I read this several times and have no idea what you mean. Can you reword it?

vegan travelling to africa (vegan alternatives are almost non existent in a large portion of the country) - never happens

having to take theoretical medicine with no vegan alternatives because of theoretical illness- happens all the time

This post was edited by dude_927 on May 9 2016 08:02pm

Which parts of Africa? Africa isn't one homogeneous place with equal development. Anywhere there are grocery stores a vegan could travel to and maintain a completely plant-based diet. You could probably find places where being completely vegan was difficult or impossible, but in that case...again...it really wouldn't make sense for a vegan to go there then.

And yeah, some vegans need to use medicines that involve animal suffering. They aren't happy about it, but they do it to survive. I often see posts in vegan discussion spaces where someone is prescribed a medication for a condition that involves animal suffering and they ask if anyone knows of vegan alternatives.

Also, in general I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by talking about vegans traveling to Africa. Or really with the other thing.

i don't know, originally i was just trying to point out that veganism technically means you should avoid as much suffering as possible, but i think you agree with that, so now im just trying to compare the liklihood of anti vegan medicine vs protein enriched meat as a supplement because im bored and i can

How could anyone disagree with it? That's the very definition, not even just "technically".



A vegan would be much more likely to have to use a non-vegan medication than to eat meat, universally. Of course as explained the reason is that anyone who would need to eat meat to survive wouldn't have even been vegan.

so why would someone that needs medicine to survive "have even been vegan"?

They want to reduce their contribution to human-caused animal suffering to an appreciable degree. Since the consumption of non-plant food accounts for the vast majority of animal suffering a human generally contributes to, they have good reason to become vegan while still contributing to a minute extent with their life-saving medication.

On the flip side, it would make far less sense for someone who is in an environment where they must eat meat to meet their dietary needs to become vegan, since they would have barely reduced a fraction of their contribution to animal suffering.

I mean they could, sure. It'd be so unlikely in such an environment but why not.

This post was edited by Nathan on May 9 2016 08:34pm

Dislike social justice
dislike somebody for being vegan
it sounds like you have some good priorities.

When I was 14, I think, I stopped making fun of people for being vegetarian/vegan.
Are you over 14?

This post was edited by ringo794 on May 9 2016 08:40pm

not eating meat is the most retarded shit ever

vegans travel to africa to save third world children all the time. medicine is taken all the time. why is this so implausible? admittedly "steak" was a bad example, but i didnt expect it to become such an issue. (i'm pretty sure you can get protein supplement pills that aren't vegan friendly if thats what you'd prefer)