Yeah, whenever people raise these worries, I'll tell them I'm vegan. Because I'm so manly, they tend to be taken aback, and their come to recognize that some of the most masculine people in the world are vegan.
I wouldn’t rely on my own personal experience but any time I see one of those ‘what do women find sexy in men’ surveys veganism is like the worst possible thing other than doing hard drugs. I can’t claim to have done a thorough survey of the literature myself.
Well I think it is also because meat has more protein, and it is better for building muscle. (You can get protein as a vegan, but it is more difficult). In the animal kingdom predators are typically at the top of food chains too.
People may perceive it as more difficult, but it really isn't. It's not as if vegan protein sources are less protein dense. Tofu typically has the same, or more grams of protein per calorie. Seitan is basically all protein. Plant based meats are the same story.
I'm also not really sure what the relevance of the food chain is. If a predator does something then that's manly? They also shit outside? They're a weird candidate to model ourselves after.
I agree it is not terribly difficult, although if you don’t cook for yourself frequently it can be difficultish depending on where you live.
I try to be mostly vegan. And its not that hard, I agree, but this is all vibes based and MEAT = MUSCLE.
Predators shit outside, but so do prey, so thats not something unique to being a predator, whereas eating meat is. Predators = dominant = masculine, goes the thinking
These are not good arguments, but I think it’s the explanation of the psychology.
Oh right, well if you're just explaining the phenomenon then, yes, I agree that the "I am like a lion" line of thinking is partially what causes it (despite it being a bad argument).
That's one meta-analysis, which can be flawed. The guy I linked is very familiar with the health literature. I never said the evidence is strong (he agrees)
Sure, research can be flawed, but I think it's rational to trust meta analyses over anything else. Especially if you can't find a conflicting one (which I haven't been able to yet). Even if you grant that the concern people have is some evidence, I don't think it's enough to avoid soy.
Also, one other thing that I find weird, dairy milk has mammalian estrogen in it lol. Not saying that you endorse dairy consumption or anything, I just think it's odd it gets a free pass when soy doesn't haha
>Our shared concern over our manhood ties all our monkey brains together. We all want to look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club, and we all want women to think we could be in Seal Team 6 if we really wanted to.
LOL no, these are so silly assumptions and overgeneralizations. This is too much still Tate territory to me.
I don't want to base a relationship on impressions, acting and so on. I want women to see me as I am, the nerdy unfit philosopher type. I don't care about having a muscular body, I am a mind, I am not a body, my mind is just simply trapped in this body. I don't think in animalistic ways.
In return I am also very tolerant with the women I date, I don't care how fat they are, whether they cook or just spend the whole weekend in bed with their phones etc.
I eat meat because when you tend to drink serious amounts of alcohol, lettuce does not cure the stomach burn the same way as bacon and eggs does.
Aragorn ate meat; there are loads of references to eating meat in LoR. No industry 'convinced' people to eat meat; they ate as much meat as they were capable from the earliest existence of humanity and continued doing so except for certain societies that went OCD with purity taboos.
Factory farming is indefensible, but asserting there is something wrong with human beings eating meat is like asserting there is something wrong with tigers eating meat.
I didn't say Aragorn doesn't eat meat, I said that he's the sort of person to do what he think is right even if he's ridiculed.
I also didn't say that the only reason men eat meat is because an industry convinced them to. I said that advertisers have managed to tie meat consumption and masculinity together, which preys on men's insecurities.
Saying meat eating is wrong is not like saying a tiger eating meat is wrong. It's like saying a tiger who isn't carnivorous and can be reasoned with is wrong to eat meat - which is true. If a Tiger was a smart as us and could eat a diet that didn't cause as much pain and suffering as eating animals alive, it would be wrong for it to continue eating them.
This is actually a complicated philosophical problem - whether acts only become immoral if the actor is able to choose not to do them. Regardless, though, we could quite easily stop tigers eating animals alive if we wanted to. Just put them all in a zoo. Being eaten alive by a tiger is many orders of magnitude worse than a cow being humanely slaughtered. Should we do this?
