• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    How would we do that without dramatically reducing the amount of meat being produced?

    maybe you can’t, but it seems like you think that would be a good outcome.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        i didn’t say there is anything wrong with it. and if their plan (increased welfare standards) leads to that, i would think you would support it.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 days ago

          Well, one plan involves convincing western politicians and the companies that pay for them, to self regulate. The other involves personal choice.

          So I guess I chose the easy one.

          Also vegans do participate in animal activism of course. They just won’t argue for better ways to slaughter animals.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 days ago

              Well, your graph could just as easily support my position as it could go against it.

              I see a line that could be higher if not for the personal choice of a collective of vegans, vegetarians, and generally healthier people.

              You see proof vegans aren’t making a difference. Where’s your proof that the line is unaffected by vegans? Do you have anything else that proves being vegan is an effort in futility?

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                Do you have anything else that proves being vegan is an effort in futility?

                i’ve never said that. i think if you want to avoid animal products, then doing so is its own reward. but if you want to decrease animal slaughter, it’s ineffective.

                i suggest that you go where animals are being slaughtered and stop it.

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  Reducing animal suffering is the goal. And putting myself in prison wouldnt help anything. Also I doubt american prisons would give me a vegan diet anyways.

                  The goal is similar to cigarettes. Regulation came about once the general public became aware of the health risks for even non smokers.

                  Right now its not as well known by the general public how unhealthy diets that are heavy in meat can be.

                  By being vegan, and making it more normal for those I interact with, it shows broadens what people know about it.

                  I’m personally banking that americans are so selfish they will reduce meat consumption purely for health/cosmetic reasons alone, like to avoid heart disease or to lose weight.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 days ago

                    putting myself in prison wouldnt help anything.

                    i didn’t say you should be in prison. i suggested a way you could actually stop animal slaughter.

                    edit:

                    i believe in your creativity and resourcefulness, and i think you can come up with a way that effectively and directly reduces slaughter without landing in prison. perhaps if you looked up your local animal liberation front, you would find some allies to help in your endeavor.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                I see a line that could be higher if not for the personal choice of a collective of vegans, vegetarians, and generally healthier people.

                you can’t prove a counterfactual. but it is a fact that vegans exist, and the chart continues to rise.

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  How many would have to be vegan before youll admit it would affect the supply of meat? 75%? 90%? Is there just a crossover point for you or you think if noone ate meat that graph would still go up?

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 days ago

                    Is there just a crossover point for you or you think if noone ate meat that graph would still go up?

                    i honestly don’t know. i do know vegans exist, and i suspect there are more now than ever, but the line still goes up.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                Well, your graph could just as easily support my position as it could go against it.

                no, it’ can’t. this is an unscientific claim.