But vegans eat almonds and bees are exploited to produce these

It is correct that all monocultures involves the harming of sentient beings, e.g. killing of insects. That's why it is a moral imperative for us to do our best to either start veganic gardening ourselves, or buy such food: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html
Dumpster diving vegetables, etc. is also a good option.


But there is a moral difference between:
1. Using and exploiting a nonhuman animal as a resource and cattle property, or paying someone to do this with the only purpose of getting their product;
2. Having no alternative, paying an ordinary monoculture-farmer to buy vegetables; and this farmer is unfortunately - and despite that we abhor it, don't support it and don't want him to do it - exploiting other sentient beings in the production process. They are responsible for it. We choose to buy this produce because if we didn't we would starve to death.


Number 2 wouldn't occur in a vegan world, since we wouldn't exploit animals to produce our food. We would use vegan permaculture/veganic gardening. It only occurs because of that people justify exploiting animals for their pleasure, convenience, etc. Thus, assuming that we are doing our best to be able to get produce from veganic gardening, do dumpster diving, etc. we really don't have any alternative other than buying the monoculture-produce or we will starve to death.
The exploitation that occurs is due to the exploitation of nonhumans that every non-vegan participates in.


-------
This is a reply to the following:

Yesterday, my non-vegan «flexitarian» husband, who is a heavy milk drinker, wrote the following to me (after we had an argument about his refusal to give up milk). I would like to know what you would answer to something like that:

«Just watched the bee documentary "More Than Honey." Well done and pretty interesting. I know that vegans don't do honey because it's derived from an exploitative process, however the nectar acquisition phase is part of a more exploitative process. Due to declining bee populations around the world and here in the US, most of the pollination that occurs with fruit and nut growers is the result of "rented" bees. How do vegans reconcile eating almonds (nearly all of which are produced by this process) or tree fruit when these products are only made possible through forced bee labor?»

Vegan reply to 'We are at top of the food chain, thus we should eat meat'

What food chain? This “But” is another way of asking whether our power and ability to exploit animals makes it morally right to do so. We would immediately see the problem if this “But” were raised in a context involving humans. For example, it was once argued that white western Europeans were naturally superior to Africans because the former were able to enslave the latter. There is no such thing out there as a “food chain.” It’s a concept that we have devised so that we can make our exploitation of animals look as though it has some basis in the natural world . It doesn’t. The proclamation that we are at the top of the food chain is equivalent to a proclamation that we are capable of oppressing and exploiting all of the other species on the planet. That may be true but it carries no moral significance. Are humans different from nonhumans? Certainly. Do humans have abilities that nonhumans lack? Certainly. But animals have all sorts of abilities that humans don’t have. Yes , humans can write symphonies (although most don’t by the way). But birds can fly without being in an airplane and fish can breathe under water without an air tank. What, apart from our self-interested proclamation, makes animal abilities worth less as a moral matter than human abilities?

The answer: nothing. But at the outset, we promised you that we were not going to challenge that bit of conventional wisdom that holds that although animals matter morally , they don’t matter morally as much as humans do. Our conventional wisdom holds that even if animals matter less, they matter some, and hurting or killing them requires a justification. Responding to the need for such a justification by saying that we are at the top of some non-existent chain is a way of saying that it’s okay to hurt and kill animals without any moral justification. And that’s just a way of saying that you don’t think that animals matter at all morally and that we can make them suffer and kill them just because we are able to do so. Actually, if you stop and think about it for a minute, you’ll see that our power and ability to exploit nonhuman animals gives us the responsibility to protect them from exploitation!

Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 1249-1253). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

Does animals have the right not to be killed for food?

I wrote this to a person who claimed that animals rights are conditional, just like he claimed humans rights are 'conditional', using e.g. the example of imprisonment of a human:

We recognize that humans have a moral, and thus they have the right not to be treated as a commodity. This includes the right not to be tortured, not to be used and not to be exploited. I would certainly include the right here not to be beaten by a parent as a punishment- regardless of what it is called. A child has a moral value and the same right not to be beaten by his parent for ‘discipline’, as the parent has not to be beaten by the child for ‘discipline’.

