JubilantJaguar

when I was vegetarian for example, I was majorly concerned over the healthfulness of a fully plant-based diet; after stumbling down a rabbit hole and looking through meta-analysis after systematic review, however, I began seeing veganism not only as just “not unhealthy” but as actively healthier than what I was eating.

If this is a factual claim that veganism is, all else being equal, healthier than vegetarianism, then it is unsubstantiated. Sorry, but we must stick to the evidence. If you are only saying that it was healthier than your vegetarian diet, then sure. Most vegans are doubtless healthier than most omnivores, but that's mainly a function of the awfulness of the junky Western diet.

I’m sure there are unicorns out there for whom this article could actually be the final straw, but I at least agree those people are somewhat rare (albeit a vegan community is likely to have a higher concentration of omnivores thinking of pulling the trigger than the general population)

Conversely, there are those like myself (mostly vegan but I'm not absolutist and will eat meat if there's nothing else on offer) for whom it won't make any difference. Because they know the facts already.

one major point that I think your comment is overlooking is that more vegans being educated is unto itself a good thing for the quality of activism. When vegans have actual, credible information ready to go when someone makes an anti-vegan talking point

Absolutely true and I overlooked it. Ultimately that was surely the purpose of the article.

OK apologies for the false accusation. You too.

A developed country is not where the poor have cars, it’s where the rich use public transit.

Tangentially, this cracker of a quote is from the mayor of Bogotá IIRC. It is very accurate and I've often used it too.

105kmh in an EV in 1899. TIL.

You seem to be downvoting my comments. I don't debate with people who think my views are worth nothing.

Good faith, bad faith, that has no bearing on hypocrisy. And anybody can be a hypocrite regardless of their guiding philosophy.

You don't believe in cows' rights to, well, anything, because you don't believe in rights. I don't see you making any arguments about duties.

Hence we're left with nothing but the potential for hypocrisy based on the golden rule, which pretty much everybody accepts.

A coherent and well-articulated philosophy.

And also hopelessly idealistic, I would say. There will never be more than a small minority of people prepared to change something as crucial to their self-image and group identity as food for the sake of ethical considerations alone. The evidence to the contrary is just not there. People don't care, or don't care enough. Even educated people in rich places, let alone the up-and-coming masses in the wider world.

IMO there are precisely three things that might precipitate change: taste, cost, and (distant third) healthiness. I.e., the only things the vast majority of people care about when in the supermarket. Hence the promise of fake meat. It may never be tastier or healthier but if one day it is literally, say, 30% cheaper then we might have a game-changer. At which point, lots of animals will be spared suffering and the environment can take a breather. Although personally I have a terrible suspicion that even this won't be enough and that lab meat will be only thing to pass muster.

Your approach of fostering a nebulous social movement that will spontaneously sweep all before it, well, again, I would love to be wrong but the evidence is pretty clear that it's not coming and won't come. And in the meantime, the animal suffering and environmental destruction does not relent.

They're trying to expose you as a hypocrite for wanting things for yourself that you don't care about others having.

That said, not valuing rights seems a bit inconsistent with Marxism. IIRC it was the socialist states that insisted that the UN Declaration of Human Rights include such things as "education" and "housing" as basic human rights. Of course, every despotic regime in the world has signed up to that, so perhaps they were just being dishonest.

Again: I don't question the arguments in favor of veganism, I agree with them (I have better things to do than come here to piss off vegans). I don't question your right to treat your diet as an "ethical philosophy and way of life", i.e. something very close to a religion (it sounds like Buddhism).

I'm saying: what is the best way to get the most people - including techbros and everyone else - to eat as little meat as possible? If you care about ending animal suffering and saving the environment as much as you seem to do, then you should be interested in the answer to that question. It sounds to me like you're more interested in just holding the moral high ground personally. Would be delighted to be wrong.

This sounds like a prescription for a religion more than a diet.

Being religious is fine. The problem is that this approach is clearly not going to be effective at getting people to eat less meat.

You mean a tax. Yes I agree that would be the fairest solution. Let's say 1000%.

Any government that tries that will be voted out within about 3 minutes. The USA just elected a would-be dictator because inflation is 4% instead of 3%. Even if the tax is 10% you will have the farmers' lobby on your back and things will get really ugly really quickly.

There is basically no way, democratically or otherwise, in any reasonable timeframe, to get meat to the right price. You would first need to do decades of campaigning to change the narrative.

This is the rationale behind fake meat.

He's literally working for peanuts