this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
108 points (90.3% liked)
Vegan
2961 readers
1 users here now
An online space for the vegans of Lemmy.
Rules and miscellaneous:
- We take for granted that if you engage in this community, you understand that veganism is about the animals. You either are vegan for the animals, or you are not (this is not to say that discussions about climate/environment/health are not allowed, of course)
- No omni/carnist apologists. This is not a place where to ask to be hand-holded into veganims. Omnis coddling/backpatting is not tolerated, nor are /r/DebateAVegan-like threads
- Use content warnings and NSFW tags for triggering content
- Circlejerking belongs to /c/vegancirclejerk
- All posts should abide by Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It‘s not all or nothing, if you had clicked the link actually you would have seen a lot of "it‘s not all or nothing" in there, I‘m not gonna cite it all, but here is one example:
And fair enough, maybe you won‘t be convinced ever and happily chow down on beef burgers until the bitter end, but if it can convince some people to at least choose chicken instead or even just reduce their beef use as much as they can live with, then it‘s a already a useful study regardless of the holdouts.
They aren't useless. It can often be useful to know what the extremes are, as a middle-ground approach would lie somewhere in between. Like, if switching wholly away from animals would free up 3 billion hectares, would switching about halfway free up about 1.5 billion hectares?
Obviously it's not necessarily that simple but still, knowing the statistics at various extremes allows you to weigh your options, so you can compromise by combining various approaches at varying degrees and hopefully get a "good enough" outcome. The researchers here aren't necessarily saying "all you meat lovers need to just give up meat already, look at how much land we can free up!", rather they're saying "hey policymakers, if we reduce our reliance on animals by around a third, we can free up a billion hectares of valuable agricultural land."
Hope you don't mind if I hang your beloved pets up by their feet, cut their throats, and tear their bodies apart. They're just food so it does't matter.
Why are you on a vegan community, then?
Just because you don’t actually do the murdering doesn’t mean you are not responsible for the murder. Those animals that you eat are murdered to create supply for the meat demand that you contribute to. If you stop eating meat, demand goes down by one meat-eater which will decrease the number of animals that are killed. Even though you aren’t slaughtering animals, you are still responsible for the deaths caused by the meat you eat, kind of like how a mob boss is still culpable for murders that they order. Or how the global leaders that send armed forces out to murder people in other countries are considered murderers even though they never personally pull the trigger.
And before you assume I’m a vegan, I’m not, but I feel quite a bit of guilt for the animal lives that I’m responsible for taking. I’m reducing my meat intake (no meat 2-3 days a week) because every little bit helps to reduce demand for meat and the deaths it directly causes.
Okay. I don't really care about any of your excuses written here. If you aren't a vegan, and don't want to be a vegan, and have negative opinions of vegans, then why do you subject yourself to looking at vegan discussion spaces?
Go outside.