Whether our society recognizes and acts according to the moral value of an individual or not doesn’t change the inherent rights that an individual has being a being of inherent moral value. Society disregarded the rights of individuals of another ethnicity, and still to a great extent do – today e.g. the Western world sponsors the well established slavery of the carpet and the cocoa industry and many other industries with a widespread slavery. See the documentary ‘Slavery: A Global Investigation ‘. However, this doesn’t change the inherent moral value of these humans, just like the widespread disregard of animal rights in our society, doesn’t change the inherent moral value of nonhuman sentient animals.

The only reason, ideally, why we would imprison people is only as a temporary protective measure for the time of the rehabilitation of an individual. And the only reason why we ever would have to temporarily limit some individual’s right is in order to stop violence, i.e. to stop someone using violence against a person. Violence is an action which is treating an individual as a commodity and that is disregarding his/her moral value. This conditional and temporal limiting of someone’s right is done in order to stop violence, it is done out of necessity.

To compare an action that is done out of necessity, is in no way analogous with an action that is done despite the lack of necessity, as the action of abusing and killing an animal for food.
To first state that it is unethical to kill and harm another sentient being for pleasure or convenience, and to in the next second harm and kill another sentient being for the pleasure of the taste of food – is unethical and doesn’t make logically or morally sense. It is so sad that people are outraged by animal abuse and rightly call it a moral atrocity, to in the next second take a bite of a dead animal – and sponsor the moral atrocity themselves of killing another sentient being for pleasure.

Vegan reply to "'creator of the world' has designed it in a way that suffering is caused in order for beings to feed"

“The only thing throwing the human eating of animals into doubt is the evolving of our mental thinking”
Ethics is the only reason why we are not being cannibals as well. If you are going to use your justification you have to disregard that there is an objective moral and you have to disregard what we intuitively know, that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon human animals as well as non-human animals.

To state it again:
“We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
Pleasure. Convenience.

So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.
If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.
“ Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/unnecessary-suffering-and-death/#.UaB68Jxc18E

Reply to Michael, who wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the 'creator of the world' has designed it in a way that suffering is caused in order for beings to feed. Spiders eat flies, birds eat worms, cats eat birds and fish, wild cats eats other big animals etc etc etc and is a way of life.
The only thing throwing the human eating of animals into doubt is the evolving of our mental thinking

Darwin and evolution does not justify humans hurting and killing animals for food

That there is evolution of species does in no way justify us inflicting unnecessary suffering and death upon animals. You have already recognized that animals have a moral value, since you are opposed to the abuse of animals. However, killing and hurting animals for "taste" is surely a transgression of their right to live as free and independent individuals, which they have being sentient beings with a moral value.

Humans having the body of an herbivore [see footnote 1], animal products are being bad for us [2], and we have no nutritional need at all for animal products [3]. Just like the gorillas, cows and horses and many other animals we are herbivores. Just like cows, we can eat meat, however it is not good for our body, and not good for us spiritually [4].
We can’t look at other species, and justify our behavior, just because there are predators that hurt and kill other beings. There are many behaviors that some predators do that we would never justify, and if we use this methodology almost any human behavior can be justified. Put a small bunny in the same room as a small child. She will not try to hurt and kill the bunny. Hurting and killing other sentient beings is something that is contradictory to our inner nature, our loving, compassionate and nonviolent nature; and is something that is only learnt by the indoctrination of our culture, which has reduced animals to being commodities. Doing this as a regular habit, we disconnect ourselves to the animals, and we lose some of our capacity to understand that it is wrong to take the life of another being - who is consciousness just like us. Just because they have been given another body than us, doesn't mean that there is any essential difference. This is also discussed in the wonderful book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle [4]. If you visited a slaughterhouse you would see that the animals don’t want to die and that they suffer tremendously when someone is taking their precious life. See more movies about animals, their lives and their treatment at www.vegankit.com
Footnotes:
1.http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html; 2. http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ ;3. http://www.drmcdougall.com/ ; http://www.forksoverknives.com/
4. www.worldpeacediet.org  ; good lecture here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PkQrJZYZN4&NR=1&feature=endscreen

----
Quotes Darwin:
"There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties ... The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."

"The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man."

