. Das hat mich zwar schockiert, aber gebracht hat es nichts. Ich war einfach in einem anderen Mindset damals und vegan sein war eher komisch.
Was mich an der Bewegung stört, ist dass viele Leute nur schwarz-weiß denken und nicht den psychologischen Teil beachten.
Stimmt. Das ist ja auch der Grund weshalb veganer ja als sehr aufdringlich gelten(unter anderem durch Rafaela Raabs vorangetrieben). Mit der Brechstange versuchen jemanden zu "zwingen" hat noch nie und wird nie funktionieren. Essen ist eine Entscheidung die jeder für sich selber treffen muss. Wenn man so etwas "erzwingen" will erzeugt halt eher das Gegenteil.
Ich war ihm einen Veganer verliebt ;)
Fing bei mir damit an dass ich gelesen hab wie scheiße die bedingungen in der Milchindustrie sind. Und wie viel mist ich mir damit gegebenenfalls reintrinke. War wirklich lange milchfrei aber omnivor bis ich dann langsam aufgehört hab fleisch zu kaufen.
Hauptanstoß sind nach wie vor umweltschutz und Korruption/Raffgier der Industrie. Tierschutz ist auch toll, war für mich aber tatsächlich eher ne Begleiterscheinung.
Lebst du denn komplett vegan, also auch einschließlich Kleidung und anderen Sachen außerhalb der Ernährung? Das lässt sich meiner Ansicht nach nur mit moralischen Überzeugungen begründen.
Hab ganz ehrlich bei Kleidung noch nicht so drauf geachtet, wobei ich einfach nicht oft was kaufe. Die letzten shirts die mir einfallen waren alle aus Baumwolle oder Leinen.
Müsste ich mal durchgucken.
Werde allerdings auch nix wegwerfen das ich schon habe. Zb hab ich noch lederreste von nem Projekt vor x jahren und ein trinkhorn. Würde ich heute nicht mehr kaufen aber moralische Überlegenheit ist mir die Verschwendung nicht wert.
Unterbewusst war ich lange überzeugt, dass es eigentlich richtig sein müsste. War lange Vegetarier. Hab dann irgendwann wegen Klima den Schritt gemacht und komplett vegan gegessen (bei Kleidung etc finde ich mich noch nicht zurecht), und später kamen dann moralische Argumente dazu, um dabei zu bleiben.
die erzählungen übers tierleid und umweltschutz. mochte fleisch aber generell noch nie, daher eigentlich der einzig sinnvolle schritt für mich.
Gesundheit
Aus Gesundheitlichen, weshalb ich abgesehen von Hafermilch auch keine vegane Fertigprodukte kaufe.
If depends on where you place your morals.
Human morals are antropocentric. The only reason we see "life" as something good is because we are descendants of people who saw "life" as someting good, it's in our genes, our instinct of survival. Our ancestors would have killed themselves without that instinctive attachment to life, so we wouldn't have been born in the first place. It's selection bias... natural selection.
The Earth, and the Universe in general, does not care about life (human or otherwise), or about suffering, or about apetite. The planets will continue to be there long after we are extinct. We (including the animals around us) and our feelings have zero "importance" in reality. There's no real importance scale but the one we make.
Humans categorize things in "importance" based on how they serve the human race. Even something like global warming, is important in so far as it puts humanity lives at risk, no other reason. It's not about "saving Earth" or the animals, it's about saving ourselves. We are the "important" ones, in our own view. If you don't agree with this then... why not advocate for a safe way to end ourselves without suffering? wouldn't the Earth be "better" without humanity? if the goal was really about minimizing suffering, that might be a good approach wouldn't it?
Note that I'm NOT advocating for suicide... but trying to show the argument is not that good.
I can understand vegans that do it for the future of the Earth (and humanity) and to fight our own autodestructive behavior. And I totally support that, I think it makes complete sense and it's what got me interested in this as well. But I don't understand those who first and foremost put the focus on the animal suffering. I feel that's more of an appeal to empathy (another evolutionary trait) and it's driven by emotion/instincts rather than logic/reason. The argument being made this way is more of an emotional blackmailing trying to make our reptile brain feel bad, not about giving an actual logical argument.
wouldn’t the Earth be “better” without humanity? if the goal was really about minimizing suffering, that might be a good approach wouldn’t it?
Why stop there, we could probably eradicate life on earth completely, ending all suffering?
Jokes aside, you're using the word argument and claim it's not reasonable, but I fail to see "the vegan argument" in your comment, whatever this is. The goal to reduce (needless) suffering of animals is merely a stance.
