Salty carnists downvoting vegan content in a vegan community on the matter of clear hypocrisy in enforcing rules.

I’m supportive of a diversity of tactics not just for particular ‘brands’ activists are given, but for differing response to particular people. Tash has many forms of activism, many of which are far less disruptive and agressive. There are a few things I think you are failing to consider.

This particular individual is a proud animal abuser with a massive financial incentive to continue his actions. This particular person outright banned all Vegans from their restaurant because of a review he didn’t like that simply pointed out the owner’s mistake in forgetting a pre-arranged meal and overcharging for a barebones last minute offering. Banning a group of people with a shared ethical position in any other case would be obviously discriminatory. Sorry, someone who is outspokenly anti-Vegan is not going to have a compassionate and understanding response no matter how kindly you approach them.

The business owner themself set the bad faith precedent. There was no discussion to be had at this event. Of note however, post this event, Tash has since had tv debates with the business owner. He is still incredibly bad faith. Some discourse needs ridicule. There are some nazi’s you’d probably be fine with seeing punched, and I don’t see how this is all that different.

The goal is to generate outrage, clicks, and attention. For that audience, it is the only way they will be reminded that people oppose their actions, and is in that respect the only way they will have any opportunity to try and figure out why they would conduct themself in that matter. Because of this event, Tash got several interviews on television to talk about animal rights to the general public, all of which went incredibly well. That’s huge. Far more than the average activist ever gets the chance to do. Most of the viewers will go “she’s crazy” sure, but if its that or nothing, I’d choose the former. She reached someone I’m sure. Likely more than a street activist one on one discussion generally does. Because of this event, a large population of people got to listen to a message they never otherwise would.

If you still don’t think this a massive W for Veganism outreach, idk what to tell you. We don’t just need a bunch of Earthling Ed’s running around. Some people don’t have empathy. Some people don’t care about being logically consistent. Some people will never approach this topic in good faith. Sometimes you just have to tell those people to cut it the hell out and shut the hell up, and unlike almost any activist, she is willing to put her safety at risk in order to make a bafoon of the shameful restauranteur and make carnism appear as it is - inherently violent. Sometime shame is appropriate. Btw, the owner literally assaulted Tash after a second protest at his business. Seems shame-worthy to me.

Someone out there will be really determined to open this thing up to other platforms. Might take a year, but surely someone will crack the code.

Removed by mod

I’d agree that it’s not. What about honey makes you feel like you need it or otherwise that it is somehow different than eating other animal products? If you use it just because you like it, you could argue the same for any other animal product. I’m primarily concerned with their lack of consent, in some cases the clipping of queen bee wings & confinement to a fixed space, & resource theft. There’s also the concerns of native bee populations being unable to compete with honey bees.

Go Vegan

May as well not considering willful complicity in their deaths is wrong.

Would need to go the a priori, teleological, or modal route - definitely no empirics to claim. I absolutely think objective morality can coexist with invented morals. As stated prior, the majority of morals likely are subjective, but it doesn’t follow to me that all of them are. I don’t think the idea that ‘using zyklon b to kill millions of innocent people is bad’ is an invention. I’m fine with the idea that people realized not through invention but discovery that, ‘yeah it is pretty fucked actually.’

I expect this response despite the indication of its issue. Were nazi’s morally rigtheous in gassing millions of innocent people to death because they believed so? At that time that was their ‘progress.’ Independent of other socities or yourself having any issue, it’s simply fine to say that because a nazi thinks it’s fine, it is fine?

I don’t think so, and I don’t think that injustice is dependant on my preference to view it that way. It just is wrong.

I too highly suspect most moral relativists are full of shit and don’t actually believe in it. Ya’ll don’t believe in moral progress? A society of chronic rapists is not inherently bad outside of your societies or personal preferences? The overwhelming majority of moral decisions being relative doesn’t discount that at least one very important concept can be capable of superceding our preferences.

Yeah, I think people need to focus on this aspect the most. They are not going to deny their book. Worming their way through scripture to claim a new fundamental way of understanding seventeen hundred year old writings is going to be incredibly difficult to do. It’s written so explicity. While certain texts written in different areas of the world have been considered non-canonical The Bible™ has never had a serious alteration aside from translation errors that may not have understood the original authors intent. The church will identify the change as moral progress and a better understanding of God, but don’t expect yhem to condemn those who used scripture against homsexuality previously.