I think there would likely be larger negative consequences from removing predators from the wild. We have a bad track record of changing one thing, and causing a knock on effect that makes life worse for the life that lives there. If we were certain that that wouldn't happen though, sure, it would be better to keep tigers separate from the other animals so they don't tear them apart.
As for whether it's 'wrong' for an irrational agent to cause harm is an interesting question. It's definitely bad - the same way it's bad if a baby shoots someone. They might not blameworthy, but it's still a disvaluable state of affairs. However, it is appropriate to say an action is wrong if a rational moral agent causes massive amounts of harm for trivial gains - which is what we do when we eat animals. So I just don't think the human/animal analogy works. Animals do lots of things it would be wrong for us to do. They also rape each other, and kill their young. They aren't good role models
1) I appreciate your consistency. I think most people would disagree, and I would too, but it's good to be clear about what your moral position entails.
2) It's not about emulating animals, it's about declaring that things that a given animal does by its nature is immoral. Now you might say that humans aren't animals, or that eating meat isn't part of the nature of the human. But you need to back that up.
In any case, you must surely know that the great bulk of mankind are as immune to your moral arguments as a tiger is. The only proven way of promoting vegetarianism is through religious purity taboos, so maybe you try and encourage people to become serious Hindus. Alternatively, you should start campaigning for stringent laws against factory farming. But all this moral encouragement of high IQ conscientious people to eat lentils is misplaced. I think it's wrong that you won't even eat an organic, regeneratively farmed, free range steak when people of basically no real value are stuffing their face with KFC.
I don't see why something being in our nature matters. It's in our nature to be violent to each other, we've always done it. Moral Progress usually comes in the form of restraining our base desires. Even if you deny that it's in our nature to be violent, if it hypothetically were, it's not like that would make violence any less bad.
It might be the case that philosophical argument doesn't work that well on the average person. I imagine that's just because people aren't moved by argument much anyway. There are other methods you can take to stop people eating meat, such as funding alternative proteins, which are more effective. So I also do that, as well as funding organizations that aim to outlaw factory farming. I write here because it's a place to express myself, and the sort of people that read my substack ARE the sorts of people to be moved by argument. Why is it wrong for me not to eat steak?
Because you're missing out. It's unfair. There is a line in the talmud that says only Torah scholars are allowed to eat meat. Universalised to include all people of high moral calibre, this is what I believe. I just think it's a grossly unfair situation where good people are encouraging other good people to eat beans while the riff raff do what they want. A kind of watered-down suicide cult.
I also believe that there is basically nothing wrong with humane slaughter of an animal that was treated well. I could make a utilitarian argument that because without the profit motive this animal would never have existed, then meat eating under such circumstances is a positive good. But I can't be bothered really. I don't have to justify doing normal, enjoyable things that cause, at most, trivial amounts of harm.
I think there is a line at which suppressing our nature becomes a perverse project. Presumably you think it is wrong to tell homosexuals to not act on their preferences, for example. This all requires a lot of anthropology, and probably a bit of ontology too.
Not sure why humans would have a spirit, and animals wouldn't. It's also a controversial claim that humans have a spirit in the first place (Most people don't believe we have them). If it turned out spirits don't exist and humans don't have them, would that mean we no longer have moral value?
Yeah, whenever people raise these worries, I'll tell them I'm vegan. Because I'm so manly, they tend to be taken aback, and their come to recognize that some of the most masculine people in the world are vegan.
I keep a photo of you in my wallet for this exact reason
Many such cases
Brilliant column as always. The perfect answer to Andrew Tate.
What do you have against food being described as rabbit food? My bunnies eat well.
When I talk to these men IRL, I find that after showing how non-Human animals are the victims, one question tends to break through:
"Don't the strong protect the weak?"
This is not an easy story to read, but I am not appologising!
Free to read
https://abforbes.substack.com/p/has-our-cruelty-gone-too-far?r=yn8c0
Unfortunately one reason I think these appeals to masculinity work against veganism is that most women also buy into them.
