3 ms·

yeah the whole sustainability issue arises because of our excessive consumption. Just limit your intake by at least 50% or more and then slowly raise it by eati

by f430 6y ago

yeah the whole sustainability issue arises because of our excessive consumption. Just limit your intake by at least 50% or more and then slowly raise it by eating more vegetables. The whole narrative around sustainability of meat has been completely hijacked by corporate interests who wants to push non-meat as meat. Their whole goal is to enmesh it at a cultural level so that they can increase sales, not really concerned about the real problem which is cruelty, indifference to the treatment of animals by the bovine industrial complex. We are simply seeing the usurpation of the latter group by a new commerce-first-pseudo-sustainability industrial complex. It's even more dangerous now because of the misinformation and groupthink by self appointed morality police.

Dylan16807 6y ago
> Their whole goal is to enmesh it at a cultural level so that they can increase sales, not really concerned about the real problem which is cruelty, indifference to the treatment of animals by the bovine industrial complex. The product solves animal cruelty and lots of the customers buy it for that reason, so why should I care very much that the company itself is amoral? > It's even more dangerous now because of the misinformation and groupthink by self appointed morality police. I'm sorry, did you just swerve immediately from complaining about people's morals into calling other people the morality police? And you're arguing that the people that are indifferent to animal suffering are being groupthinked into not causing that suffering, and that this is a bad thing?
- f430 6y ago
  > The product solves animal cruelty explain. > why should I care very much that the company itself is amoral? do you realize the paradox of this sentence?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > explain. There is no animal cruelty in its production, so that solves the problem of "making this kind of thing is cruel to animals". To be more specific, I mean the whole scenario of people buying it "as meat" removes all animal cruelty from their meat-motivated food purchases. Not that the product will stop people from kicking puppies somehow. > do you realize the paradox of this sentence? No, what is it? I said "amoral", not "immoral", and I said "very much". It's a little worrying that companies are amoral, but that applies to every company ever. If a company is doing a good thing, then I give it a thumbs up.
    - f430 6y ago
      explain how killing plants is the solution to the subsidized bovine industry's continued production of meats
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        The former replaces the latter 1:1. That's a solution on the product level. It's not a solution on the systemic level, but that's not what I meant. It's at the same level as "cut your intake 50%", but more effective.
        f430 6y ago
        > The former replaces the latter 1:1. wait what? so everybody is eating grass but being tricked into thinking its meat today? It's going to cause the government to kill subsidies therefore jobs and not get their votes from bovine states? Do you work for beyond meats or for fake meat industry? You sound exactly like a lobbyist. Ignorant of their commercial interests and completely brainwashed by their cultural narrative. You know not everybody shares your dull sense of taste right? You know people can taste the difference and they have no plans of accepting the future you fantasize right?
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        > wait what? so everybody is eating grass but being tricked into thinking its meat today? No, some people are eating grass and then not eating meat. And I'm not talking about today specifically but in general. 100 calories of A replace 100 calories of B. > It's going to cause the government to kill subsidies therefore jobs and not get their votes from bovine states? If people don't buy meat, then meat isn't made, subsidies or not. > Ignorant of their commercial interests and completely brainwashed by their cultural narrative. Whose interests? I'm not sure what you think I'm missing. > You know not everybody shares your dull sense of taste right? You know people can taste the difference and they have no plans of accepting the future you fantasize right? But... you were suggesting people eat less meat and more vegetables! Being able to tell the difference doesn't mean you can't swap one for the other.

by f430 6y ago

Dylan16807 6y ago

> Their whole goal is to enmesh it at a cultural level so that they can increase sales, not really concerned about the real problem which is cruelty, indifference to the treatment of animals by the bovine industrial complex. The product solves animal cruelty and lots of the customers buy it for that reason, so why should I care very much that the company itself is amoral? > It's even more dangerous now because of the misinformation and groupthink by self appointed morality police. I'm sorry, did you just swerve immediately from complaining about people's morals into calling other people the morality police? And you're arguing that the people that are indifferent to animal suffering are being groupthinked into not causing that suffering, and that this is a bad thing?

f430 6y ago
> The product solves animal cruelty explain. > why should I care very much that the company itself is amoral? do you realize the paradox of this sentence?
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > explain. There is no animal cruelty in its production, so that solves the problem of "making this kind of thing is cruel to animals". To be more specific, I mean the whole scenario of people buying it "as meat" removes all animal cruelty from their meat-motivated food purchases. Not that the product will stop people from kicking puppies somehow. > do you realize the paradox of this sentence? No, what is it? I said "amoral", not "immoral", and I said "very much". It's a little worrying that companies are amoral, but that applies to every company ever. If a company is doing a good thing, then I give it a thumbs up.
  - f430 6y ago
    explain how killing plants is the solution to the subsidized bovine industry's continued production of meats
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      The former replaces the latter 1:1. That's a solution on the product level. It's not a solution on the systemic level, but that's not what I meant. It's at the same level as "cut your intake 50%", but more effective.
      - f430 6y ago
        > The former replaces the latter 1:1. wait what? so everybody is eating grass but being tricked into thinking its meat today? It's going to cause the government to kill subsidies therefore jobs and not get their votes from bovine states? Do you work for beyond meats or for fake meat industry? You sound exactly like a lobbyist. Ignorant of their commercial interests and completely brainwashed by their cultural narrative. You know not everybody shares your dull sense of taste right? You know people can taste the difference and they have no plans of accepting the future you fantasize right?
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        > wait what? so everybody is eating grass but being tricked into thinking its meat today? No, some people are eating grass and then not eating meat. And I'm not talking about today specifically but in general. 100 calories of A replace 100 calories of B. > It's going to cause the government to kill subsidies therefore jobs and not get their votes from bovine states? If people don't buy meat, then meat isn't made, subsidies or not. > Ignorant of their commercial interests and completely brainwashed by their cultural narrative. Whose interests? I'm not sure what you think I'm missing. > You know not everybody shares your dull sense of taste right? You know people can taste the difference and they have no plans of accepting the future you fantasize right? But... you were suggesting people eat less meat and more vegetables! Being able to tell the difference doesn't mean you can't swap one for the other.