Scot Dutchy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:23 am
...
Have you actually been in those areas of bonnie Edinburgh?
Why is that relevant? Not that it's any of your business, or that anything I've said depends on it, but I get around a fair bit and volunteer with a community arts organisation in Muirhouse. So yes, I know what's at the end of the number 8, 19, and 33 bus routes. Let's also not pretend I haven't acknowledged that far too many people are nutritionally impoverished, food insecure, and live in food deserts, and that this
is a problem predominantly associated with poverty not production .
Now,
you said that vegetarianism was a middle-class luxury, that "
poor people can't afford to be vegetarians", and then chided veg*ns for basically being snobby and precious about food while going on about how you only eat the best organic produce made out of angel farts or whatever. Do you see the problem here?
Here's two assumptions I've challenged recently that you've made no attempt to address: simple economics - when you take the meat out of the average shopping basket the price of that basket will fall, and; veg*ns don't have to swap the meat in the average shopping basket for expensive, novel or difficult to source foodstuffs to maintain a well-balanced diet. Would you care to address this specifically?
Previously I've challenged assumptions that meat protein is a 'better' kind of protein than plant protein; that veg*ns rely on soya to maintain their nutrition; that the responsibility for the environmental consequences of soya production falls predominantly on veg*ns; that veg*ns are rendered puny or dull-witted by their dietary choices; that processed veg*n food items are intrinsically unhealthy, and; that my use of an asterisk is somehow malicious or malign. While I accept that you have a low personal opinion of veg*nism that opinion in itself is not a data point, or; one's intuitions or convictions that one is right is not in itself evidence that one is right. Objective, categorical, or declarative statements should be logically and evidentially supportable. What says you to any of this?
At this point I'd like to reiterate my broader view: that what we each put in our bodies should be, as much as possible, a free choice for which we carry personal responsibility - accepting that 'choice' is a loaded term and the supposedly 'free' nature of that choice often depends on factors beyond our personal and/or social control.
If you hadn't noticed I'm still trying to have a discussion with you here. Would you like to take part?