How so? The system of patriarchy is beyond any one individual to solve. Yet I’m damn certain you believe every man should still do their best not to contribute. Why should the system of animal exploitation (and environmental destruction, while we’re at it) be any different?

Is it because one of these requires actual work on your side? You are the one measuring the same thing by two different standards.

ANY effective, long-term collective change REQUIRES that the large majority of people CHANGE THEIR CONSUMPTION HABBITS. While not great, the private plane stuff is exactly as pointless as the paper straws. Both are ways for everyone to point the finger at everyone else, and not have to change.

If the government implemented the “correct” laws tomorrow, but the populace doesn’t want to change their habits, they will vote in people that give them back their old, bad things.

If a company implemented to “correct” processes, but the consumers don’t want to pay the necessary price, they go bankrupt, and the company with the “incorrect, but cheap” processes wins.

ALL COLLECTIVE ACTION IS A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL CHANGE. There is no alternative!

The common thread between both is religious extremism.

How is this blasphemy law different from the draconian anti-LGBT or anti-abortion laws in the USA? BOTH ARE JUSTIFIED with purely with religious feelings/opinions.

The intent is secondary to the effect. If certain muslim people cannot put their religious sensibilities BELOW the secular human rights of their fellow country men, they LITERALLY need to leave. They are literally bad for us, and our social, secular order. EXACTLY like the hardcore christians are bad for human rights in the USA.

It’s a law that protects religious books in a way non-religious books aren’t, just because it offends religious people. I don’t understand how that’s not a blasphemy law, Book Edition.

Having had lobster exactly once, I really don’t understand. The meat tastes like nothing, exactly like 99% of all meat. The only exception is a good beef cut, and that still has to be prepared correctly. Everything else is just about the butter, salt, spices.

The manual part I can kind of understand, honestly. There’s something rewarding about working for your food. Though I did feel like I’m using more energy to get the food than I end up consuming. It’s like a lick-mat for dogs.

It is not about taking them to public places and you damn well know that! It’s putting them into a metal tube with a lot of stressors and ruining the flight of many many other people just because you couldn’t be bothered to take a break from flying for the first 2-3 years of their life.

Does she even need Linux? 99% of things that run on Linux will also run on MacOS (or have a MacOS version). If you need a VM, Virtualbox is good enough. I’d recommend Ubuntu, simply because that’s what most people use, ergo you’ll find tutorials/information for every little aspect of it.

Not everything that elicits emotion is an appeal to emotion. If I argue with a conservative and say that “anti-trans legislation leads to more trans suicides of the children you pretend to protect”, is that an appeal to emotion just because the conversative might get emotional?

An appeal to emotion is backed solely by the other persons emotion, nothing else. The very accurate description of what meat is backed by logic and the morality of most people, if we’re being honest.

Now, regarding effectiveness, I don’t know what’s better. All I know is that the people that aren’t activist always seem to know exactly how to do activism correctly. This applies to anti-racism, or feminism too. “I agree with your message, but your actions are too extreme/disruptive/emotional/etc.” Personally, I believe that the correct activism is ALL the activism: The loud, and the practical, and the friendly.

Veganism is not a diet, so just giving recipes without a philosophical backing will likely not create a lifelong lifestyle shift.

Regarding tofu I’d say think of it like plain chicken. It has zero real taste of it’s own, so just put it into stuff that’s tasty. Since it doesn’t have to be cooked for a specific time like chicken or lentils, I often just crumple a bit into whatever I’m making if it’s lacking “mass”. I would honestly recommend an actual, real life, paper cookbook over following youtube videos. They’re often more detailed, and better for beginners esp.

So, unless they can reduce the harm they cause to 0%, any and all attempts to reduce it are futile and pointless? This is the nirvana fallacy, and I hope you understand how horrible that would be if we lived by that rule. For example, I can’t stop all racism, all human exploitation, all sexism because I live in a capitalistic hellscape built on the suffering of others. Therefore, I don’t actually need to try, correct?

Think about the argument you’re making here: “Wild animals do X, therefore humans should be allowed to do X”. I hope you understand how horrible this argument is. Here’s a fun little list of things animals do:

• Eat their young
• Grape
• Murder each other for status or access to women
• shit on the floor in public

Some beliefs lead to immoral outcomes. I’m absolutely certain you can think of quite a few beliefs like that, right? Just picture a hill billy from Alabama, are all his beliefs fine?

In the end, morals is applied ethics, and politics is applied morals. We absolutely should legislate and not tolerate bad beliefs. The vague idea that “everyone has their own belief/opinion and we have to respect it” is a thought terminating cliche that makes the world a worse place. My dad wants me to respect his antivax beliefs, my grandfather wants me to respect his climate change denialism beliefs. Should I?

Vegans, even life long vegans, exist. We do not need meat. And the reformist position overlooks the question whether it actually works. Convincing 10 people to CONSISTENTLY AND FOREVER decrease their meat intake by 10% is the same as convincing just 1 person to go vegan (aka 100% reduction). I don’t have studies either way, but anecdotally people are extremely bad at keeping up dietary/lifestyle changes, but veganism is a lot simpler. “No animal products” is simpler than “have I reached my 90% yet?”.

Again, would love some studies on this, but it just seems more like wishful thinking. Additionally, we could just encourage both.

The meme is questionable, no argument (aren’t most?)

But point 3 is just straight up wrong.

• There’s vegan body builders, including some that have literally never eaten a single piece of meat.
• There’s also a SIGNIFICANT difference between “enough protein to be healthy” and “enough protein for my entirely optional hobby”.
• 90% of the (wannabe) body builders I know still supplement with artificial proteins (powders, shakes, bars, etc.). You could do the same with vegan sources
• Most people also forgo taste pleasure anyway, eating just rice and chicken, or plain greek joghurt. At that point, might as well eat a block of Tofu

This meme really only makes sense in response to something. I’ve definitely heard many non-vegans complain that a vegan diet is restricting. Most of those people do only eat like 3 veggies ever.

That being said, it’s a meme, not a philosophical treatise.

Transport is a teensy tiny part of the climate/environmental impact for food. In 99.9% of cases, a plant-based food will beat out any meat from next door.

That being said, local in the sense things that actually grow locally and are in season is still a good idea, though more from a community building perspective.