starelfsc2

Hey never too late to reinvent yourself (or in this case be the self you already were), especially with good people around.

Yeah for as bad as the younger generation has it in other ways, it's really uplifting how radically accepting they are lol. Hopefully that changes the tide, the puritan boomers will be replaced with the super accepting youth :>

The 83% was because 30m food insecure/ 330m Americans ~=83%. 17% is maybe not a "small" minority, but I think it's heavily implied that's not who they're talking about. The person they responded to said "food is deeply personal" and "if we moralize food, we will lose people." Veganism isn't going to "lose people " who have the options of "eat meat or starve" because those people have essentially no choice anyway. Personal implies it's part of their personality/culture/important to them in a way that isn't just about survival. Neither person mentioned extreme circumstances, and it is exceedingly rare for someone to use "personal choice" when referring to something that is at or close to life or death. I would never say "I cut off my leg as a personal choice since there was a risk I could die from infection." That is however the exact language I would use for things I really don't want to give up, like "eating dinner with my friends is deeply personal." I wouldn't say "not starving is deeply personal," it just doesn't really make sense.

I do think for 95% of people on lemmy it is a personal choice whether they are vegan or not, 99% was maybe an exaggeration but I wouldn't doubt that either. I'm specifically talking about the generally tech literate, educated people that figured out how to get and use lemmy with that 99%, not the average American or the average person.

Their implication was that "you live in a first world country and realistically are not impoverished (inferred from you using lemmy), as are most people making this argument, therefore you have a grocery store you can access and can choose to not eat meat." I was using America's poverty numbers because that's where I and most people using lemmy live, but many other countries have better social safety nets so there would be even less of a reason to not be vegan.

The meat industry has massive subsidies, at least in the US, which is why it is so incredibly competitive fiscally with plant based diets. I think also to mention these are staple foods like rice lentils etc, fruits and vegetables still might end up being more expensive, meaning it would still be harder/more effort to do a nutritionally complete vegan diet.

Here's an example for a 30 second instant pot recipe, it's basically how fast can you dump the cans and spices into the cooker (and coarsely chop a tomato). Just replace the chicken broth with anything else, like vegetable broth. If someone's worried about second hand some of the cheaper ones are $60, or just put it in another room and let the pressure naturally escape overnight, which is what my brothers all do when they use one. The pressure is high but it's not going to do anything crazy to your house.

I mean I might, same as I would if they took a homeless person and caused them to suffer their whole life, that's legitimately evil behavior. We may not have an exact definition of "suffering your entire life," but whatever factory farmed chickens are experiencing is certainly it. This is like saying "we can't define exactly what constitutes abuse so what are you going to do, have society decide an arbitrary line?" Yes, and that is what we do.

I mean yeah it's not a good narrative, if someone eats less meat but I see them buying eggs ill go ehhhhh.... and look the other way. But if someone asks me "am I morally right to buy eggs?" I'll usually say something like "well it's still not great but it's much better than eating meat." They were only speaking to the veracity of your statement, I think any non-insane vegan would agree that "switch to small, humane farms" is better messaging and far closer to being moral.

I think it's sort of a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" situation," like "vote with your wallet" is stupid because that's not the solution, but that doesn't mean it's useless. As an example sun chips tried recyclable paper packaging, but people complained it was too loud and they sold less, so they went back to plastic. Same thing with meat, if no one bought it no one would sell it. That is never happening, but that doesn't mean one individual can't still make a big difference with their choices.

It does feel pretty bad fighting for that though, because now I'm fighting my neighbor for eating his favorite breakfast instead of the machine that made it so immoral. I see veganism the same as leftism, you make changes in your life where you can to help, but the most important is get organized, get people talking, and get people voting and working for actual change.

I mean if like some vegans you believe animals have equal or at least similar worth to humans (I'm a bit of the latter), then as it stands we are subjugating and torturing them every day on a scale 100x that of slavery. It is literally slavery + worse living conditions than most slaves had + torture + death, which is why I don't see it as a far fetched comparison.

Hey don't knock philosophising till you try it, sometimes it leads nowhere but sometimes you learn a lot from it :P

sorry you have to deal with that :( it sucks people can't stop judging others for just existing as themselves, but i guess they also grew up in that repressive environment :/ sounds like you have a great supportive partner though.

I'm curious, how do you transition to being agender or nb? presentation or other stuff too?

Personally I would consider the extreme harm of animal agriculture against all of the sacrifices. I would consider long term malnutrition morally better than continuing the extreme harm against animals, but that's a hard call that they didn't make any statement on.

Evidently 47 million / 330m Americans are food insecure, so about 1/7 actually have to make a tough choice and I wouldn't fault them nearly as much as the huge majority that eats meat just because they think it's yummy. The reason let them eat cake is ridiculous is because it's unbelievably out of touch with the common person. In this case 80+% of people have access to the "cake" (having a choice). It's like saying "touch grass" is a sign if privilege because not everyone has the capability of moving around outside on their own. You are technically correct, but the implication is "if you are in the small minority that cannot do this, you are not who I am referring to." And even then, the implication with "personal choice" is that it's not a tough moral decision where you are massively hurt by it. Technically it is personal, and it's a choice, but people don't usually say "oh yeah I decided to give up not being freezing in the winter as a personal choice." That's a hard moral decision.

There is absolutely no shot that at least 95% of people on lemmy do not have access to some sort of grocer in some way. 83% of Americans have access to it, and lemmy skews heavily towards people in tech / more well off people. Even having the time to look into alternatives to reddit and be knowledgeable enough to actually engage in it is a privilege which most people do not have. I might make a post about it just to see, but that sounds so unlikely that more than 1/20 people that educated with the time to invest into learning how to use lemmy would be in the <20% who are food insecure

I think all of what you showed they said was fair. 83% of people having a choice is the vast majority, and bringing up food deserts and people who can't afford anything else, without starving or great hardship, is something they (implied) they would obviously concede.

A revelation to me, evidently plant based diets are just on the whole cheaper compared to meat, though this may not be true in food deserts. As for meal prep time, yes that is very fair but can be alleviated heavily with getting a 2nd hand instant pot and making meals in that which take unironically 30 seconds, which is shorter than a drive-thru.

I mean they are acting insufferable but if you value animals similarly to humans it's not an insane comparison. And even in their comparison if someone did that in the times of slavery I would still applaud that change.

Based

I mean maybe, just to me it feels the same as the posts saying "no billionaires mfs when it's gabe newell" and it's someone saying "I did not see anything." Sort of like, dang I do like this thing but I guess they have a bit of a point there. Idk judging by how many people say it's divisive maybe it is more divisive than it feels to me, but it's hard to tell because a lot of people also use that as a way to shove it to the "don't think about it" category.

um... if 2 humans wanted to bring a child into existance that would suffer its whole life and then die of a heart attack into the world I would also say that's immoral. An animal having low social awareness or being mentally disabled is not the same as ovulating 3 times a day every day for their entire life, or having a heart attack by 6 months old.