4 ms·

Otherwise known as 'veganism'. It's not at all a challenge for an individual any more except in certain areas (e.g. northern Norway). In most major cities veg

Otherwise known as 'veganism'. It's not at all a challenge for an individual any more except in certain areas (e.g. northern Norway). In most major cities vegan food is everywhere. In some countries McDonalds has vegan stuff for christ's sake. We arrived. It's about as much of a challenge as putting a differently coloured shirt on in the morning. Of course, you have to want that colour first. If you don't care, that's fine, but this shifty "oh but we're not ready", "falls out of the window" nonsense doesn't really come across well at all. Who are you trying to convince?

marvin 7y ago
Yes, I am talking about veganism. (I'm probably just incidentally arguing in favor of veganism by arriving at the same ethical reasoning; I don't follow the principles and views of this movement to any significant degree). It is obviously less convenient to be a vegan than to be omnivorous because, at the very least, you actually have to think about what you eat. Both from a purely pragmatic perspective ("does this product contain any animal products?") and wrt. healthy nutrition. It is practical to do this, but it's not convenient. And that makes a big difference in a society where time and attention is at a premium. Pragmatically, there needs to be a big shift in attitudes, probably prompted by the trivial availability of ingredients equivalent to the main classes of animal products, before the moral view that exploitation of animals is immoral will become mainstream.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Right; but you're conflating individual action with societal attitude. If you want to be vegan, no-one is stopping you. If you don't, don't. There is no need to sit on the fence all wishy-washy. I strongly disagree that it's not convenient. By that line of argument making any active choice at all is "not convenient". You specifically call out nutrition as an example. You can pretty much literally directly switch out meat for substitute meat. It's not convenient to say, cycle 30km to work instead of driving, without making major life changes. It takes substantially more time, changes the way in which errands are done, etc. Buying a different thing from the supermarket and cooking it is trivial. If anything eating meat is more faff because the risk of food poisoning is way higher if you e.g. cook chicken badly. I don't like coffee so I tend to drink tea. Is that inconvenient? It makes no sense to me as a concept; even if it is (it's really not), who cares? I don't want the coffee?

marvin 7y ago

Yes, I am talking about veganism. (I'm probably just incidentally arguing in favor of veganism by arriving at the same ethical reasoning; I don't follow the principles and views of this movement to any significant degree). It is obviously less convenient to be a vegan than to be omnivorous because, at the very least, you actually have to think about what you eat. Both from a purely pragmatic perspective ("does this product contain any animal products?") and wrt. healthy nutrition. It is practical to do this, but it's not convenient. And that makes a big difference in a society where time and attention is at a premium. Pragmatically, there needs to be a big shift in attitudes, probably prompted by the trivial availability of ingredients equivalent to the main classes of animal products, before the moral view that exploitation of animals is immoral will become mainstream.

esotericn 7y ago
Right; but you're conflating individual action with societal attitude. If you want to be vegan, no-one is stopping you. If you don't, don't. There is no need to sit on the fence all wishy-washy. I strongly disagree that it's not convenient. By that line of argument making any active choice at all is "not convenient". You specifically call out nutrition as an example. You can pretty much literally directly switch out meat for substitute meat. It's not convenient to say, cycle 30km to work instead of driving, without making major life changes. It takes substantially more time, changes the way in which errands are done, etc. Buying a different thing from the supermarket and cooking it is trivial. If anything eating meat is more faff because the risk of food poisoning is way higher if you e.g. cook chicken badly. I don't like coffee so I tend to drink tea. Is that inconvenient? It makes no sense to me as a concept; even if it is (it's really not), who cares? I don't want the coffee?