The purpose of a cow/pig/horse is not to become your McDonalds-meal

Have you ever thought of why we love dogs and eat cows? And how the life of the cows and pigs (and possibly horses) that end up in your McDonalds-meal was, and if their purpose truly was to be killed for a "taste experience"? Animal products is unhealthy for us and we have no nutritional need for them: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/
I became a vegan - i.e. I stopped participating in all animal exploitation (including causing animals suffering by my food choices) - this autumn. It is the best decision that I have made. To show love, compassion and nonviolence to individuals of all beings truly transforms ones life. If we want to have true peace, we shouldn't inflict suffering to others. As we sow, so will we reap.

It think this is why everyone should become a vegan:
We should treat others as we want to be treated ourselves
All animals are conscious and they do value life as much as we do.
The following applies to all animals: humans, dogs, cats, cows, etc.:
If we don't want to be killed, we shouldn't kill other being.
 If we don't want someone else to steal our family, we shouldn't steal their family.
 If we want to find our purpose in this world, we shouldn't steal others purpose.
 If we don't want to be exploited and abused, we shouldn't abuse anyone else.
 If we don't want to become enslaved, we shouldn't keep anyone else as a slave.
 If we don't want to hurt any animals, we must become vegans (i.e. stop eating, wearing and using animal products, and in other ways do actions that are hurting and killing animals).

If we love animals, we don't kill animals. We don't kill and eat anyone that we love. If we love animals, we must support their want to not be oppressed, including not to be killed.
I highly recommend this lecture: http://vimeo.com/17538152 and the book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle (www.worldpeacediet.org )

All kind of animal products, including eggs and milk, are causing humans and other animals terrible suffering, oppression, starvation and death. Being vegan is the only way not to participate in the oppression.
And for persons following Christianity:
Jesus also was a vegan: http://circleofcompassion.org/articles/articles-will/article-lostreligionjesus.htm

Why do we care for and love dogs, cats and some birds, but hurt and kill animals for food?

Hello Emma! That’s wonderful! : ) Well done!

If everyone cared that much for every individual on this planet – regardless of whether it is a bird, dog, cat, cow, insect or pig, we would have peace on our planet, no more starvation and no more suffering. What is sad is that our culture has taught us to show love and empathy to e.g. dogs, cats and some birds; but that it is right to eat milk, eggs and meat – which all are directly causing the suffering and death to trillions of animals each year (including more than 60 billion land animals). If we regard animals to have a moral value and rights, we shouldn’t use them and take their lives, their purpose, their families and friends.

I recommend this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo

HSUS is wrong. Horses and all other animals belong in freedom. Horses don't belong in the stable, nor the table.

HSUS wrote: "Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS, said: “It’s a fool’s errand to inspect tainted horse meat, and this Administration is wise to reject that path and to embrace the idea, even indirectly, that horses belong in the stable and not on the table.”"
HSUS is wrong. Horses and all other animals belong in freedom. Horses don't belong in the stable. Of course they don't belong on the table.

Domestication of animals is inherently wrong:
I recommend this wonderful article: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/
and the wonderful book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle
HSUS, btw, is part of the problem not of the solution. They promote "happy exploitation of animals": http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-absurdity-of-competing-humane-labels-hsus-v-perdue/#.UXKifcqwD-E
Only veganism is the solution - allowing all animal their basic rights to live in freedom, to fulfill their purpose, to live their life without getting killed and used.

'Counter-argument' to veganism - it is so expensive to buy vegan food

A vegan home-cooked diet can be very, very inexpensive (and much cheaper compared to a diet of animal products (which are heavily subsidized, and bad for us, animals and the environment).

A starch-based (e.g. potatoes, rice, lentils, beans) diet with vegetables and fruits (and some also take very inexpensive B-12-supplement) is as I guess you know very inexpensive.

One can even become self-sustained. On 1/10 of an acre one can grow 6000 pounds of plant-based food per year in California.

A non-vegan diet is killing humans and other animals (e.g. in droughts caused by enormous amount of green-house gases), the environment, causes poverty and starvation:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/expert_testimonies_oppenlander.htm

So is anything stopping you from a choosing a vegan diet (and inspire you friends to do this too) of love, compassion and non-violence. You already believe in this in your heart.
What do you say?