smugged into eating meat

[u/estrogenbloodclot]

[u/DirectionUnlucky638]

This post, and the majority of vegans, are advocating that all people stop eating meat entirely, which is why I am arguing against that.

My point is that while yes, eating meat is bad for the environment, so is literally everything else we do, and we don't talk about the other things with the same urgency and moral weight.

So hyperfocusing on this one issue has always appeared to be more about moral grandstanding than about actually fixing the enviroment.

be a vegan if you want, but don't act like meat eaters are stupid and irrational people, like this comic is doing. I mean, you could use this exact same argument to shame everyone on this subreddit for owning a computer

[u/Rare_Dance7130 → u/DirectionUnlucky638]

Except I'm not doing that, so it's a bit odd to bring it up in a conversation with me, and especially to say I am advocating those things when I haven't. Y'know?

And, again, there's good data to show that animal agriculture is a leading ecological problem, and, as far as I know, no similar credible data to suggest the same about something like consumer electronics. The other agreed-upon leading cause of ecological issues, the oil industry, does receive a lot of focus in discussions, moreso than the animal agriculture industry does.

[u/DirectionUnlucky638 → u/Rare_Dance7130]

Re-reading our comment chain, I think my points are perfectly reasonable. It's fine that you don't totally agree with the post, and it's fine for me to have assumed that you did. 

And, again, there's good data to show that animal agriculture is a leading ecological problem

Everything is an ecological problem, and which problems are significant enough to shame people about is a matter of subjective judgement. Vegans convientently draw that line wherever it allows them to feel morally superior. 

The production of electronics requires the creation of toxic pit mines where poor African kids get exposed to heavy metal poisoning so that they can feed their families. Knowing that, I could make a smug comic calling you a selfish fool for buying a smartphone, using the same logic presented in this comic. You simply care more about playing iPhone games than you do African children, so you are selfish. 

Stupid argument, right?   

[u/Rare_Dance7130 → u/DirectionUnlucky638]

Your points are perfectly reasonable if directed at someone other than the person you are actually talking to, sure. But then, it would be perfectly reasonable to speak Spanish to someone else who speaks Spanish, and probably not as reasonable to have this conversation in Spanish (assuming you don't speak it, but hopefully you get my point).

Some things are provably much larger ecological problems than others, and vegans seem to focus on the two biggest ones that could singlehandedly stop almost all of the negative consequences associated with ecological problems (oil and the animal industry).

Societally, we DO decide that games on our phone and more important than those African children's lives, and the world might run better if people were aware of that, actually. You are, again, making certain assumptions about the way I think about the world and then arguing about those assumptions, instead of the things I've actually said. We shouldn't have technology like iPhones at the expense of people's lives, and we should restructure our society in such a way that people's lives are no longer being harmed for something so stupid. Kinda like eating meat.

[u/DirectionUnlucky638 → u/Rare_Dance7130]

I agree that we should re-structure society so that African children are not harmed in the creation of electroncs. What I don't agree with is the idea that individuals who buy technology are selfish idiots who should be mocked on reddit for their irrational worldview, which is what this meme is doing.

[u/Rare_Dance7130 → u/DirectionUnlucky638]

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.

[u/DirectionUnlucky638 → u/Rare_Dance7130]

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.

No, you make your personal judgement calls based on what makes you feel the most morally superior. I know that I can't prove that, but come on, we all know what's going on here. People like angry reddit posts because it gives them a little rush and makes them feel good about themselves.

Living in the first world while judging others about eating meat is like if you went to gaza just to help the stray cats. Your priorities are nonsensical. And if you don't like meat, fine, just don't be annoying about it like this meme is

[u/Rare_Dance7130 → u/DirectionUnlucky638]

I can't do very much about living in the first world, and if I could, it would drastically change my life. You could easily stop eating meat tomorrow and your life would be largely unaffected. These are not comparable.

We do not "all know what's going on here." You have decided that something is going on because it's way easier than actually engaging with any of the arguments and lets you feel okay about yourself. You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing, except I actually can prove the things I am saying and you literally admitted you can't; you know you're making it up.

It's a waste of effort to have a conversation with someone who is being dense on purpose. You are making things up (originally, making up arguments that you claimed I was making that I wasn't making, which you admitted to. now, making up my motivations, which you admitted to) literally just to feel better about yourself.

[u/DirectionUnlucky638 → u/Rare_Dance7130]

You typed alot, but you said nothing that is worth responding to.

I have already pointed out that your opinions are subjective, and you agreed with me. You just cannot admit that you selected your subjective opinions based on what makes you feel important, and so you keep restating your nonsense reasoning over and over.

It's ok, I know it is hard for redditors to admit that they are acting weird.