What I mean is that I don’t have any control over whether it dies. People want to eat it, and they are not amenable to the idea they shouldn’t. But they are amenable to the idea that it shouldn’t be tortured beforehand. Reduction of harm is always good even if it’s not perfect.
I also said I’m not sure that it’s possible for everyone to live healthfully without consuming some animal products. I personally haven’t been able to maintain a vegan diet for longer than two months any of the many times I’ve tried, so I’m not in a position to lecture anyone on what they eat.
Overall, I think a baby steps approach is the most realistically achievable path to a potential future of zero harm. (I don’t say vegan here because I don’t object to symbiotic forms of exploitation such as pet ownership or beekeeping.)
FYI, the user you’re arguing with is a <1d account that has only posted in this thread. I appreciate the effort you’re putting in, for those of us who have a very limited palette of what their body will tolerate. But don’t wear yourself out on an ableist troll.
Meats and cheese are like 10 things. There are thousands of edible plants and fungi to choose from. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this sort of argument is just a lazy rationalization so people can avoid grappling with the consequences of their actions.
It is similarly not ableist to condemn kidnapping people to forcibly harvest their organs for transplants.
They don’t necessarily need to be trolling. I completely understand the passion and don’t exactly disagree with them. Most people aren’t consuming meat as a necessary evil; they’re often consuming it in excess because it’s enjoyable, even when they already understand the horrors of factory farming. It’s upsetting and frustrating and I just want to do what I think is most likely to improve the situation.
What I mean is that I don’t have any control over whether it dies. People want to eat it, and they are not amenable to the idea they shouldn’t. But they are amenable to the idea that it shouldn’t be tortured beforehand. Reduction of harm is always good even if it’s not perfect.
I also said I’m not sure that it’s possible for everyone to live healthfully without consuming some animal products. I personally haven’t been able to maintain a vegan diet for longer than two months any of the many times I’ve tried, so I’m not in a position to lecture anyone on what they eat.
Overall, I think a baby steps approach is the most realistically achievable path to a potential future of zero harm. (I don’t say vegan here because I don’t object to symbiotic forms of exploitation such as pet ownership or beekeeping.)
FYI, the user you’re arguing with is a <1d account that has only posted in this thread. I appreciate the effort you’re putting in, for those of us who have a very limited palette of what their body will tolerate. But don’t wear yourself out on an ableist troll.
Meats and cheese are like 10 things. There are thousands of edible plants and fungi to choose from. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this sort of argument is just a lazy rationalization so people can avoid grappling with the consequences of their actions.
It is similarly not ableist to condemn kidnapping people to forcibly harvest their organs for transplants.
They don’t necessarily need to be trolling. I completely understand the passion and don’t exactly disagree with them. Most people aren’t consuming meat as a necessary evil; they’re often consuming it in excess because it’s enjoyable, even when they already understand the horrors of factory farming. It’s upsetting and frustrating and I just want to do what I think is most likely to improve the situation.