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?
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?
Its pretty minor. The real gains are countries setting their national policy around diets that are half or more plant based. That sends a clear message about what role meat should have in a healthy diet, and will affect the most people.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe I shouldnt assume. I thought you meant to go to a factory farm and rescue animals. If theres a way to do that without legal risk Im game. Is that what you meant?
Whats wrong with reducing meat production?
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.
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.
but if it’s ineffective, then it is no better.
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?
no, it’ can’t. this is an unscientific claim.
It’s a graph. It doesnt interpret itself. It doesnt really do anything on its own.
it can only support your position if you could prove your counterfactual, which you cannot.
Well, if you look at the graphs last three points, it goes up from the first to the second much higher than it does from the second to the third.
Should I just assume there was a production problem that caused the reduction?
What’s caused that very minor decrease in the rate?
you can’t prove a counterfactual. but it is a fact that vegans exist, and the chart continues to rise.
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?
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.
Its pretty minor. The real gains are countries setting their national policy around diets that are half or more plant based. That sends a clear message about what role meat should have in a healthy diet, and will affect the most people.
You could call that regulation I suppose.
Edit: https://www.norden.org/en/news/less-meat-more-plant-based-here-are-nordic-nutrition-recommendations-2023
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.
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.
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.
Maybe I shouldnt assume. I thought you meant to go to a factory farm and rescue animals. If theres a way to do that without legal risk Im game. Is that what you meant?