Anyone actually choosing what they can eat is in a priveleged position weather it be materially, financially or health wise to be honest. Lots of people go to bed hungry around the globe.
Yes and? We can acknowledge that choosing what you can eat is a privilege, but those with that privilege should exercise it to minimize the suffering they cause in the world. "People go to bed hungry" isn't an adequate excuse for anyone with means to go vegan to choose to continue eating meat. This post has big "Well China creates more carbon pollution" energy.
I live in a country where a quarter of the population are food insecure and suffer from stunted growth due to malnutrition. I have gone to bed hungry a few times before.
China doesn't even create more carbon pollution per capita than most western nations, not even close. China is also in the process of industrialisation, something most western countries did many years ago.
You fail to address the main point of my post. I'm sure everyone here is aware of the problem of world hunger, its a god damn communist forum. All you're doing is whatabouting to de-legitimize veganism, a positive change many people have the power to make.
And you are failing to see it from a different perspective. It's not whatabouism, that's a made up word used by British media to discredit the valid arguments of the IRA. In your perspective many people have the power to make that change, and that is likely true where you live and they should make that change, in my perspective where I live many do not have the power to make that change, and feeding the people should take priority. As done by actually existing socialist states in the past.
in my perspective where I live many do not have the power to make that change, and feeding the people should take priority. As done by actually existing socialist states in the past.
That's a pro-veganism argument dude, turns out food is a lot more efficient if you give it directly to people instead of filtering it through animals
Exactly - just as people dismiss feminism based on their surface level understanding of the movement, please try and learn about what the whole of the term veganism means before you have such strong convictions about it. Not knowing about something is ok - disagreeing strongly based on a lack of information isn't.
I wanna say this doubly applies because of the notable benefits men and masculine presenting folks have at present in some countries in the imperial core, like mine, which can be traced to feminist activism.
One that positively affects me is 1. the ability to talk about emotions openly and 2. have people there to listen and engage with when I do. In the past—with homogeneous groups of men—it was more frequent in my experience to be shut down. When with certain members of family on certain topics, like my father being ill in a hospital, I was supported. In others I was told to 'use my willpower to get over it' and 'if I really just tried' I would see how much better it was to 'power through'.
Of course I appreciate sentiment even if I didn't think the content was appropriate, there is something to be said about the availability of options at present due to feminist and LGBTQIA2S+ activism who I have to give my thanks and support.
Regardless of the origin of the term, its exactly what your doing. Your assumption that I hadn't seen things from your perspective or been in your position is false. You felt the need to go "Well what about people who go hungry" in a post directed at those with the power to make the change to go vegan and chose not to. But good for you that you thought of the hungry when you saw this post. Some of us have the power to care about more then one issue at a time.
It's important to be very sensitive to those people and their situation, but 99% of the people I have this conversation with are not those people, and use those people's existence as a trump card to avoid the conversation.
Not only that, they do the exact same thing with Indigenous people and their traditional food production and consumption practices.
99% of the people I have this conversation with are not those people,
Be glad you live in an area where the vast majority of people are food secure then. Many areas of the world are not like that. It's not a "trump card" when 20-25% of the population of the country you live in experiences moderate to severe food insecurity.
The vast majority of people on the planet choose what they eat and the first/second most populous (depends who you ask) country is 1/3-1/2 vegetarian and quite poor overall.
Killing animals is usually not a matter of food security.
Anyone actually choosing what they can eat is in a priveleged position weather it be materially, financially or health wise to be honest. Lots of people go to bed hungry around the globe.
I do not understand what point this is trying to make
It's not, it's just supposed to look like it's making a point.
Yeah, that's my understanding as well.
deleted by creator
Yes and? We can acknowledge that choosing what you can eat is a privilege, but those with that privilege should exercise it to minimize the suffering they cause in the world. "People go to bed hungry" isn't an adequate excuse for anyone with means to go vegan to choose to continue eating meat. This post has big "Well China creates more carbon pollution" energy.
I live in a country where a quarter of the population are food insecure and suffer from stunted growth due to malnutrition. I have gone to bed hungry a few times before.
China doesn't even create more carbon pollution per capita than most western nations, not even close. China is also in the process of industrialisation, something most western countries did many years ago.
You fail to address the main point of my post. I'm sure everyone here is aware of the problem of world hunger, its a god damn communist forum. All you're doing is whatabouting to de-legitimize veganism, a positive change many people have the power to make.
And you are failing to see it from a different perspective. It's not whatabouism, that's a made up word used by British media to discredit the valid arguments of the IRA. In your perspective many people have the power to make that change, and that is likely true where you live and they should make that change, in my perspective where I live many do not have the power to make that change, and feeding the people should take priority. As done by actually existing socialist states in the past.
That's a pro-veganism argument dude, turns out food is a lot more efficient if you give it directly to people instead of filtering it through animals
Exactly - just as people dismiss feminism based on their surface level understanding of the movement, please try and learn about what the whole of the term veganism means before you have such strong convictions about it. Not knowing about something is ok - disagreeing strongly based on a lack of information isn't.
I wanna say this doubly applies because of the notable benefits men and masculine presenting folks have at present in some countries in the imperial core, like mine, which can be traced to feminist activism.
One that positively affects me is 1. the ability to talk about emotions openly and 2. have people there to listen and engage with when I do. In the past—with homogeneous groups of men—it was more frequent in my experience to be shut down. When with certain members of family on certain topics, like my father being ill in a hospital, I was supported. In others I was told to 'use my willpower to get over it' and 'if I really just tried' I would see how much better it was to 'power through'.
Of course I appreciate sentiment even if I didn't think the content was appropriate, there is something to be said about the availability of options at present due to feminist and LGBTQIA2S+ activism who I have to give my thanks and support.
Regardless of the origin of the term, its exactly what your doing. Your assumption that I hadn't seen things from your perspective or been in your position is false. You felt the need to go "Well what about people who go hungry" in a post directed at those with the power to make the change to go vegan and chose not to. But good for you that you thought of the hungry when you saw this post. Some of us have the power to care about more then one issue at a time.
It's important to be very sensitive to those people and their situation, but 99% of the people I have this conversation with are not those people, and use those people's existence as a trump card to avoid the conversation.
Not only that, they do the exact same thing with Indigenous people and their traditional food production and consumption practices.
Be glad you live in an area where the vast majority of people are food secure then. Many areas of the world are not like that. It's not a "trump card" when 20-25% of the population of the country you live in experiences moderate to severe food insecurity.
Sure, so why aren't the 75-80% who aren't not vegan? What is your point? That disadvantaged people exist so everyone else can't do anything?
The vast majority of people on the planet choose what they eat and the first/second most populous (depends who you ask) country is 1/3-1/2 vegetarian and quite poor overall.
Killing animals is usually not a matter of food security.
If we stopped wasting so many resources on genocide against our fellow animals it would be much easier to feed everyone