What’s your point? Arguments for veganism only apply to those who can eat vegan. They obviously don’t apply to those that can’t. You concern re. food deserts is a very valid one but that isn’t a criticism of veganism, it’s benefits or its impact on the environment. Working to eliminate food deserts and improve nutritional options for everyone is a part of tackling climate change. For those Americans that do have access to some vegan options (about 80% of the population) going vegan or at least ‘flexitarian’ is cheaper, quicker, healthier and better for the environment.
In edition, your point about families having time, whilst valid, is again not a criticism of veganism, it’s a criticism of a multitude of wider societal issues.
Great, except I’m not discussing that comment with you, I’m discussing your comments re. the costs and time requirements of veganism.
But OK, I’ll bite. The comment you linked has already been addressed multiple times. Your numbers were incorrect and your comment re. mothers buying meat misses the point of the original article, which is extolling the environmental virtues of going vegan for those that can. Ideally everyone should go vegan. This is not the same as saying everyone can.
I’m not against the sentiment, I’m against how you’re making it and the tone you’re taking whilst doing so.
Comments like *100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.
But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids*. come across as needlessly confrontational and are an example of a fallacy of relevance. No one was blaming mothers buying meat for climate change. No one was advocating for businesses to be allowed To ignore their environmental responsibilities. You raised arguments that were irrelevant to the article, then doubled down by moving the goal-posts further to encompass additional societal problems like the lack of nutritional food in some parts of the US, all of which are irrelevant to the point of the article.
Also, my point stands: the world arguably should go vegan. Doesn’t mean they can. Your point doesn’t invalidate theirs.
You never said that your problem was me being needlessly confrontation before. I would argue that you’ve been needlessly confrontational this whole time. Is it okay when you do it?
What’s your point? Arguments for veganism only apply to those who can eat vegan. They obviously don’t apply to those that can’t. You concern re. food deserts is a very valid one but that isn’t a criticism of veganism, it’s benefits or its impact on the environment. Working to eliminate food deserts and improve nutritional options for everyone is a part of tackling climate change. For those Americans that do have access to some vegan options (about 80% of the population) going vegan or at least ‘flexitarian’ is cheaper, quicker, healthier and better for the environment.
In edition, your point about families having time, whilst valid, is again not a criticism of veganism, it’s a criticism of a multitude of wider societal issues.
Also, please bear in mind that the US is not the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to familial trends. In the UK for example, people are actually cooking at home more: https://brandclock.co.uk/scratch-cooking-in-the-uk-increasing/
Even in the US approx 64% of the population home cook: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-reveals-81-of-consumers-now-cook-more-than-half-of-their-meals-at-home-302007657.html
Didn’t this start with someone saying everyone should go vegan?
This particular thread started with your comment here: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/10351315
I’m pretty sure it started with my comment here- https://sh.itjust.works/comment/10349694
Great, except I’m not discussing that comment with you, I’m discussing your comments re. the costs and time requirements of veganism.
But OK, I’ll bite. The comment you linked has already been addressed multiple times. Your numbers were incorrect and your comment re. mothers buying meat misses the point of the original article, which is extolling the environmental virtues of going vegan for those that can. Ideally everyone should go vegan. This is not the same as saying everyone can.
Okay, but again, I was responding to someone who said the world should go vegan and explaining why a lot of people in the U.S. can’t do that.
I don’t know why you’re so against me explaining that.
I’m not against the sentiment, I’m against how you’re making it and the tone you’re taking whilst doing so.
Comments like *100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.
But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids*. come across as needlessly confrontational and are an example of a fallacy of relevance. No one was blaming mothers buying meat for climate change. No one was advocating for businesses to be allowed To ignore their environmental responsibilities. You raised arguments that were irrelevant to the article, then doubled down by moving the goal-posts further to encompass additional societal problems like the lack of nutritional food in some parts of the US, all of which are irrelevant to the point of the article.
Also, my point stands: the world arguably should go vegan. Doesn’t mean they can. Your point doesn’t invalidate theirs.
You never said that your problem was me being needlessly confrontation before. I would argue that you’ve been needlessly confrontational this whole time. Is it okay when you do it?