Definitely should go with PC enhanced edition these days. Easy to get setup with the new install wizard. Loads of new features, graphical improvements, and bug fixes. Even fixes for bugs that persist in all console versions of the game. Of course, one could wait for the new version to come out in about a year.

The Cat Lady. It’s a point and click style game that is well recieved even ten years on since its release, and has since become the first in a trilogy of sorts. Good writing, multiple endings, sad+spook with some good twists. Gameplay is definitely limited, art can be a bit unusual, but what it has to offer is worth your time.

Hey, free odds approaching zero is better than paid options approaching zero

I cannot for the life of me begin to understand who would still want to buy a kia. The company fucking cuts so many corners that inevitably cost the consumer, irrespective of the engine itself being completely unremarkable.

I should have just went to your profile right away and saved the trouble lol

The ideology doesn’t detract from the obvious. You’re ignoring the laws of thermodynamics for non-grazing animals because in your head there is some fictional world where there is exclusive grazing animals that everyone exclusively eats where reality puts that at maybe 0.0001% of real human diets. Your intentions are dubious at best, and I grow tired of you. If you really wanted to have a productive conversation, you could have explained what about the methodology of the UN’s FAO paper on land use you disagreed with, but I guess you can just reference some other paper and go ‘well it’s allegedly at least in my brain like this other one I read so therefore all goes in the trash.’ I am not a data/environmental scientist so if you want to debate bro about the particulars of those papers or their methodology seek out people who may or may not be more educated than you, personally I think they’ll have an even harder time taking you seriously.

You can probably even get a direct email out to those who wrote the papers you disagree with. They might laugh a little, but they may actually respond. Who knows. But I’m good dawg, I’ll keep doing what is ethically sound for living conscious beings and is recommended by scientific consensus as good for the environment/climate, and you just keep on saying whatever the hell all these comments were to other people who probably also don’t want the most nested back and forth dialogue possible that goes nowhere. Maybe you’re not ‘anti-vegan’ but to engage with this content as frequently as you do, you clearly have a motive - and unlike you, Vegans will be upfront and honest about theirs. You should stop hiding your intent/background. But again, I’m good dawg. I’m interested in dialogue that can actually change people’s minds to lead a more compassionate and sustainable life and it’s clear you’ll not change your ways and no one is reading this so it will not influence others either. You will continue paying other people to kill animals irrespective of any evidence I provide and hilariously claim it’s not evidence. No interest in interacting in future, giving you the solid block. Have a nice day.

A) Congratulations, you account for almost no one on Earth and haven’t accounted for the totality of it in determining how people should/can live in regards to the environment. Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.

B) Are you not also still neglecting to consider the methane release of those grazing animals?

C) even if the environmental factor were not real, which it is, you’d still be facilitating intentional animal murder. An already disagreeable matter.

Reminder that you started with ‘I dont see how less workers would be exploited.’ And we’ve arrived here. Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture? The degree to which you are interested in justifying environmental damage and animal murder on the grounds of your local meat market being isolated from reality and that almost no on has or can have access to seems entirely lacking a basis for this level of argumentation and I’m growing tired of arguing with someone who cannot grasp this.

Are they raised entirely on grazing though? Are you in hypothetical land where people eat 1% of the total meat they currently do eating only animals that exclusively graze?

No.

I honestly don’t care if you believe in the particulars of their methodology.

Let me be even MORE straightforward. Feeding animals plant calories (yes, human edible plant calories) to feed yourself animal calories is literally a caloric deficient. You would have to break the laws of thermodynamics to get more calories out of feeding animals plants to eat them rather than feeding yourself those same plants. It is inherently less efficient. Are you about to move the goalpost further and debate the laws of thermodynamics?

My dude you are either being misled or are attempting to mislead. Yes some inedible material from crops we eat is used and in some countries like the US they even feed garbage to pigs.

If you are taking the ‘nothing gets wasted approach’ it absolutely does, Americans waste 40% of all their food availability for example.

But to the point they absolutely are clearcutting rainforests and other lands specifically to increase feed production for animals. They absolutely feed a shitload of human edible material to animals grown specifically for animals. I’m too lazy to reiterate statistics to a single person who will see it so for the love of God please research this and do not send me any regenerative animal farming bullshit that does not scale.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks