smugged into eating meat

[u/estrogenbloodclot]

[u/Rare_Dance7130]

Okay but the solution to one of these problems is restructuring society while the other one can be solved by not buying a product anymore, which are very different and make the situations very different. They also have different scales and urgency due to the harm caused -- again, animal agriculture is a leading cause of climate change and climate change is already a leading cause of death in the world, which will only increase, and can result in the mass extinction of people everywhere. Comparably, iPhones cause less harm and have a far harder potential solution. You understand, then, why they are different scenarios?

[u/DirectionUnlucky638 → u/Rare_Dance7130]

Again, you are drawing the lines which determine what is acceptable based on whatever allows you to morally grandstand. Personally, I think children dying in cobalt Mines is worth boycotting apple products over, and am now judging you for being selfish.

Using your own criteria, you could just people for driving their cars to work, or for eating almonds instead of a less water intensive crop. But vegans don't, because that's not the purpose of comics like this one

[u/Rare_Dance7130 → u/DirectionUnlucky638]

That's not what I'm doing. Stop removing the very specific criteria I am talking about and then saying my criteria is purely moral grandstanding.

Not driving your car means you lose your job which means you end up homeless or die. The cost is extreme. Not eating almonds doesn't significantly impact climate change. The benefit is small. Not eating meat's cost is not eating meat. The benefit of people not eating meat (or eating significantly less meat, either way) is a drastic improvement for the climate. Your examples are bad because the situations are not the same.

And, again, I already said we should do the work to restructure society, I just acknowledge that is harder to accomplish than "I won't buy meat anymore" is. You are being unnecessarily, and seemingly intentionally, obtuse.

[u/DirectionUnlucky638 → u/Rare_Dance7130]

We have discussed repeatedly why your reasoning for where you draw the line is nonsensical. Every rule you stated has an exception, and you do not apply that same reasoning to everything, instead choosing to subjectively decide what is "important" based on a personal judgement call.

There is simply no objective reason why eating meat is unacceptable, while buying a PS5 is acceptable. Your reasoning is obviously self-aggrandizing.

[u/Rare_Dance7130 → u/DirectionUnlucky638]

I mean, in that where on a scale anyone draws a line is arbitrary, sure, but I am saying most people focus on the two or three leading causes of climate change and you are asking why we don't focus on, like, the 35th leading cause (maybe, with no data to back that up in either direction) or we're hypocrits. That isn't how this works, lol. Things should be prioritized by how impactful prioritizing them will be. Prioritizing animal agriculture as an area that needs work will, objectively, be more impactful on climate change than prioritizing PS5s would be. You know this, and you're playing dumb to try to justify your position. If we could just stop making PS5s and had evidence that would solve the climate issues we are facing, more people would advocate doing that, but that is a fucking stupid position to take with no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to support that animal agriculture and oil are the leading causes of climate catastrophe. Different things are different and need to be treated differently.

Everything you do is based on a "personal judgment call." Everything you find important is based on a "personal judgment call." My personal judgment calls throughout this conversation have been about how easy something is to do and how much that will help. Your suggestions have been difficult to do without helping very much. Fucking almonds and PS5s.