264
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
264 points (95.5% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2049 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It is the largest positive impact a single person can have on the environment. Kurzgesagt video with the analysis.
As a vegetarian for decades, it's also cheaper, often healthier, and isn't difficult at all once you find some new recipes you like. You also don't need to switch all at once. Ease into it by cooking one vegetarian meal a week and then increase it as you find ones you like.
Vegan ≠ Vegetarian.
Veganism starts and ends with "no animal exploitation". And due to some weird ingroup/outgroup dynamics Extremely Online Vegans will get batshit insane radical with it and refuse to feed meat to their cats or insist that eating honey is fundamentally unethical.
I eat very little meat, mostly for environmental and partly for ethical reasons, but bringing up the environmentalist side of vegetarianism to defend veganism (a radical dogma based on a specific ethical stance) is missing the mark entirely.
With all that said, everyone should eat less meat, and way less red meat.
I do agree the zeal of the recently converted veg*ns are not very helpful in messaging. Wagging your finger at people as individuals for a lifestyle and notions about nutrition ("but where do you get your protein from") they were likely born into/just accepted as a truth is not too helpful. Yelling at people for a dab of honey or egg or butter in something served to them....not really helping. Who has ever had their mind changed by such behaviors? If anything, this will make people double down in their delusions about how the SAD is good for them.
Yes, most animal proteins are probably setting you up for diabetes, cancer, heart disease. And it's not really hard to discern this from looking at the evidence. Honest actors in the medical profession are already saying this, if they aren't compromised by the SAD industry complex. They are, IMHO, not saying it nearly enough. Far too many people still think they need "protein" (in their minds, meaning dead flesh which also happens to have lots and lots of fat, too, but they don't call this "a fat", they call it "a protein", lol) to live.
In my opinion, if you compare the crazy levels of animal protein consumption in America with the arc of Big Tobacco and the levels of denialism also associated with it, we are maybe in the 1980s phase - when everyone but the most reactionary knew that using tobacco AND secondary smoke were life-threatening, but just before much was being done about it - the bans on indoor smoking only started in the late 1980s.
Many people are starting to wake up from the Big Tobacco-esque levels of carnist propaganda...we'll see what action is going to be taken by governments, institutions, etc...
We're like 1960s tobacco industry at best. I don't see the subsidies on red meat going away in the next 10 years, and probably not the next 20 if I'm honest, short of a catastrophic food crisis that would cause us to re-evaluate the number of human calories produced per hectare of agricultural land.
I'd like to be wrong, and change does come in waves so maybe 10 years from now I'll change my mind. Maybe. But right now the idea of not subsidizing red meat production is fringe even within the left of the left – and the left hasn't exactly been making electoral strides in most countries recently.
Infinitely incorrect. Not reproducing is the greatest lack of a negative impact a single person can have on the environment (which is all going vegan can do, not eating meat will never have greater than a zero net impact on emissions).
Don't stop there. You can end all your emissions now by killing yourself.
NOTE: I would not like anyone to kill themselves. I am pointing out the logical end to this particularly stupid argument.
Not having children can also at best have a net zero impact. If we're taking opportunity costs for future actions into account, the single highest reduction in emissions for an individual is to die.
In day to day life, veganism has the single highest impact. Still, I'll never have (non -adopted) children, emissions are a part of it, but mostly because I don't want to bring someone into the world that's so thoroughly fucked at the moment
Knock it off with the “but it’s better to die than go vegan” argument. It’s rude.
That's not what I said? I was making a point about how not having children isn't in the same category as going vegan, when it comes to emission reductions.
I've personally been vegan for years.
This is a weird thing to get offended on when you’re the one that brought up the thing it’s countering. Anyone saying it is just being pedantic, and while they are technically correct they (usually) aren’t suggesting people kill themselves instead of going vegan. You getting offended at pedantry is… odd.
I don't know how this can be quantified, but id love to see how you try.
I'm not watching your YouTube video. if you can't articulate a compelling reason, just say so.
I find it hard to believe that it is the biggest impact a single person can have. can you enumerate the other strategies it is weighed against?
you also aren't supporting your claims about affordability, health, nor ease with anything but anecdotal evidence.
What absolutely trash reasoning. "Please type up a compelling reason just for me, I don't want to watch a well researched and produced discussion on the topic." It's bordering on sealioning.
Here's another video just on that!
I did watch that video. probably a dozen times. it gets posted often. I shouldn't be expected to debunk an argument that isn't made.
I rewatched* it after I made my comment though, and it does not establish what they claimed. it doesn't cite sources**, and it's primary thesis is "it's complicated"
edit(s):
* i actually listened to it. but just now, after i made this comment, i scrubbed it and i found:
** they do some pretty hard-to-see and also hard-to-research citation in the form of citing academic papers in the bottom right of the screen around the time they are making the claim. and let me tell you, poore-nemecek is the basis of the lca analysis (which i could have guessed), and that lca analysis is flat out bad science. it's certainly not a compelling reason to be vegan.
Those are very fair objections and that video isn't perfect - I was only objecting to your apparent refusal to consume a video. A lot of content these days is produced in video form so it's not reasonable to reject an argument based on media - some topics just aren't well expressed in a written form.
But, TL;DR I wasn't criticizing your opinion or decision - just the common response of rejecting something based on the media it's presented in.
calling me names is neither an argument nor evidence.
The evidence has been given to you in the form of links to youtube videos. You refusing to click through isn't lack of evidence.
I looked at it. it's not compelling
Well said!