This is not a proper dichotomy as organic isn’t about level of processing, it deals with farming conditions and species.

Also processing a spectrum. For example a smoothie and juice are both processed fruit but the smoothie has everything that the whole foods have in it while the juice is missing some of the nutrients, notably the fiber. If you then add refined sugar to that juice to make it more palatable that is further processing, and if you reduce that juice to a jelly that is further processing, with each of these processing stages you are making the food more calorically dense. Processing can also make a food easier to eat or improve the nutrition though, processing isn’t inherently a good or bad thing but it very often is one of those.

The reason progressive liberals believe that people to the left of them are actually the right wing is because they imagine they are as far left as you can be, and by left they mean right (correct).

Just Egg is only expensive because the company is interested in catering to a niche for those high margins. It is made from incredibly cheap ingredients like bean flour so it’s annoying that it is so expensive.

How is that hypocritical? I’m sure most people would want to see the CEO serving life instead, but his ilk are not who the prisons are made for. Slavery and murder can be legal when done with policy, and rather than the state going after these villains it defends them with force.

No wok? Also safety razors are great and I’m guessing the only reason cartridges won out is because of marketing, then the following generation forgot there was another option.

That’s not important. I was illustrating that clearly if nobody ate chicken nobody would harvest chickens for food. Unless you think that the same amount of chickens will be harvested until the very last human gives up chicken then you have to acknowledge that the individual consumer does make a difference.

If you don’t eat chicken nobody is going to swoop in and eat all the chicken you don’t eat. However if a farmer or farming corporation decides to stop harvesting chickens then it’s almost certain some entity will swoop in to replace them in the market. So acting like the consumer here is not one of the if not the most important part in this causal chain is just naive.

That is pretty irrelevant. You purchasing the product signals a certain demand for it, that demand will help determine how much product is requested in the future, there is a cascading effect all the way up the supply chain. Sure an additional chicken might not be bred just because you purchased a chicken, it’s way more abstract than that. Maybe if a hundred more chickens are bought then a hundred more chickens will be bred as replacements plus extra to account for growth and failed product (dead or sick chickens). And if you were one of the hundred people who purchased a chicken you can be seen as one hundredth responsible for at least a hundred chickens which is the same as being responsible for the 1+ chicken. Do you think if nobody purchased chickens that they would just keep stocking the shelves?

Most people I’ve talked to, which is mostly nonvegans, think it is unethical to let cats outside because they will kill wild animals. This is a more hypocritical stance than the reverse (a vegan who lets their cat outside) if you understand veganism.

You’re also throwing around the word forced. People force choices on their pets, children, and even fellow adults all the time, but there are different levels of force. Putting down food for a cat that gladly eats it is a far cry away from shoving something down their throat or leaving it out until they have no choice but to eat it. I’d argue that it’s often very appropriate to make food choices for a cat you live with, if a cat begs for some lasagna or a donut you probably shouldn’t give it to them.

Edit: Also when people talk about forcing cats onto a vegan diet you have to realize the alternative is forcing livestock to suffer serious trauma for their entire life and then die. It’s not hard to see that one of these is a more serious abuse of our power over other animals.

Humans are good at pulling nutrients from all sorts of sources but those sources have to actually contain the nutrients in the first place, we don’t have some magic ability to just eat one thing with no supplementation and get all our nutrients.

Dogs are omnivores.

Supplements are already in the livestock (that we feed the cats) feed and animal based cat food. Yes it’s harder to get most cats to take a pill than a human adult, but that really isn’t necessary it can just be put in the food itself, and it is.

Do you have a problem with the word chud? Because you sure sound like one.

Call me crazy but I mess my fries up and eat them with a fork.

I wouldn’t judge a book by its cover. Following aesthetic trends is just being savvy, it’s not necessarily compensating for something.

That part also confused me.

It was, I’m pretty ace but still enjoy lewd humor for whatever reason.

More of a bean-licker.

Non sequitur and you ain’t cute.

So reactionary, you going to start complaining about loud blue haired feminists next? Apparently it is too much to acknowledge those who can’t advocate for themselves, but perfectly fine to participate in their genocide.

Vegetarianism (or in his case pescetarianism) is not inherently reductionarian, so him saying he’s become much more vegetarian isn’t really meaningful without knowing how much of that land based meat was replaced with fish and cheese. Dairy comes from cattle or other ruminants, just like red meat. Fishing is ravaging the seas like agriculture is ravaging the land.

L’esprit de l’escalier