Has that been your experience? I haven't noticed that, but then maybe I hang out with liberal types who are more likely to be pro veganism anyway
I wouldn’t rely on my own personal experience but any time I see one of those ‘what do women find sexy in men’ surveys veganism is like the worst possible thing other than doing hard drugs. I can’t claim to have done a thorough survey of the literature myself.
Well I think it is also because meat has more protein, and it is better for building muscle. (You can get protein as a vegan, but it is more difficult). In the animal kingdom predators are typically at the top of food chains too.
People may perceive it as more difficult, but it really isn't. It's not as if vegan protein sources are less protein dense. Tofu typically has the same, or more grams of protein per calorie. Seitan is basically all protein. Plant based meats are the same story.
I'm also not really sure what the relevance of the food chain is. If a predator does something then that's manly? They also shit outside? They're a weird candidate to model ourselves after.
I agree it is not terribly difficult, although if you don’t cook for yourself frequently it can be difficultish depending on where you live.
I try to be mostly vegan. And its not that hard, I agree, but this is all vibes based and MEAT = MUSCLE.
Predators shit outside, but so do prey, so thats not something unique to being a predator, whereas eating meat is. Predators = dominant = masculine, goes the thinking
These are not good arguments, but I think it’s the explanation of the psychology.
Oh right, well if you're just explaining the phenomenon then, yes, I agree that the "I am like a lion" line of thinking is partially what causes it (despite it being a bad argument).
The problem is that there is non-absurd evidence and non-absurd reasons to think that soy might have an effect on male hormones. https://legionathletics.com/soy-101-healthy-or-harmful/?srsltid=AfmBOooqaSqlfsWUhZl3H7MqvBx5oRp2bT1Hry9NsPJL9Lh5jegjqj3R
Of course the evidence isn't strong, but it's not out of the question.
I think we have stronger evidence to the contrary https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33383165/
That's one meta-analysis, which can be flawed. The guy I linked is very familiar with the health literature. I never said the evidence is strong (he agrees)
Here's another one I found: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33775173/
Sure, research can be flawed, but I think it's rational to trust meta analyses over anything else. Especially if you can't find a conflicting one (which I haven't been able to yet). Even if you grant that the concern people have is some evidence, I don't think it's enough to avoid soy.
Also, one other thing that I find weird, dairy milk has mammalian estrogen in it lol. Not saying that you endorse dairy consumption or anything, I just think it's odd it gets a free pass when soy doesn't haha
I'm not saying to avoid soy. I'm just saying it's plausible reason to limit soy intake.
>Our shared concern over our manhood ties all our monkey brains together. We all want to look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club, and we all want women to think we could be in Seal Team 6 if we really wanted to.
LOL no, these are so silly assumptions and overgeneralizations. This is too much still Tate territory to me.
I don't want to base a relationship on impressions, acting and so on. I want women to see me as I am, the nerdy unfit philosopher type. I don't care about having a muscular body, I am a mind, I am not a body, my mind is just simply trapped in this body. I don't think in animalistic ways.
In return I am also very tolerant with the women I date, I don't care how fat they are, whether they cook or just spend the whole weekend in bed with their phones etc.
I eat meat because when you tend to drink serious amounts of alcohol, lettuce does not cure the stomach burn the same way as bacon and eggs does.
Yes, I was exaggerating as a joke. Clearly there exist men who don't fit that description
This is some goofy shit nigga
Misplaced concern for animal welfare is equally soy. Small genitalia and lack of sexual self confidence are hallmarks.
Nah. The strong protect those that can't defend themselves.
That would be the wimmin and childrin.
Why don't animals qualify?
Aragorn ate meat; there are loads of references to eating meat in LoR. No industry 'convinced' people to eat meat; they ate as much meat as they were capable from the earliest existence of humanity and continued doing so except for certain societies that went OCD with purity taboos.
Factory farming is indefensible, but asserting there is something wrong with human beings eating meat is like asserting there is something wrong with tigers eating meat.
I didn't say Aragorn doesn't eat meat, I said that he's the sort of person to do what he think is right even if he's ridiculed.
