293
This happen to anyone?
(piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
293 points (100.0% liked)
General Memes & Private Chuckle
418 readers
143 users here now
Welcome to General Memes
Memes for the masses, chuckles for the chosen.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cruel
We’re here for laughs, not fights.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Keep it light — argue in the comments, not with insults
Rule 2: No Forbidden Formats
Not every image deserves immortality on the memmlefield. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content (seriously, don’t ruin the fun)
- NSFW memes must be properly tagged
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can take care of it.
Otherwise consider this your call to duty. Get posting or laughing. Up to you
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
You’re going way off the deep end here. It’s really simple: lying is a moral wrong. Vegans do not get a special moral exemption to trick people into eating vegan food under the false pretence that they’re eating meat.
If you’re honest about what you’re feeding people then there’s no issue because they have the ability to make informed consent and decide not to eat it.
No, I'm just looking at it realistically instead of dumbing it down to a kindergarten reading level. "Lying bad" is such a numbskull take. Obviously it's better to be honest about the food you're serving people, but different lies are different amounts of bad. I shouldn't even have to explain this. If you feed me a seemingly mushroom-based dish, then reveal that it was actually made with tofu, that's not good. For all you know, I'm allergic to soy. If you instead tell me that that dish actually had veal in it, that would be worse.
On top of not knowing about any potential allergies, there's an extra layer of moral opposition. I'm not giving vegans some special pass here, that was the point of the cannibalism example. You feeding a cannibalistic friend beef under the pretense that it's human meat isn't a good thing, but it's not as bad as your cannibalistic friend feeding you long pig under the pretense that it's pork.
Deontology is the ethical basis for veganism. If you’re lying to your meat-preferring friends to trick them into eating plant-based alternatives then you’re using your friends in an attempt to further your own aims; you’re using other people as a means to an end. That’s not a mildly bad thing, that’s a violation of one of the ethical principles (prohibition on exploitation) of veganism.
Now I don’t support reacting with violence to something like that but I do believe it’s fully justified to decline to dine with a friend/relative in future who does that.
can you support this?
You might want to read up on deontology, then you’d see that my statement is obvious, not controversial.
this is hand waiving, not evidence
among deontologists, it's controversial. Kant, himself, was not a vegan. I don't think you know what you're talking about, which is why I asked for evidence.