this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
1393 points (95.1% liked)
Memes
51787 readers
1501 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Going vegan is according to the IPCC the single biggest step a individual can take. This does not take anything away from other actions we can simultaneous pursue. Veganism is growing and has despite being a small percentage of the population the potential for a change.
And it'd probably be a lot more convincing if my experience with vegans outside the past year or so weren't composed entirely of people pushing it on the basis of "killing animals is wrong."
Its a multitude of reasons for people to go vegan: The animals, their own health, the probability of not creating a living hell on earth. The reason why vegans try to convince others is often because after a few years most are so disconnected from the killing of others for taste where it is a giant argument. The suffering and abuse of 90 billion sentient land animals per year alone is for most good enough to stop supporting it. I have surrendered that argument for most discussions because it is hard to have that empathy while it is a part in your live. It wasn't for me, although is was not challenged in that view back then. So now my arguments moved more towards egoism which sometimes works.
i'm sure that's not true.
edit: i was right.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
E: Mind you, some of these numbers are already a few years old where there was no progress.
so... not the ipcc, but a fluff piece in the guardian.
Ah, is you again. ever concidered to go back to r/antivegan?
have you ever considered just sticking to thefacts instead of stretching the truth?
Have you ever considered giving a statement and proof?
https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/2346326
that doesn't actually say what you said it says. are you just searching IPCC and vegan and hoping to get something good?
I can't prove a negative. it est, it can't prove the ipccc didn't say what you claimed. I can only demand proof that they did say what you claimed. a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I understand the "tickle the vegans" for human interactions because of the hole "no friends" thing you got going on, but you have to get better material. Try "plants have feelings too" that way you can at least get some articles to reinforce your standpoint. If you continue every vegan arguing against you will seem calm and reasonable compared to you. I have read the papers, and the people who wrote it say what I posted. You make even antivegans look worse which is not a problem for me but its not good for your cause.
my only "cause" is to engage on a topic i find interesting and keep the discussion honest. your assumptions about my motives are simply wrong. i'm not even anti-vegan.
You are a pigeon who looks always looks for the same board to run over, get better material.
this is just a personal attack. it doesn't undermine my position at all.
i have read these papers too. i thought maybe you would have something i haven't read. turns out you just can't keep to the facts and insist on embellishing.
nice edit: appeals to authority are not sufficient evidence of the truth of the matter.
oof. maybe you shouldn't use that link:
looks like flexitarian is the actual recommendation, but it's not even clear whether that's a good recommendation since food is only one of the outputs of animal agriculture including ruminants.
Do you need it in your native language or do you have problems reading?
meat reduction is main option to reduce GHG and pressure on land. It will be difficult to decrease (because of boneheads like you)
is about vegetables and that transport is not such a huge part of the chain
efficiency lowers GHG even more and import is sometimes better
dietary change can reduce the chance of warming to less than 2°C which is the path we are on with animal industry.
Maybe try to first form a argument instead of mindlessly posting parts that argue for my position.
someone is having problems with reading comprehension, but it's not me.
calling me a bonehead doesn't change what the ipcc says
that is not supported by any of the sources you linked.
It is supported by the very same text you posted.
Their calculations include animal products because they account for dense people like you for some time.
Get a live
calling me dense doesn't change what the ipcc actually said. you should stop exaggerating: it's bad for your case when people find out you're lying to them.
no. i don't have an argument. i have problems with your argument.
Counterpoint, eating a single billionaire would do more to reduce emissions than lifetime of veganism.