3 ms·
That's a completely flawed analogy. This is like seeing a smoker who smokes a pack a day and saying "could you try half a pack and be that much safer?" In this
by ivraatiems 4y ago
That's a completely flawed analogy. This is like seeing a smoker who smokes a pack a day and saying "could you try half a pack and be that much safer?"
In this analogy, you come along and say "don't bother, you're gonna get lung cancer and die anyway."
- 0daystock 4y agoI think that's fair, but to a heavy smoker living on a pack a day, I indeed would recommend total abstinence for ideal health - not merely reducing to half-harm. Though it may seem like the softer reduction approach would be more supported, I believe it only serves as a mechanism for the smoker to lose control and relapse again and again. It is a subjective philosophy, so I don't expect we'll totally agree, but I thank you for the discussion.
- sky-kedge0749 4y agoCounterexample: I'm lacto-ovo vegetarian but not vegan partly because the anxiety and stress involved in checking ingredients for ethical purity, or worrying about honey or bone-bleached sugar or rennet in cheese, is not good for me.
- ivraatiems 4y agoI see what you're saying -- that's true in the case of addiction. I don't know that addiction is the right model for consumption of animal products, given that you can reduce your consumption of them (I have!) without triggering as much of a biological feedback loop geared to get you to increase consumption. It's not a totally inappropriate metaphor, though. I agree, we probably just have a difference of approach here. I'd still suggest that delivering the message in a way that is more empathetic towards the person trying to make the change would be likely to get better results in terms of changing minds.
- trash_goblin 4y agoExcept we have smoking AND meat substitutes but don't let reality stop you from having fun