I also didn't say that the only reason men eat meat is because an industry convinced them to. I said that advertisers have managed to tie meat consumption and masculinity together, which preys on men's insecurities.
Saying meat eating is wrong is not like saying a tiger eating meat is wrong. It's like saying a tiger who isn't carnivorous and can be reasoned with is wrong to eat meat - which is true. If a Tiger was a smart as us and could eat a diet that didn't cause as much pain and suffering as eating animals alive, it would be wrong for it to continue eating them.
This is actually a complicated philosophical problem - whether acts only become immoral if the actor is able to choose not to do them. Regardless, though, we could quite easily stop tigers eating animals alive if we wanted to. Just put them all in a zoo. Being eaten alive by a tiger is many orders of magnitude worse than a cow being humanely slaughtered. Should we do this?
I think there would likely be larger negative consequences from removing predators from the wild. We have a bad track record of changing one thing, and causing a knock on effect that makes life worse for the life that lives there. If we were certain that that wouldn't happen though, sure, it would be better to keep tigers separate from the other animals so they don't tear them apart.
As for whether it's 'wrong' for an irrational agent to cause harm is an interesting question. It's definitely bad - the same way it's bad if a baby shoots someone. They might not blameworthy, but it's still a disvaluable state of affairs. However, it is appropriate to say an action is wrong if a rational moral agent causes massive amounts of harm for trivial gains - which is what we do when we eat animals. So I just don't think the human/animal analogy works. Animals do lots of things it would be wrong for us to do. They also rape each other, and kill their young. They aren't good role models
1) I appreciate your consistency. I think most people would disagree, and I would too, but it's good to be clear about what your moral position entails.
2) It's not about emulating animals, it's about declaring that things that a given animal does by its nature is immoral. Now you might say that humans aren't animals, or that eating meat isn't part of the nature of the human. But you need to back that up.
In any case, you must surely know that the great bulk of mankind are as immune to your moral arguments as a tiger is. The only proven way of promoting vegetarianism is through religious purity taboos, so maybe you try and encourage people to become serious Hindus. Alternatively, you should start campaigning for stringent laws against factory farming. But all this moral encouragement of high IQ conscientious people to eat lentils is misplaced. I think it's wrong that you won't even eat an organic, regeneratively farmed, free range steak when people of basically no real value are stuffing their face with KFC.
I don't see why something being in our nature matters. It's in our nature to be violent to each other, we've always done it. Moral Progress usually comes in the form of restraining our base desires. Even if you deny that it's in our nature to be violent, if it hypothetically were, it's not like that would make violence any less bad.
It might be the case that philosophical argument doesn't work that well on the average person. I imagine that's just because people aren't moved by argument much anyway. There are other methods you can take to stop people eating meat, such as funding alternative proteins, which are more effective. So I also do that, as well as funding organizations that aim to outlaw factory farming. I write here because it's a place to express myself, and the sort of people that read my substack ARE the sorts of people to be moved by argument. Why is it wrong for me not to eat steak?
Because you're missing out. It's unfair. There is a line in the talmud that says only Torah scholars are allowed to eat meat. Universalised to include all people of high moral calibre, this is what I believe. I just think it's a grossly unfair situation where good people are encouraging other good people to eat beans while the riff raff do what they want. A kind of watered-down suicide cult.
I also believe that there is basically nothing wrong with humane slaughter of an animal that was treated well. I could make a utilitarian argument that because without the profit motive this animal would never have existed, then meat eating under such circumstances is a positive good. But I can't be bothered really. I don't have to justify doing normal, enjoyable things that cause, at most, trivial amounts of harm.
I think there is a line at which suppressing our nature becomes a perverse project. Presumably you think it is wrong to tell homosexuals to not act on their preferences, for example. This all requires a lot of anthropology, and probably a bit of ontology too.
You make money writing shit like this?
LOL
They have no spirit. Same reason vegetables don’t qualify.
Not sure why humans would have a spirit, and animals wouldn't. It's also a controversial claim that humans have a spirit in the first place (Most people don't believe we have them). If it turned out spirits don't exist and humans don't have them, would that mean we no longer have moral value?