Chocolate.

What is the best way to get the most people - including techbros and everyone else - to eat as little meat as possible?

My opposition to techbros in the vegan context stems from the argument that posits tasty vegan burger patties specifically or “artificial meat” generally as some sort of prerequisite for personally adopting veganism.

Once artificial meat is ready, I’m going vegan. - This is a moving-goalposts argumentative fallacy.

My opinion is that the best way to get a maximum of people to eat less meat is to convince them of/for veganism, because once a critical share of a society actually holds a opinion, society-wide change can will happen more rapidly and somewhat spontaneously. Society-wide change can then render carnist behaviour (i.e. animal product production chain, hunting etc.) impossible, undesired, deviant or illegal.

This social tipping point isn’t possible IMO, when the people behaving plant-based are not actually vegan (i.e. convinced by the vegan philosophy).

“Veganism = Religion” is a thought-terminating cliché, a knockout argument.

There are no unfalsifiable entities (i.e. gods, prophets) in the vegan philosophy.

Veganism is not a diet, it is an ethical philosophy and way of life.

I’m not against vegan burger patties, their development and further market penetration. The absence of vegan burger patties on the other hand would not end veganism or rob it of any argumentative strength.

Is this SovCit meeting Stirner? Do I have to say the word?

Following questions:

Do you see yourself as human?

Do you value your life and body integrity? Do you value life and body integrity of other beings, like friends?

Do you avoid experiencing violence?

I want to convince them and not trick them into a situation.

Yeah, vegan patties are tasty, if have no choice but to live vegan now is not how any of this works. This might be a joke colleagues or friends tell each other, but the argument and emotional belief system of its speaker is incomplete for veganism.

Veganism is one of the most binary philosophies - there are no consistent half-vegans.

So? Humans have the ability intentionally NOT to kill animals for consumption and the ability to make up rights.

The externality vs internality of rights discourse doesn’t externalise your personhood with rights.

I bet those cows wanted some parts of Maslow’s needs as well.

Why is your self-actualisation more important than a cow’s existence?

Taste is not argument for carnism because it isn’t just to compare taste to right to exist.

Veganism is not really a technology issue, it is a philosophy of minimising suffering.

Veganism does not rely on trapping carnists, it relies on convincing carnists.

Burger patty taste does not excuse genetically modifying and killing a sentient being. If vegan burger patties taste 70-90% as good as carnists burger patties, that’s more than enough to live with.

Of course, improving taste can be good, but veganism is not a substitute.

Refusing veganism because vegan burger patties do not taste good enough is cognitive dissonance, burger patty taste is not an argument for carnism.

How is that not just a techbro problem?

We may not like the result, but it proofed a point for the EU and the UK: The EU is a voluntary federation unlike the US and direct democracy is a thing in the UK sometimes (still largely symbolic though).

As an EU-citizen, I feel like this is a UK decision and not a US decision.

cat && curl

top || iptables

I don’t really know this talk.

What kebab would you recommend for this lovely day? Me and my company take the best canned beer you can acquire, as well.

doas

echo “Please put an NSFW tag on this. I was on the train and when I saw this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like “what the fuck” and “call the police”. I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this. Now there is a whole train of folks masturbating together at this. This is all your fault, you could have prevented this if you had just tagged this NSFW.”

I’d argue that at this point, sticking to the collective vs individual dichotomy of climate attribution and action potential is climate action delayist. When your argument relies you or your group intentionally doing absolutely nothing to combat climate change, you don’t really have climate change in mind.

Leftism sometimes cares more about class than its very foundation, the environment, to understand why there is a problem with blame-shifting.

I’ve seen this in a similar fashion in relationship advice forums: Commenters not engaging with the issue or person, but knee-jerk reacting with advising instant breakup.

I haven’t been on reddit for over a year, but I cannot imagine that topics like say atheism don’t polarise. What makes you think it is the case?

I don’t quite understand your point. Do you maybe have some examples to understand better?

I wonder if some place puts lingonberries on their pizza…