> I do not understand vegans who eat "imitation" meats. If you are ethically opposed to the slaughter of animals, why are you OK with pretending that you are still slaughtering them by actively buying things called "chik'n" and the like? That is perverse.

I'm a (25+ years) vegan who eats "imitation" meats.

Here's why ...

I like how they taste.

And you genuinely see nothing ethically questionable with supporting products which pretend that they are made from animals?

They don't pretend they're made from animals. The labelling is quite clear that they are plant-based. What they do is mimic the form factor of animal-based foods. And generally that is just a sausage shape, or ground up stuff. There's no imitation T-bone steak AFAIK. If we all transformed into vegans tomorrow, I don't see why we wouldn't be allowed to eat items in a hotdog or hamburger form factor.

> They don't pretend they're made from animals.

Food and brand names like "chick'n" "mock duck" by their very titles literally pretend they're made from animals.

> don't see why we wouldn't be allowed to eat items in a hotdog or hamburger form factor.

The problem isn't the shape, whether it is a burger or sausage, the problem is the attempted replication. We should be moving away from the concept that it is OK to eat, or to pretend to eat, animals, not reinforcing this perverse belief. Vegan foods should, and do, stand on their own.

That's just a branding gimmick, isn't it? I don't think anybody is fooled (or if they are then it's unobservant meat-eaters, not vegans).

If I can try to summarize your opinion (tell me where I'm wrong), it sounds like the crux of your issue is that it's not just the action of eating meat that's bad, it's also the idea of eating meat and the rituals associated with eating meat. In other words, if someone eats a "tofurky" for Thanksgiving, they're engaging in something similar to eating meat, which reinforces the norm that eating meat is an acceptable thing, or suggests that there is a genuine (superior) non-plant-based version of the facsimile you're eating. The objection isn't purely "you could be eating tastier stuff", you think the end goal of more widespread veganism is actually undermined by the existence of meat substitutes.

> if someone eats a "tofurky" for Thanksgiving, they're engaging in something similar to eating meat, which reinforces the norm that eating meat is an acceptable thing, or suggests that there is a genuine (superior) non-plant-based version of the facsimile you're eating. The objection isn't purely "you could be eating tastier stuff", you think the end goal of more widespread veganism is actually undermined by the existence of meat substitutes.

Yes, that's an excellent summary of my thinking! Thank you for helping me articulate it.

I don't think people are literally fooled by fake meat, but I just believe we should be moving away from the concept of eating meat imitations to eating vegan dishes which do not attempt to replicate animal products, but stand on their own, because ultimately the notion that we are still replicating flavors and concepts around meat I find very sad. Specifically, it is upsetting to me that people still view animal consumption as desirable, if objectionable. It is deeply upsetting to me any time I hear other vegan friends say 'man, I wish I could have a burger' or 'that bacon smells soooo good', because this still perpetuates the desire to consume meat.

I'm a meat eater. Let's say I want to significantly reduce my meat consumption. I'm used to eating meals that are meat centric. Growing up most dinners would be a meat, a starch, and some vegetables. The easiest way for me to reduce my meat consumption would be to replace the meat with something else. Should I replace my chicken with mushrooms, tempeh, tofu, something else? How firm should the tofu be? What's the deal with pressing your tofu? Maybe I'll just stick to chicken. If you want to encourage me to stop eating animals giving me an easy, clear substitution, like chick'n, seems like a reasonable thing to do. Would you prefer people ate chicken or chick'n? Would you say the two are morally equivalent? Would I be a horrible person if I said I won't eat animals anymore because it's unethical while still viewing them as very tasty?

Indeed, and thinking that

> the end goal of more widespread veganism is actually undermined by the existence of meat substitutes

as the GP says and OP agrees with, does not make any sense because offering a substitute that allows more meat eaters to ease into vegan eating can (from a vegan point of view) be a strictly morally superior action over meat eaters continuing to eat meat.

It's an interesting perspective, I have to acknowledge. I'm viewing it from an extreme outside position (I literally kill and eat wild animals as a hobby), but an interesting comparison I can see might be to cannibalism. There's nothing practically wrong with making a facsimile human leg out of pork, calling it "I can't believe it's not human flesh", and selling it in a grocery store...but I mean, most people would find it distasteful and upsetting. They're not engaging in cannibalism of course, but the ritual of cannibalism, the idea of cannibalism, is unsettling in its own right to most people. If someone said "man, I wish I could eat people" unironically, I might not want to attend their next barbecue.

Your view seems perfectly consistent to me -- if you believe killing animals is morally equivalent to killing humans, then meat eating could be considered morally equivalent to cannibalism. Even fake human leg is still creepy to such a non-cannibal -- even fake turkey thus may be creepy to a vegan.

