How the fuck are you going to build an equal and fair society when learning how to boil beans is too much sacrifice? Clowns.

I don’t see people opposed to beans nearly so much as I see them desiring of ground beef. Go into any vanilla Mexican Restaurant worth its salt and you can find both.

I wouldn’t call “giving up meat” a minor life change so much as I’d call it giving up a simple and abundant luxury. The fact that it comes through the suffering of an animal whose fate is totally obscured to you matters about as much as the cheap plastic bobble head lining your desk bothers you for being produced in a sweatshop.

A lot of this is simply structural. Tastes developed through childhood. Supply chains built out over generations. Advertising and cultural norms baked into the adult human consciousness over a lifetime. They won’t change optionally. They’ll have to shift as a matter of necessity.

Only after you have generations of people who are adapted and accustomed to a near-to-total vegan diet (as we’ve got for the billions living throughout Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America) are you going to see a serious shift in human behavior. This isn’t just going to be a nation’s worth of individuals making personal lifestyle changes.

Boiling beans takes so much time though. But canned beans are cheapish and healthier than that microwave dinner.

That’s a perception problem. It’s not that boiling beans is a big sacrifice - I do it all the time - I’m just not convinced that killing animals and eating them is bad. But I wouldn’t do that to a person, and I’m in favor of universal health care, basic income, and treating people equally. Not giving cows and chickens the same consideration doesn’t make someone incapable of working for a fair and equitable society. You’re doing the same “if you aren’t 100% on my side you’re the enemy” thing that you seem to be accusing the other person of.

How are you gonna build an equal and fair society when learning how to bridge the gaps to the huge sections of population that don’t share your ideology is too hard?

If we took away strawmanning, there wouldn’t be much Internet left.

I bought a bag of tvp and I fucking hate it. it is not a good mix-in for ramen, which is pretty much the only use case I’ve come up with. but it’s such cheap protein! can you keep me make it yummy?

You can have two people agree on 90% of things but because they have 10% of a disagreement

I believe the views of the DC leadership are heavily divorced from the median voter. Whether you’re talking about Medicare expansion, civil rights, student debts, or our current spat of overseas occupations, conflicts, and genocides, the gulf is far larger than 10%.

We fixate on a few key issues as a litmus test for ideological sympathy. But the idea that Pelosi, Schumer, and Harris genuinely share the views and understandings of your median Pennsylvania or Arizona voter… hell, even your Vermont or California voter, hasn’t born out.

The class divide is wide and even the most progressive-seeming liberals don’t seriously want to bridge the gap.

I wonder if there’s an observable power spike in Russian data centers every time a post like this gets made?

This is absolutely true. I personally realised, that online discussions about veganism are useless. Every single time it ends in a shit show. In real life you can have very good and meaningful discussion and even if you may disagree with them in some parts, you can at least learn why they think the way it is.

It’s sort of the same thing with internet atheism. The online versions are always a cartoon villain version of the real deal.

Those are nowhere near me, you idiot

two of these three images rely on poore-nemecek 2018, a paper that i don’t trust to tell me the co2e of co2

Except we have more than enough food to feed the world AND THEN SOME under the status quo, food insucurity is atleast now before climate change messes with everything a contrived problem that is made by capitalism, not by production

Oat milk is GOAT milk. Not the animal, the expression.

That is not what genocide means.

And there you go proving at least one side of the panel correct.

Most western cultures think that they’ve experienced moral progress over time. These aren’t mere intuitions, however, as these observations often admit of some deep analysis. For example, some argue that our modern liberal intuitions (e.g. everyone is born free, etc.) are grounded in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was responding to earlier moral philosophy and was responded to himself in turn. Kant distilled these intuitions into a rigorous metaphysics of moral philosophy, which was still used quite actively well into the 70s.

Now, philosophers don’t think that ‘views have changed, therefore there is no truth.’ Instead, they realize that good analysis of these earlier arguments reveals that they’re close to right but skate around some important moral issues that can be unpacked with analysis. There’s truth that can be found. It appears to all the relevant experts that moral thought is developing in a way that’s strongly analogous to mathematical or natural scientific thought.

These are some of the reasons that subjectivism and relativism are extremely unpopular among experts.

Although we can observe and say that although there are people who have different moral systems than us, such as psychopaths and Spartans; we can actually scientifically evaluate the merits of the competing moral systems and their objective performance in the long run and historically. Historically, evolution has shown that altruistic humans are indeed “fitter” and objectively, game theory has shown that cooperative strategies are objectively better than selfish strategies in the long run.

You don’t need examples or have to worry about cherry-picking. They’re not ours to use. You can’t humanely take a life of something that doesn’t want to die.

Consider that neither the wish to be free from suffering nor the wish to continue existing is unique to our species; these interests are shared by all sentient animals, and indeed can be seen as fundamental biological drives. And if my interest in not being harmed or killed makes it wrong to harm or kill me when harming or killing me can be avoided, then an animal’s interest in not being harmed or killed makes it likewise wrong for us to harm or kill animals when doing so can be avoided.

Here’s the problem with that:

“But I don’t want to go to Sizzler.”