Conversation

Notices

1. Christi Junior (christijunior@bae.st)'s status on Sunday, 20-Aug-2023 09:30:33 JST Christi Junior

   in reply to

   • Empiricism
   @empiricism I'm gonna eat more meat just because of this post, you stupid faggot.
   • Empiricism (empiricism@sustainability.masto.host)'s status on Sunday, 20-Aug-2023 09:30:34 JST Empiricism

     #ClimateAction

     Reducing meat consumption is nearly always better, to reduce your #carbon footprint (therefore, no meat is even better)

     Most of our #food emissions come from processes on the farm, or from land use change. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

     One of the best choices an individual can make to mitigate #ClimateChange is to not buy animal part products #EndTheMeatIndustry

     Buying #meat is funding one of the most ecologically degrading, polluting, cruel & #greenwashing industries on the planet

     luithe repeated this.
   • of nothing (apropos@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 20-Aug-2023 13:44:57 JST of nothing

     in reply to

     • CEO of Monoeye Dating
     • teknomunk
     @teknomunk @ceo_of_monoeye_dating and the fun thing with chicken is, if they want "pod living, bug eating, and owning nothing" so much, well chickens can do that too.
   • CEO of Monoeye Dating (ceo_of_monoeye_dating@bae.st)'s status on Sunday, 20-Aug-2023 13:44:58 JST CEO of Monoeye Dating

     in reply to

     • Empiricism
     @empiricism The data here similarly supports the following statement, which neither suggests that people stop eating protein-rich foods *nor* demands significant increased cost on the consumer:
     
     "Chicken, which is leaner, more protein-rich, and cheaper than beef and pork, is a good choice of meat for people who want to cut their carbon footprint. The American and Chinese diets, which rely heavily on beef and pork, are not only expensive but also are environmentally unsustainable. Therefore, we should convince people who eat meat to make the switch to chicken instead."
     
     The above is a thing that a reasonable person could be convinced of. It is an excellent argument for someone to take an action that is not only arguably healthier for them, but is also healthier for the environment. You can convince people of that, as long as they are *either* health-conscious *or* environmentally-conscious.
     
     This is not what you have done. It is unrealistic to demand that people make expensive choices too minimize their impact. Pushing for solutions that will not be adopted is not helpful - it is as quixotic as the "eat the bugs" suggestion, which is universally hated.
     
     Given your approach, you should not be surprised when people call you a faggot.
   • teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Sunday, 20-Aug-2023 13:44:58 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • CEO of Monoeye Dating
     • Empiricism
     @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @empiricism And that is pretty much why I dismiss most of these peoples' arguments: their are either absolutist, budensomely expensive or wouldn't help with what they claim the problem is, and in every case it makes the majority of people poorer, more dependent, unhealthy and easier to control.
     Machismo repeated this.
   • Machismo (zerglingman@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 20-Aug-2023 13:45:15 JST Machismo

     in reply to

     • CEO of Monoeye Dating
     • of nothing
     • teknomunk
     @apropos @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @teknomunk She will live in the pod, she will eat the bugs, and she will give us tasty eggs.
   • Leyonhjelm (leyonhjelm@detroitriotcity.com)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 04:54:17 JST Leyonhjelm

     in reply to

     • Empiricism
     @empiricism
     
     For every animal you don't eat I will eat three.
     luithe likes this.