Perhaps it's because of the variety of reasons people are vegans -- many aren't truly abstaining from eating animal meat because they think it's wrong. Some are vegan for health reasons, or for environmental reasons, or because it's fashionable in their social tribe, or because they vaguely agree with anti-animal-eating philosophy but still internalize contradictory opinions. I know multiple adventurous vegans who would be ok eating roadkill deer if I served it to them (from their perspective, it does not contradict their belief that killing animals for meat is wrong -- it died in an accident, after all). But they would have a different opinion if I served them roadkill human, even if I showed them the human's death was purely accidental.

That reminds me of another cruelty-free animal product: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eignblunzn

A blood sausage made from human blood. Nothing wrong with it ethically, but upsetting enough for performance art.

> And you genuinely see nothing ethically questionable with supporting products which pretend that they are made from animals?

No, I don't. Honestly, I don't even understand how someone could. As others have noted, this is just branding. No one is being fooled, and the idea that eating "mock duck" somehow normalizes eating actual duck seems pretty unlikely to me.

What exactly is the moral dilemma here? The products are not made from animals, so what's the problem? I don't understand why if they just pretend to be made from animals that that would make them morally questionable.

You'd similarly not see any issues with human meat substitutes being sold at your local grocery store? Curious how that's not a thing, huh?

No I wouldn't, because there's no human meat actually involved. If a store sold something they say tastes like human, but doesn't actually contain human parts or harm humans in any way, then there's no moral dilemma, I'd buy that substitute and eat it just fine.

You're ignoring my point. Why is imitation human meat not an acceptable thing, but imitation animal meat is?

It is acceptable, where did anyone say it wasn't?

Please show me one grocery store where you can buy imitation human meat. Or ten strangers on the street who'd be OK with it compared to those who'd be OK with imitation animal meat. It is absolutely not acceptable.

The reason we don't have it is not due to morality, it's due to not needing to since we have other foods. And either way it's not actual human flesh, it's simply a substitute. You could make the argument that anything could be a human meat substitute, since animal meat is not much different from human meat, and as such, animal meat substitutes would also be human meat substitutes.

Are you really confused why people want to continue eating the food they've eaten their whole lives minus the animal suffering?

The food wasn't the problem, the suffering was.

Veganism is not about suffering (if it were about suffering, suffering-free animal consumption would be acceptable, and it is not) , it is about a rejection of the commodification and exploitation of nonhuman species. Fake meats partake in that commodification, albeit as an imitation.

Veganism is about many things in different ratios for different people. I don't think you get to decide why people are vegan and why they aren't.

Can you give an example of suffering-free animal consumption?

> Veganism is about many things in different ratios for different people. I don't think you get to decide why people are vegan and why they aren't

If everyone gets to decide on the meaning of a concept to them personally, then that concept loses meaning. I'm using an almost textbook definition.

> Can you give an example of suffering-free animal consumption?

Sure, harvesting honey which has fallen off a honeycomb beneath a tree.

> harvesting honey which has fallen off a honeycomb beneath a tree

I never had this opportunity, but I don't see an ethical problem here. As a more realistic example (in my environment), I suggest dumpster diving. I think it would be okay, ethically, but I would not do it because it grosses me out in a way that vegan substitutes don't, and that feeling is not related to the dumpster part.

I may have to do some more introspection, but I honestly don't think, that my acceptance of vegan substitutes is based on a desire to harm animals.

Interesting view point. But by that logic - you shouldn't use contraceptives if you're against having babies. Or kill people on video games if you're against murder. It's not like vegans imagine killing animals while eating fake meat. They are just taking care of their taste buds. In fact nobody thinks of animals when they eat. If people did, more people would eat less meat. And that's why all meat should look exactly like the animals they come from. And not random shapes that they are made into.

My point is that veganism is an ideology and a philosophy, it's not just a lifestyle choice. Not eating or otherwise using animal products does not make someone a vegan--it's a necessary prerequisite, of course, but not the sole requirement. Actively fighting against animal exploitation is at the very core of veganism. Supporting and reinforcing a culture which normalizes animal consumption, or the imitation thereof, actively fights against this cause. We should be working to highlight how fucked up it is that people want to pretend to eat animals, because they 'taste good', not reinforcing the view that it's OK to do so.

", or the imitation thereof," is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this ideology.

Because people like the taste of meat and at the same time don't want to hurt animals. They also want to maybe cook the same kind of food but without animals. What's wrong in that?

The fact that veganism is not about solely harming animals, it is a philosophy which encompasses a wholesale rejection of animal subjugation; this includes suffering yes, but it also includes commodification and exploitation en masse. It is ethically extremely questionable to claim that you support animals, but to want to pretend to eat them.