You're viewing part of a thread.
This is why I find it confused.
I just told you how I'm doing what I can, and having great success convincing others to do the same
I told you I don't subscribe to your moral system
You've entirely ignored most of what I've said and failed to engage me in any area where we have common ground. Instead, you attacked me for not doing more under your own value system
You're working at cross purposes to your goals... You're a hardliner. This approach is why some of my family gatherings have a vegan and a "normal" option for foods that taste basically the same. This is why I can't reach some of my family members on this topic - they were attacked and talked down to for their eating habits, now it's about winning and losing for them
Veganism is not the highest ethics of eating habits. The correct answer to my concern for the suffering of plants was a fruititarian diet... But it isn't higher in my own value system, due to the transport involved
Doing more for me means growing my own food, and maybe keeping chickens. Maybe hunting the occasional deer. It means reintegrating with the ecosystem... But I'm not able to do that yet
Also, voting with your wallet is a lie to keep people complacent. Systematic issues must be solved systematically - already there're huge subsidies for the meat industry to keep prices down and for big agro to over produce certain crops. This can only be changed through collective action
So if you don't want me to see you as confused, ask yourself "what are my goals?" and "am I using the best methods available to me to meet my goals?"
Claiming I'm the one who's confused only makes you seem delusional. You seem desperate to stir the conversation into a direction where you're getting praised for your diet choices, while I'm still amused about your original comment.
You're standing on the proud achievement of a claim that is not only wrong, even if it was true, it wouldn't work as an argument in your favor. Maybe on some intellectually detached level you are in fact aware how stupid of an argument that really is, so now you're trying to change the topic to vegan goals and systematic issues and convincing people of your unsurpassable approach to a sustainable lifestyle.
I am not a hardliner by any means. And I'm not even talking down your eating habits. I'm talking down dumb arguments.
Ok, I'll draw the through line for you
Meme about bees being animals or not, to know if honey fit the rules for veganism. No discussions about the well being of bees, the environmental impact of beekeeping, or anything else was present. Only if it followed a rule or not
I find this ridiculous - it's lost the plot. Being vegan isn't some cosmic good - the farming industry is horrible in numerous ways, but bees cannot be battery farmed.
Industrial honey production requires large untamed fields of wildflowers, which I consider good. Bees are good pollinators, I consider them good. Bees are dying out due to unrelated human activity, which is bad. Honey production requires more bees, and harming the delicate insects is disincentivized by nature - the well being of the bees is required for honey production
I then made it clear I was operating under my own moral framework, which from what I know of beekeeping (and I could be missing information), judges beekeeping as a good thing
I then alluded to my own moral framework, which recognizes that to live, the suffering of life is required. We are animals, and while we can minimize the suffering, we can't live without it. Damage to the environment causes more suffering to life than anything else, so it's the priority
Then you asked if I was already vegan, I said no. I explained that I eat little animal products, ethically sourced when practical. You took that opportunity to say I should do more - but by eating meat rarely I reduce the meat consumption of others easily, doing far more to further what should be our shared goals than I ever could individually
I don't need or want praise for my eating habits - I want my habits to spread. I want as many people to do what they can when they can - that's all I ask of others, and that messaging works. I'll tell them it saves money if that's their concern, I'll tell them of the horrors of the meat industry in passing, I'll tell them about how obesity is unnatural and result of highly processed foods, or the health implications. I tell them what will resonate with them, without judgement.
I know my goals, and I'm using the best methods I have available to spread them. I'm not confused at all - I know my goals, I'm conscious of my choices. I'm deliberate in my words and actions.
Our goals are mostly aligned, and yet I believe your messaging undermines mine. Our goals require collective action. You demand more of me under your moral framework, yet I feel no understanding from you, you've offered no new information, only judgement. Why is that?
Because I've never actually tried to convince you, or praise veganism, or do any of the things you'd like to argue against to begin with. You are arguing against an army of strawmen.
Then you should definitely go vegan. A vegan diet comes with the least amount of plant deaths and plant suffering, since lifestock is being fed with billions of individual plants before being slaughtered. You can save all of them.
Sounds like there is still some room for improvement in terms of "eating as sustainably as they can" then.
What is your goal, and what are your methods to get there?
You genuinely asking yourself that means far more to me than winning some Internet argument. Our goals are mostly aligned - I want you and your movement to succeed. But your methods push our shared goals further away.
It's frustrating.
What is your goal, and what are your methods to get there?
I wanted to show that your argument is stupid. That's it, really.