Veganism is a compromise, nothing more, nothing less. Vegans still have a will to live like most sentient beings, and to a degree that always includes weighing opposing interests. To give an example, hardly any vegan will argue that we shouldn't use non-vegan medicine if there's no plant-based alternative.
The question is where to draw the line. One could come to the conclusion that some suffering of animals is needless, e.g. if the only purpose is to give one a cheap, delicious meal.
If you're really interested in learning about logical arguments in favor of reducing animal suffering, there's a bunch of philosophers who worked on that, Peter Singer comes to mind.
I do wonder, though, why do you think it's reasonable to put importance on humanity or its future at all? Might as well just put importance on oneself, no?
Spotted the nihilist.
From experience, I find it hard to argue with nihilists since nothing really has value for them. Although, I have yet to meet a pure nihilist (or amoralist). Fully functioning nihilsts and amoralists don't exist. So usually it shows that they are not as nihilistic as it first seems. And I suspect you will be no exception.
Technically, and from a natural point of view, you are correct. Suffering is an evolutionary trait. But it has no bigger universal meaning or consequences other than being a stimulus which aids organisms in survival.
You argue (or rather try to show a weakness of an argument) that if all of humanity were commiting suicide, this would be beneficial for other forms of life on this planet. (Or "most" humans, to be technically adequate, since I can imagine that humans are also to some degree important parts of functioning ecosystems.) This seems logical if the only premise is environmental protection and preservation. It's obvious that this is not the only premise which plays a role here. Vegans (and a lot of non-vegans with a similar mindset in this regard) would like to survive themselves while keeping the harm they inflict to other (somewhat sentient) forms of life as minimal as possible.
What intrigues me is that you are not advocating for sucide. You even emphasize that. Why is that? This implies that you must have some sort of moral concept, which is not rooted in Nihilism. Tell me about it!
I feel that’s [...] driven by emotion/instincts rather than logic/reason. The argument being made this way is more of an emotional blackmailing [...], not about giving an actual logical argument.
That's the thing about moral and logic: it is impossible to create moral through reason alone, which is equivalent to saying that logic has no moral. You need to start somewhere and accept it as given. This will be the very first premise. Based on that you can reason away and build a logically consistent moral concept.
You may find that Veganism is an ethical framework, which has the strongest logical consistency (at least to my knowledge) if you start with the premises "I want to be alive" and "suffering is bad".
As this is the very core, we can now discuss whether these premises are something we want to use as our ethical foundation. Of course you can reject it and try to live as an, e.g., amoralist. But even then you would make your decisions based on your individual belief system. And that one will probably have more logic holes than my socks. So saying that Veganism aims at emotional blackmailing is rather the very same cause for the existence of most moral beliefs. This mechanism works for all moral decisions, regardless of the specific philosophical movement. As I said before, you can't purely "logic" goals and thereby moral into existence.
Once you have this realisation, you'll usually find that going vegan is the only logically valid step.
You call me nihilist while arguing that I'm likely not really nihilistic. I feel that's a very fuzzy box you are trying to put me in :P ...but you are free to call it whatever you want so long as it's kept respectful.
The Universe doesn't have morals. But humans do. And evolution has ingrained a particular set of morals in our brains.
However, in those morals the benefit (you could say "thriving") of our species is the main theme, and it could not be other way since they emerge from natural selection.
This can be in conflict with the survival of other species too. And I do believe that all creatures with instinct are also moral beings... it's not that wolves are behaving immorally when they hunt sheep, they are behaving in the most morally correct manner that emerges from their natural selection. Their appetite is more important for the wolf than the sheep's suffering.
This seems logical if the only premise is environmental protection and preservation. It’s obvious that this is not the only premise which plays a role here.
Yes, my point was to show that the topic is not that simple. My first line was: "it depends on you morals"
"Suffering" and "empathy" taken as universal would not work, you'd need to draw the line at some point. So it becomes a question on where you draw the line. You can look into the eyes of a worm, speak to it and treat it like a child that has the same feelings a human would, and you'll be sad when it dies. But I don't see how our ability to project empathy towards an animal that has eyes justifies drawing the line there.
Don't you find it curious that most people only seem to care about an animal when it's relatively close in mechanism / behavior to a human? ...most people don't have second thoughts when it comes to killing a cockroach, for example. Is the desire to not have insects in the house more important than the insect's suffering? I suspect the meme wouldn't cause such an impact if it used that.
You may find that Veganism is an ethical framework, which has the strongest logical consistency (at least to my knowledge) if you start with the premises “I want to be alive” and “suffering is bad”.
If those 2 premises were enough to start with, then it would follow that it's ok to eat meat (or use animal products) as long as we could be absolutelly sure the animals involved did not "suffer" (and as long as it did not put our own lives in danger, which is, imho, a better point towards going plant-based ...but I won't derail into that).
Then it becomes a matter of accuratelly determining what constitutes "suffering". Does experiencing suffering require "pain" and a nervous system exactly like ours? Or is it possible that the only reason we experience "pain" through our nervous system is because the way we are programmed makes this the most efficient way for a mechanism of reward-punishment to emerge that is evolutionarily benefitial to our survival?
If other creatures have a different emergent mechanism to signal in their biology what's hurtful to their survival and morally wrong for them, having a different manifestation of what (I'd argue) could also be categorized as "suffering", shouldn't they be included? are we just only caring for the nervous response because that's one thing we can relate to? are we unfairly discriminating based on how similar is their biology to ours? why?
it is impossible to create moral through reason alone, which is equivalent to saying that logic has no moral. You need to start somewhere and accept it as given.
This is true, but only as the very first initial premise. You NEED logic to isolate what those premises should be (and to be able to extrapolate from those premises) if you actually want to maximize the success rate of the primal evolutionary drive that pushes our human morals.
I'd argue most crimes and acts considered immoral are driven by emotion too. You need logic if you want to form a coherent human moral that can be extrapolated to a higher abstract level. Because using emotion as a basis alone, without logical reasoning, would lead to contradictory and inconsistent results, the morals would be changing based on the circumstances in a way that is not logically sound.
This means that if you manipulate certain circumstances, you can manipulate the moral compass of someone who is driven by emotion and does not use logic. That form of manipulation is what I referred to as "emotional blackmailing".
Why is the meme asking us to "look in the eye" to the animal? why is it asking us to "tell" it to the animal as if it could understand the words of whichever language we speak?
Because it's trying to manipulate you into projecting your empathy towards it.
As I read your comment, you approach veganism from a nihilistic perspective, invalidating their belief system since it is driven by emotion. At the same time you seem to have missed that every ethical concept stems from similar emotional processes. I wanted to point out the contradiction you created by that, since there is and was no living "full" nihilist or amoralist (except folks like existential nihilists) who whishes to continue their existence.
In other words: There is no moral without emotion. So critisizing veganism that way you did before, is illogical.
And I do believe that all creatures with instinct are also moral beings… it’s not that wolves are behaving immorally when they hunt sheep, they are behaving in the most morally correct manner that emerges from their natural selection. Their appetite is more important for the wolf than the sheep’s suffering.
Didn't you know that - based on our current understanding - virtually all animals besides humans lack the cognitive capacity of moral agency?
In your example, wolves are not able to contemplate their actions the way we do. They don't have the necessary self-awareness, nor the required brain structure to even have labels such as "good" or "bad" to evaluate and prospect their (possible) actions. Their behaviour is mostly driven by instinct and training or experience. They do not "think" about whether it's good or bad to kill and eat the sheep, they also don't "think" that "they" are more important than the sheep. They simply do. They are not able to perform moral reasoning.
There is no moral at play here. Moral does not exist for wolves. Only beings which posess moral agency are able to do that.
We - as humans - can evaluate the actions of wolves as morally correct or incorrect, since we are beings with moral agency. But the wolves can't. They don't look at other wolves killing sheep and think "oh dude, maybe the sheep wasn't so happy about that, but it's okay, since we need to eat".
So even though your observation is in so far correct as that wolves still have a decision making process, which allows them to hunt their prey if they are hungry, this decision making process is of purely instinctual and not morally aware nature.
Don’t you find it curious that most people only seem to care about an animal when it’s relatively close in mechanism / behavior to a human? …most people don’t have second thoughts when it comes to killing a cockroach, for example. Is the desire to not have insects in the house more important than the insect’s suffering?
I don't find it curious, no. As you already said this is rooted in similarities of capacity to suffer within us humans and other animals. According to my currenty state of knowledge, a lot of research shows that insects do not feel pain. Although a definitive answer is still out in the open. If I remember it correctly, there are hints that honey bees for example can experience some sort of distress when being smoked, which is why some vegans also do not consume honey. Vegans attribute suffering as something which can (currently) only be experienced by beings with a central nervous system. And that is also nuanced in several degrees. (An example, some vegans eat oysters since those lack a central nervous system.) This is an active interpretation of the term "suffering", and that makes sense. Why should you want to prevent damage to a being, if it is not able to feel suffering? A passive interpretation of suffering would be the presence of any stimulus which drives an organism to actions which prevent the occurence of such a stimulus. Those stimuli have evolved into incents for increasing the survival chance of an organism and its species. For example, this would also mean that plants are suffering when they don't maximize their beneficial sunlight exposure, which is why they grow towards light. This is of course one of the factors which drives evolution. However, as you will hopefully agree, there are different levels of suffering. While reactive behaviour of, e.g., oysters or plants are simple and mere reflexes to the environment, more complex organisms like vertebrates are capable of more complex forms of suffering, like pain, fear, stress, etc.. Simply put, that's also where vegans draw the line.
then it should be ok to eat meat (or use products from animal origin) as long as we could be absolutelly sure the animals involved did not “suffer” (you could even kill them yourself, right?)
Since you can not make sure that the involved animals do not suffer, this is not okay for vegans. Most vegans also don't understand "suffering" as an active negative stimulus but also as the lack of positive ones. (Which also holds for what I said in the previous paragraph.) An early end of life, the lack of "true" freedom, i.e., living in the wild as in times before humans domesticated them, the fact that most of the animals, which humans consume, are bred for optimized meat, milk or whatever yield, which decreases their natural lifespan are such lacking positives and also brings along a bunch of negatives like (hurtful) health issues. Those are all the manifestations of suffering that vegans aim to prevent.
I already disambiguated the term "suffering" as a stimulus before and where and why vegans draw a line. So I hope that this will be a sufficient response to your paragraphs which follow the quote from the last one I quoted here.
This is true, but only as the very first initial premise. You NEED logic to isolate what those premises should be (and to be able to extrapolate from those premises)
Yes, of course. Still, these premises all start with emotions. But it seems we agree on that.
if you actually want to maximize the success rate of the primal evolutionary drive that pushes our human morals.
I am not sure I completely understand you here. What do you mean by that? Which evolutionary drive's sucess rate should we want to maximize? And how is this related to the first part of the sentence?
I’d argue most crimes and acts considered immoral have their root in emotion too. Because using emotion as a basis alone, without logic, would lead to inconsistent results, the morals would be changing based on the circumstances in a way that is not logical.
Agreed. To dive deeper: there is no inherent need for consistent results. It's just that most people like to respect themselves and justify their actions. They don't want to see themselves in a bad way and therefore naturally strive for morally correct behaviour. If you then explore their moral belief system you often find that it has sometimes more, sometimes less inconsistencies which cause distress for them. They might re-evaluate their stance and correct their belief system, possibly condoning their past behaviour and views. Or they shut down, blocking arguments which might invalidate their position even though logically correct, aka "confirmation bias".
But I see now how you originally meant your "emotional blackmailing" part. You were mainly criticizing the meme and not veganism as a whole by saying that, correct?
I would still justify such a meme format, since such emotions can be the nudge required to re-evaluate ones values and beliefs. This is why populism works, but also why it is so dangerous. The problem, and I agree with you in that regard, might then become that people don't spend sufficient cognitive effort for thinking about this criticially enough, such that they could arrive at logically consistent conclusions. In this meme specifically I still see the incentive for that ("should ones own pleasure be evaluated with higher priority than the suffering of animals?"), it's therefore less emotionally appealing than more radical examples, which leverage as much emotion as possible and almost completely omit the rational part.
Furthermore I feel the need to put this into perspective: This meme was posted to the german vegan community (VeganDE), the title of the post translates to: "Why did you become a vegan?". It does not seem as if it would aim to appeal to the viewers of this post to change their lifestyle towards veganism, but I see it rather as a conversation starter within a vegan community. Also, from my experience, most vegans I met so far, have thouroughly thought about their choice to go vegan and did not made this choice irrationally based on emotion alone.
Yes, it's an appeal to empathy.
After all, we aren't this value-less universe, but primates which evolved to have and apply morals. So here we are!
Understanding it does not devalue it or prevent it's function.
I also agree about climate change. Of course it's about us. And this alone is a great reason to avoid animal products.
community is read-only! moved to other instance:
https://discuss.tchncs.de/c/vegande
as a true German-speaking vegan you might also be interested in the German-speaking vegan circle-jerk:
https://discuss.tchncs.de/c/kreisvegs
old community info:
Deutschsprachige Veganys
bitte beachten:
