I'm starting to think the problem for a lot of people is that they just flat out don't know how to cook vegetarian/vegan dishes.
I'm thinking a lot of them are imaging some kind of hypothetical "cooked to perfection" meat dish with lots of spices and sauce vs like...cold, uncooked beans straight out of the can.
I'm not vegan, but like...it isn't hard to prepare a nice tasting vegan meal, going vegan doesn't mean a person has to live a spartan culinary existence where food is for bland sustenance and nothing else.
This is my view on healthy eating in general. There needs to be some genuine attempt to educate people on cooking, and materials should be subsidized at worst. I was once arguing with a lib about the soda tax shit, and they kept saying how people should know how to eat healthier and grow produce and cook it, and I was trying so patiently to explain that raising prices from people in food deserts is not how you do that. Maybe start with regulating what companies can put IN food.
Absolutely, a huge amount of it is food culture. I remember seeing advice an reddit to do rule of thirds on your plate and I realized how limiting that is, and how much more difficult it'd be to make veggie meals. Unfortunately it's the only way many people recognize a meal, and the jump from a heap of chicken on your plate to a heap of beans is much larger than the jump from a lentil curry with chicken to a lentil curry without.
I cant really empathize with animals like how i can people. I hit possums with my car on the way to work all the time (once a month or so). Its unavoidable because they charge into the road and its too windy to move out of the way usually.
If i hit even one person id never live with the guilt and quit my job. Its unfair to expect 1 possum to equal 1 human. I understand you dont expect that. However, how many possums would i have to hit before it was enough for me to care much? It would have to be like when the cicadas come out - piles and piles of them for miles. I just value my husband having nice things more than the lives of those rodents, even though i like rodents a lot.
So the meat industry is basically a giant concentration camp of suffering, but im unsure if the suffering outweighs all the workers it employs, or evsn ths fact that they taste good.
At the same time, their suffering has value. Im excited for clone meat and i eat a lot of vegetables. It could easilly be that i cant empathize with them because of class consiousness similar to poor roman citizens not caring about the plight of slaves.
So, if veganism benefitted my class id be more enthusiastic in becoming a vegetarian instead of just using meat in moderation. It would have to be something about how me not eating meat or doing local activism for animals helps. I cant change society and me not buying meat wont actually help animals.
For example, my local activism was beneficial to people like me because it gave them a support network and community.
Said this elsewhere before, communists will pull out every liberal excuse when being criticized from the left about veganism.
"They're mean"
"Acktshually it's not as good for x as you think"
"What about x group of people that this will impact" (who haven't even expressed opposition or concern about the issue)
"You just care too much"
Same vibes as supposed progressives who are sharing pro-Israel PragerU vids after criticizing PragerU on other topics.
Ideally every comrade is vegan, but if for whatever reason you cannot be or are working towards it then at the absolute least you can support those who are and accept that it is the morally correct position instead of all this hoop jumping
Same vibes as supposed progressives who are sharing pro-Israel PragerU vids after criticizing PragerU on other topics.
Ideally every comrade is vegan, but if for whatever reason you cannot be or are working towards it then at the absolute least you can support those who are and accept that it is the morally correct position instead of all this hoop jumping
Can you explain how the continued mistreatment and exploitation of animals is moral?
Would you make the same claim if this were instead some trans rights debate and I claimed supporting trans people is the morally correct position even if you are certainly Cis and do not know a single trans person?
It's not a 1:1 analogy for sure, but I think it captures a similar idea
What would it mean for there to be objective moral facts? It would mean that there are true moral statements that live outside of every cultural framework in some sort of transcendent manner, and to arrive at those moral facts would require an individual be able to step out of their subjective, culturally inculcated existence. And as well all know, subjectivity is not the sort of thing you can just step out of.
When you start talking about objective moral facts, you can start talking about societies that fail to adhere to those moral facts as being deficient. And from there it's a quick hop skip and jump to genocide. Which is how this has played out historically.
I can see the the slippery slope consequences you describe coming into play, but I struggle to see how that negates some facts such as "Rape is morally wrong"
So the meat industry is basically a giant concentration camp of suffering, but im unsure if the suffering outweighs all the workers it employs, or evsn ths fact that they taste good.
it's okay that sentient beings suffer because you think they taste good. you must realise how genuinely fucked up that thought is, right? what gives you any right to decide your favourite treat is more important than a life? animals feel pain. they have wants that aren't purely instinctual. their right to autonomy is more important than your desire for treats or a paycheck for workers - paycheck that comes at a heavy price, mind you. a job that requires mass killing has negative psychological and sometimes even physical effects on people.
at the end of the day, we're leftists because we believe that pushing suffering on the innocent is wrong. pigs, cows, chickens have done nothing to deserve death. buying their corpses to eat is completely out of step with the values communists and anarchists claim to hold.
My leftism is about better human social organisation for every human's benefit and reduced suffering. Beyond the practicality of ensuring a sustainable planetary ecosystem, it has nothing to do with other animals.
"My leftism has nothing to do with empathy or recognizing the suffering of others, it has only to do with benefiting those that I deem enough "like me" to be worth my consideration! Leftism is all about making things better for me and my kind! No, that's not reactionary! I'm not a chud! I'm a leftist, really!"
Feel free to go and busy yourself making the world better for rocks or something? You draw your own line at making the world better for things that sufficiently 'like you', too. I deem humans sufficiently 'like me', and there are plenty practical reasons for encompassing all humans in a just world, too. You just deem animals also sufficiently 'like you', but I don't personally see sufficient reasoning to extend that far.
you really need to self crit and think about why you think beings only like you deserve safety and freedom from oppression. that really is so incompatible with everything we talk about here
There is actually adequate scientific evidence that many animals have a much greater awareness and emotional intelligence then we often attribute to them, this includes most if not all of our domesticated animals. You could argue that the act of meat eating isn't in itself amoral, but the mass suffering facilitated by the conditions within the meat industry certainly is. Not to mention the conditions it subjects its workers to. There is no ethical industrialized meat consumption.
idk, what does "feel" mean? the ones with nervous systems and appropriate receptors probably have a stimulus response. do they have an experiential self that sits in that stimulus and dwells on it like people? do they have opinions about pain?
Recognizing the capacity of animals to understand and suffer is basic science, not idealism. People with pets understand this and we know they should protect the health and well-being of the animals they keep. In fact, they often support laws requiring that pets are treated well enough.
But the moment it's a designated food animal, this goes out the window and brains shut off.
So anyways are you gonna eat dogs and cats or are you an "idealist"?
It has nothing to do with where I personally draw the line, asshole. It has everything to do with the scientifically established reality about who is capable of suffering. Rocks can't. Cows, pigs, etc. can. Just because your sphere of empathy is arbitrarily drawn to reinforce what's convenient for you doesn't mean that by necessity everyone else is so shallow, cruel, and morally inconsistent.
Animal agriculture is a disgustingly exploitive industry with awful environmental practices. Even if you only care about the human side of it you should want it to end.
if your empathy and concern for suffering ends at humans, i don't think you're a proper leftist and you should take your belief in autonomy and freedom from oppression to it's logical conclusion (animal liberation)
I just draw my line at the necessity of autonomy and freedom from oppression at humans. Best I can understand, typical vegans just draw their line at animals. I don't see an objective logical path to animal liberation.
im unsure if the suffering outweighs all the workers it employs, or evsn ths fact that they taste good.
The workers employed in that industry very often end up with PTSD because of all the horrors they experience every day. Stopping the support for the animal holocaust is the best way to help those fellow workers possibly find a better job in the processing of plant based food, possibly saving their lives.
And yes, the suffering of others absolutely outweighs 15 minutes of sensory entertainment, how is that even a question?
veganism benefitted my class id be more enthusiastic in becoming a vegetarian
My first point already explained why it benefits your class, but I will also add that a vegan diet is the single most impactful thing someone can do to reduce their carbon footprint. So, if your class will suffer from climte change (it will) then going vegan is a necessity.
the idea of the personal carbon footprint is propaganda created by BP to distract from real environmental issues, much like the idea of the litterbug was corporate propaganda created to distract from actually meaningful pollution by industry.
Yes, the personal carbon footprint is tiny compared to corporations, but that shouldn't be an excuse not to care about our individual impact. Getting people invested in the problem of the climate crisis is essential to get some regulations from our governments. We will get nothing if everyone just doesn't seem to care.
I disagree as collective action is not made up of individualist decisions. Its made up of individual ones. The individuals get together and decide to go on strike at the same time for example. They dont all just individualisticly decide to stop working until there is a domino effect.
Im saying that its a waste of time to be an individualist vegan. If it matters to you so much, join a radical animal rights group like elf or peta. They are doing collective action. Ive always felt like PETA wasnt that bad, tbh. They at least do something.
If you believe that animal slavery is at all morally similar to human slavery, then you might want to dedicate your life to becoming farm Spartacus. That isnt me mocking you, but an actual suggestion.
I know all about how frustrating it is to be the only who cares about something. So even though i dont care about animals like humans, i respect that you might.
So the meat industry is basically a giant concentration camp of suffering, but im unsure if the suffering outweighs all the workers it employs, or evsn ths fact that they taste good.
Very good utilitarian way of thinking you're employing here, which can be used to justify everything else too I know slaves are suffering, but their suffering doesn't outweigh the money they're bringing to the empire, or even the fact that the shirt made from the cotton they picked is nice.
Thats what i was saying. It was the whole point. The question is if animals should be emoathized with in the same way historical slaves are.
I dont participate in online debate. Im more stating what i believe along with potential flaws in order to see if my mind can ever be changed. Its not really my job to convert people to how i think.
All you've done is admit that you think the suffering of others is fine and "worth it" for the tasty results, so long as those who are suffering are sufficiently different than you.
The question is if animals should be emoathized with in the same way historical slaves are.
That's a slimy phrasing the question in a way that immediately lets you off the hook for your choice to ignore and perpetuate suffering because it makes it seem like the question of non-human suffering hinges on non-humans being "the same as" human slaves. It's the old "well, obviously pigs and cows aren't quite as intellectually complex as humans therefore anything we do to them for the sake of humans enjoying treats is fine. What, do you think pigs and cows should be able to vote or learn to read?"
In other words, the answer to your question about whether we should empathize "in the same way" is no, not the "same way," but we absolutely should and must empathize with them as fellow sentient beings capable of emotions, joy, suffering, pleasure, pain just like humans, and recognize that the way we torture and murder billions of them every year for profit (and "taste") is one of the greatest crimes in the history of our species.
Your entire premise of who deserves your empathy is still based on how much someone is "like you" in whatever arbitrary ways that allow you to maintain the distinctions you've already made based on your comfort and convenience. And that part is the same as slave owners who would make similar arbitrary distinctions about how "different from themselves" their victims are.
Yes, sentient beings deserve your empathy. It's not at all a difficult conclusion to reach if you have any interest in being honest with yourself.
I dont really think i agree with that. What i said doesnt have much to do with what you think my motives are. Im sure it has something to do with someones tho, so its not a worthless comment.
(Vegetarian here that only eats honey and eggs from a local farm but still feels bad about it) Western animal agriculture is bad, no doubt. I am totally convinced that a society which has animals as a part of a whole healthy environment in like a permaculture+animals sharing the space society can eat animal products and possibly even the animal in cases where it's healthiest for the entirety of the society including animals (think here of removing a male lion to allow a healthier population in total, but for goats that have been milked but live normal and free/safe lives). This would likely be temporary before becoming unnecessary if we reach a point past scarcity of proteins/foods. Max Ajl talks about this often (though he can be a bit chuddy about it, he's trying to protect pastoralists with it I think)
That seems really vague to me. A lot of things are bad for the environment.
I could see how it would be bad for the world, so the magical make the world vegan button would be pressed. I simpky see no reason to become vegan, or personally participate in any activism that helps animals.
How is it vague? Animal agriculture is one of many things that are bad for the environment. Reducing these bad things is good for the environment. A good environment is good for people, including you, your community, your class, and everyone else.
Individuals are only going to have a microeffect but it's still an effect for good overall.
I live in a very rural area with way too many becauss the local law makes hunting them illegal to punish rednecks because thats what progressive politicians waste their time on here - murals and attempts to ban hunting anything but deer. Nothing that actually helps people.
the meme: "you're just lazy, right?"
the comments: "how dare you call me lazy, I actually enjoy hurting others"
How do you know someone's a carnist? Don't worry, they'll tell you
"haha you're vegan!!!! I will eat twice as much meat!! haah" dude i just mentioned it cuz we're going to dinner and it's actually relevant...
I'm starting to think the problem for a lot of people is that they just flat out don't know how to cook vegetarian/vegan dishes.
I'm thinking a lot of them are imaging some kind of hypothetical "cooked to perfection" meat dish with lots of spices and sauce vs like...cold, uncooked beans straight out of the can.
I'm not vegan, but like...it isn't hard to prepare a nice tasting vegan meal, going vegan doesn't mean a person has to live a spartan culinary existence where food is for bland sustenance and nothing else.
This is my view on healthy eating in general. There needs to be some genuine attempt to educate people on cooking, and materials should be subsidized at worst. I was once arguing with a lib about the soda tax shit, and they kept saying how people should know how to eat healthier and grow produce and cook it, and I was trying so patiently to explain that raising prices from people in food deserts is not how you do that. Maybe start with regulating what companies can put IN food.
Absolutely, a huge amount of it is food culture. I remember seeing advice an reddit to do rule of thirds on your plate and I realized how limiting that is, and how much more difficult it'd be to make veggie meals. Unfortunately it's the only way many people recognize a meal, and the jump from a heap of chicken on your plate to a heap of beans is much larger than the jump from a lentil curry with chicken to a lentil curry without.
I cant really empathize with animals like how i can people. I hit possums with my car on the way to work all the time (once a month or so). Its unavoidable because they charge into the road and its too windy to move out of the way usually.
If i hit even one person id never live with the guilt and quit my job. Its unfair to expect 1 possum to equal 1 human. I understand you dont expect that. However, how many possums would i have to hit before it was enough for me to care much? It would have to be like when the cicadas come out - piles and piles of them for miles. I just value my husband having nice things more than the lives of those rodents, even though i like rodents a lot.
So the meat industry is basically a giant concentration camp of suffering, but im unsure if the suffering outweighs all the workers it employs, or evsn ths fact that they taste good.
At the same time, their suffering has value. Im excited for clone meat and i eat a lot of vegetables. It could easilly be that i cant empathize with them because of class consiousness similar to poor roman citizens not caring about the plight of slaves.
So, if veganism benefitted my class id be more enthusiastic in becoming a vegetarian instead of just using meat in moderation. It would have to be something about how me not eating meat or doing local activism for animals helps. I cant change society and me not buying meat wont actually help animals.
For example, my local activism was beneficial to people like me because it gave them a support network and community.
deleted by creator
Liberals are always saying things like this. "We can't get rid of the death camps because people work there"
Ok we can get those people to do other jobs
Said this elsewhere before, communists will pull out every liberal excuse when being criticized from the left about veganism.
"They're mean" "Acktshually it's not as good for x as you think" "What about x group of people that this will impact" (who haven't even expressed opposition or concern about the issue) "You just care too much"
Same vibes as supposed progressives who are sharing pro-Israel PragerU vids after criticizing PragerU on other topics.
Ideally every comrade is vegan, but if for whatever reason you cannot be or are working towards it then at the absolute least you can support those who are and accept that it is the morally correct position instead of all this hoop jumping
“I dream of a world in which I would be executed as a reactionary.”
"wait, no"
Sorry for the cliche response, but really. This.
Okay veganism is one thing but moral realism is where I draw the line.
Can you explain how the continued mistreatment and exploitation of animals is moral?
Would you make the same claim if this were instead some trans rights debate and I claimed supporting trans people is the morally correct position even if you are certainly Cis and do not know a single trans person?
It's not a 1:1 analogy for sure, but I think it captures a similar idea
I'm denying the existence of objective moral facts in a tongue-in-cheek fashion not calling into question any particular one.
Ah I got ya. To be honest I'm not very well read on the topic, but I do believe there are such instances.
What is the reasoning in there not being an objective moral position on anything?
What would it mean for there to be objective moral facts? It would mean that there are true moral statements that live outside of every cultural framework in some sort of transcendent manner, and to arrive at those moral facts would require an individual be able to step out of their subjective, culturally inculcated existence. And as well all know, subjectivity is not the sort of thing you can just step out of.
When you start talking about objective moral facts, you can start talking about societies that fail to adhere to those moral facts as being deficient. And from there it's a quick hop skip and jump to genocide. Which is how this has played out historically.
I can see the the slippery slope consequences you describe coming into play, but I struggle to see how that negates some facts such as "Rape is morally wrong"
You and I both believe that earnestly and full-throatedly, but we are not acultural objective knowers.
Think of all the children in the American meat industry who will go unemployed
The children long for the slaughterhouse.
Removed by mod
it's okay that sentient beings suffer because you think they taste good. you must realise how genuinely fucked up that thought is, right? what gives you any right to decide your favourite treat is more important than a life? animals feel pain. they have wants that aren't purely instinctual. their right to autonomy is more important than your desire for treats or a paycheck for workers - paycheck that comes at a heavy price, mind you. a job that requires mass killing has negative psychological and sometimes even physical effects on people.
at the end of the day, we're leftists because we believe that pushing suffering on the innocent is wrong. pigs, cows, chickens have done nothing to deserve death. buying their corpses to eat is completely out of step with the values communists and anarchists claim to hold.
My leftism is about better human social organisation for every human's benefit and reduced suffering. Beyond the practicality of ensuring a sustainable planetary ecosystem, it has nothing to do with other animals.
"My leftism has nothing to do with empathy or recognizing the suffering of others, it has only to do with benefiting those that I deem enough "like me" to be worth my consideration! Leftism is all about making things better for me and my kind! No, that's not reactionary! I'm not a chud! I'm a leftist, really!"
Feel free to go and busy yourself making the world better for rocks or something? You draw your own line at making the world better for things that sufficiently 'like you', too. I deem humans sufficiently 'like me', and there are plenty practical reasons for encompassing all humans in a just world, too. You just deem animals also sufficiently 'like you', but I don't personally see sufficient reasoning to extend that far.
you really need to self crit and think about why you think beings only like you deserve safety and freedom from oppression. that really is so incompatible with everything we talk about here
"Oppression and subjugation of a living thing is fine so long as it can't speak to me and tell me it doesn't like it. Extra points if it's tasty!"
Removed by mod
There is actually adequate scientific evidence that many animals have a much greater awareness and emotional intelligence then we often attribute to them, this includes most if not all of our domesticated animals. You could argue that the act of meat eating isn't in itself amoral, but the mass suffering facilitated by the conditions within the meat industry certainly is. Not to mention the conditions it subjects its workers to. There is no ethical industrialized meat consumption.
yes, the labor conditions are something that harms people, especially in slaughterhouses.
do you think non-human animals dont feel pain
idk, what does "feel" mean? the ones with nervous systems and appropriate receptors probably have a stimulus response. do they have an experiential self that sits in that stimulus and dwells on it like people? do they have opinions about pain?
brb, chopping a cat's foot off without anesthetic
and that has what, exactly, to do with eating the cat?
deleted by creator
you're not seriously doing this debatelord bit lmao
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Recognizing the capacity of animals to understand and suffer is basic science, not idealism. People with pets understand this and we know they should protect the health and well-being of the animals they keep. In fact, they often support laws requiring that pets are treated well enough.
But the moment it's a designated food animal, this goes out the window and brains shut off.
So anyways are you gonna eat dogs and cats or are you an "idealist"?
It has nothing to do with where I personally draw the line, asshole. It has everything to do with the scientifically established reality about who is capable of suffering. Rocks can't. Cows, pigs, etc. can. Just because your sphere of empathy is arbitrarily drawn to reinforce what's convenient for you doesn't mean that by necessity everyone else is so shallow, cruel, and morally inconsistent.
Removed by mod
Animal agriculture is a disgustingly exploitive industry with awful environmental practices. Even if you only care about the human side of it you should want it to end.
Yeah, I want all sorts of horrible industries under Capitalism to end.
if your empathy and concern for suffering ends at humans, i don't think you're a proper leftist and you should take your belief in autonomy and freedom from oppression to it's logical conclusion (animal liberation)
i thought hexbear didn't allow sectarianism
it's not sectarian to advocate against suffering
you are the one true leftist, further left than any AES, the soviet union, and everybody the CIA overthrew.
Liberals here made the same comparisons so that they could continue to be transphobic.
This is a reactionary pattern. Go do self-crit.
Would it be sectarianism if some people here supported slavery and other people pointed out that that makes them objectively garbage human beings?
In this scenario though, every major socialist movement in history, including major socialist states today, support slavery too.
That rule was always enforced arbitrarily.
I just draw my line at the necessity of autonomy and freedom from oppression at humans. Best I can understand, typical vegans just draw their line at animals. I don't see an objective logical path to animal liberation.
"I'm about as far left as they get but [Cognitohazard Take]"
"I'm about as far left as they get but [Cognitohazard Take]"
Oh no it's a redditor, I'm owned and melting into a puddle!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
it's never surprising seeing you show your ass in a thread about veganism every chance you get
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
The workers employed in that industry very often end up with PTSD because of all the horrors they experience every day. Stopping the support for the animal holocaust is the best way to help those fellow workers possibly find a better job in the processing of plant based food, possibly saving their lives.
And yes, the suffering of others absolutely outweighs 15 minutes of sensory entertainment, how is that even a question?
My first point already explained why it benefits your class, but I will also add that a vegan diet is the single most impactful thing someone can do to reduce their carbon footprint. So, if your class will suffer from climte change (it will) then going vegan is a necessity.
And also this: Veggie-based diets could save 8 million lives by 2050 and cut global warming
the idea of the personal carbon footprint is propaganda created by BP to distract from real environmental issues, much like the idea of the litterbug was corporate propaganda created to distract from actually meaningful pollution by industry.
Yes, the personal carbon footprint is tiny compared to corporations, but that shouldn't be an excuse not to care about our individual impact. Getting people invested in the problem of the climate crisis is essential to get some regulations from our governments. We will get nothing if everyone just doesn't seem to care.
Removed by mod
The collective is composed of individuals. It's evident that the collective will never form if every individual is too lazy to make tiny adjustments.
I disagree as collective action is not made up of individualist decisions. Its made up of individual ones. The individuals get together and decide to go on strike at the same time for example. They dont all just individualisticly decide to stop working until there is a domino effect.
Im saying that its a waste of time to be an individualist vegan. If it matters to you so much, join a radical animal rights group like elf or peta. They are doing collective action. Ive always felt like PETA wasnt that bad, tbh. They at least do something.
If you believe that animal slavery is at all morally similar to human slavery, then you might want to dedicate your life to becoming farm Spartacus. That isnt me mocking you, but an actual suggestion.
I know all about how frustrating it is to be the only who cares about something. So even though i dont care about animals like humans, i respect that you might.
deleted by creator
Don't worry it won't be individualist when there are more of us vegans. We will ban animal ag when we have the power to do so.
