What if Vegans are Actually Right?

[Brian Peacock]

New (refurbished) phone. Haven't sorted all the settings out yet.

[pErvinalia]

Nevermind. The forum is basically unusable on mobile lately.

[NineBerry]

The vegans broke the forum?

[NineBerry]

It's funny to watch vegans argue whether synthesized meat is okay to consume. Some are currently doing that in German in my Twitter feed.

[macdoc]

Not sure what they mean synthesized....meat cells from animals grow meat in a reactor.
What's not to like except the price.
It is also looking like it is resource intensive tho resolves the land use issue.Not certain About insects

[macdoc]

One could get radicalized looking at this.

The meat industry’s war on wildlife
Your taxes fund an obscure government program that kills millions of wild animals to benefit Big Ag.
By Kenny Torrella@KennyTorrella Apr 24, 2024, 9:00am EDT

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2413 ... at-animals

•••••••

I had a carnivore attack this evening ...honey sausages I cooked yesterday lured me to the fridge....I did restrict myself to 1/2 one tho since I like them in my breakfast baked beans.
Partner sez there are more in the freezer at the kids that need to be eaten. I'm in. I do like free tasty food.

[Brian Peacock]

Good for you

[rasetsu]

All in your imagination .....Rae and you have presented nothing

This isn't a rebuttal. It's basically an argument ad lapidum. It's basically a dishonest debate technique meant to stop discussion, much like, "you think too much" or "you just don't get it." Instead of answering the point with a response based in facts, you just use a thought-terminating phrase to avoid having to answer. It's a form of dishonest, bad faith argumenting. It's just a cheap debate tactic. Sure, it could be in my imagination, but then you need to show what the reality is or ask for more information. Repeating the phrase "you're imagining things" is just an evasion. How would you respond if someone said this to you in person? You'd be tempted to slap them upside the head.

If that's all you've got, then you're a failure.

[Strontium Dog]

It's funny to watch vegans argue whether synthesized meat is okay to consume. Some are currently doing that in German in my Twitter feed.

It's a valid question, is it not? Ethical veganism is predicated upon not exploiting animals. I can well imagine that there would be disagreement over whether using an animal's genetic information to grow meat in a lab constitutes exploitation or not.

[macdoc]

You have made no substantiated points at all. Just unsupported opinions ad nauseum....embroidering that fact with flowery language does nothing to change it.

[rasetsu]

You have made no substantiated points at all. Just unsupported opinions ad nauseum....embroidering that fact with flowery language does nothing to change it.

I see you learn nothing from your mistakes. You're a one-trick pony and it's not a particularly good trick.

[Brian Peacock]

You have made no substantiated points at all...

... You seem to forget where this began which was with me asking what's the point. You aren't taking care of future generations because the effects of what you are doing aren't significant enough to matter. Global warming is already at or past the tipping point and so your eating a few meatless meals isn't doing dick for future generations, all it's doing is furnishing you with a smug sense of superiority and relieving some guilt that you might otherwise feel.

[rasetsu]

The funny part is that his claims that it's my imagination, it's just my opinion, it's just flowery language, are all mere unsubstantiated opinions. He's guilty of the thing he accuses me of doing. It's just the pot calling the kettle black.

What a moron.

[Brian Peacock]

The funny part is that his claims that it's my imagination, it's just my opinion, it's just flowery language, are all mere unsubstantiated opinions. He's guilty of the thing he accuses me of doing. It's just the pot calling the kettle black.

What a moron.

Nah, mac isn't stoopid, and that he's reduced his meat consumption for environmental reasons is commendable, to whatever degree. Reducing the amount of animal products we consume is one of the most significant contributions we can make to reducing our personal carbon footprint, after flying and cars.

However, mac isn't an average Ozzie, and as overall meat consumption continues to rise in Australia (as in the West generally, despite the rise in people going meat-light, vegetarian or vegan) his 'thought-leader' claims run headlong into some plain economic and ecological facts - cheaper imported meat is fuelling Australia's overall rise in consumption, where a rise in consumption necessitates a rise in the environmental impacts of production unless, that is, Australia's increased consumption is somehow being offset by taking meat out of the mouths of others.

When you tell mac that "the effects of what you are doing aren't significant enough to matter" I'm basically agreeing, but I'm also encouraging him to continue, because while 'eating for the environment' is good it needs to be accompanied by other actions that challenge and change the fundamentals and the consequentials of our economies in animal derivatives to have a meaningful global impact.

[rasetsu]

The funny part is that his claims that it's my imagination, it's just my opinion, it's just flowery language, are all mere unsubstantiated opinions. He's guilty of the thing he accuses me of doing. It's just the pot calling the kettle black.

What a moron.

Nah, mac isn't stoopid, and that he's reduced his meat consumption for environmental reasons is commendable, to whatever degree. Reducing the amount of animal products we consume is one of the most significant contributions we can make to reducing our personal carbon footprint, after flying and cars.

However, mac isn't an average Ozzie, and as overall meat consumption continues to rise in Australia (as in the West generally, despite the rise in people going meat-light, vegetarian or vegan) his 'thought-leader' claims run headlong into some plain economic and ecological facts - cheaper imported meat is fuelling Australia's overall rise in consumption, where a rise in consumption necessitates a rise in the environmental impacts of production unless, that is, Australia's increased consumption is somehow being offset by taking meat out of the mouths of others.

When you tell mac that "the effects of what you are doing aren't significant enough to matter" I'm basically agreeing, but I'm also encouraging him to continue, because while 'eating for the environment' is good it needs to be accompanied by other actions that challenge and change the fundamentals and the consequentials of our economies in animal derivatives to have a meaningful global impact.

He isn't stupid, but he relies on cheap debate tactics instead of substantial argument. If the project Mac thinks he's a part of won't or can't be completed, then his actions are irrational. The major indicators are that it's all too little too late. I don't care if someone wants to be irrational or emotional, but to deny it when they're clearly acting out of emotion, which such concerns about future generations are, then you're being ridiculous.