Id neither like nor dislike that tbh
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Very good utilitarian way of thinking you're employing here, which can be used to justify everything else too
I know slaves are suffering, but their suffering doesn't outweigh the money they're bringing to the empire, or even the fact that the shirt made from the cotton they picked is nice.
Thats what i was saying. It was the whole point. The question is if animals should be emoathized with in the same way historical slaves are.
I dont participate in online debate. Im more stating what i believe along with potential flaws in order to see if my mind can ever be changed. Its not really my job to convert people to how i think.
All you've done is admit that you think the suffering of others is fine and "worth it" for the tasty results, so long as those who are suffering are sufficiently different than you.
That's a slimy phrasing the question in a way that immediately lets you off the hook for your choice to ignore and perpetuate suffering because it makes it seem like the question of non-human suffering hinges on non-humans being "the same as" human slaves. It's the old "well, obviously pigs and cows aren't quite as intellectually complex as humans therefore anything we do to them for the sake of humans enjoying treats is fine. What, do you think pigs and cows should be able to vote or learn to read?"
In other words, the answer to your question about whether we should empathize "in the same way" is no, not the "same way," but we absolutely should and must empathize with them as fellow sentient beings capable of emotions, joy, suffering, pleasure, pain just like humans, and recognize that the way we torture and murder billions of them every year for profit (and "taste") is one of the greatest crimes in the history of our species.
Your entire premise of who deserves your empathy is still based on how much someone is "like you" in whatever arbitrary ways that allow you to maintain the distinctions you've already made based on your comfort and convenience. And that part is the same as slave owners who would make similar arbitrary distinctions about how "different from themselves" their victims are.
Yes, sentient beings deserve your empathy. It's not at all a difficult conclusion to reach if you have any interest in being honest with yourself.
I dont really think i agree with that. What i said doesnt have much to do with what you think my motives are. Im sure it has something to do with someones tho, so its not a worthless comment.
Animal agriculture is horrible for the environment so arguably a vegan diet helps all classes.
(Vegetarian here that only eats honey and eggs from a local farm but still feels bad about it) Western animal agriculture is bad, no doubt. I am totally convinced that a society which has animals as a part of a whole healthy environment in like a permaculture+animals sharing the space society can eat animal products and possibly even the animal in cases where it's healthiest for the entirety of the society including animals (think here of removing a male lion to allow a healthier population in total, but for goats that have been milked but live normal and free/safe lives). This would likely be temporary before becoming unnecessary if we reach a point past scarcity of proteins/foods. Max Ajl talks about this often (though he can be a bit chuddy about it, he's trying to protect pastoralists with it I think)
That seems really vague to me. A lot of things are bad for the environment.
I could see how it would be bad for the world, so the magical make the world vegan button would be pressed. I simpky see no reason to become vegan, or personally participate in any activism that helps animals.
How is it vague? Animal agriculture is one of many things that are bad for the environment. Reducing these bad things is good for the environment. A good environment is good for people, including you, your community, your class, and everyone else.
Individuals are only going to have a microeffect but it's still an effect for good overall.
I dont think the microeffect is worth it and im philosophically against individualist solutions
I take it a step further and think everyone should do as much harm to the environment as they can, individually.
Lol when u change the oil on your ford f150 pour out half thr oil on the ground. Remove the cat converter and drive without a muffler.
deleted by creator
Like yeah what the fuck, once a month ?
I live in a very rural area with way too many becauss the local law makes hunting them illegal to punish rednecks because thats what progressive politicians waste their time on here - murals and attempts to ban hunting anything but deer. Nothing that actually helps people.
Possums are generally a benefit to the environment.
If you have a lot of them that just means they have a lot of food. You probably don't want to get rid of them
Possums are marsupials, the only marsupial native to North America, actually. Just a fun fact.
Wow thats cool. :)
"Wow thats cool :) I'll keep that in mind as I uncaringly run them over at least once a month"