With your provided definition of āplant-basedā @jerkface@lemmy.ca 's response would be wrong then. Thereās no room in the farmerās assertion for the āplant basedā or vegetarian definition, but only vegan. The farmerās statement isnāt saying āweāll have to reduce our consumption of animal productsā but instead āwe will have to reduce our consumption of animal products to zeroā.
I feel youāre intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.
Veganism is specifically about the moral implications of commodifying animals - plant-based is about consuming plants - so while all vegans are plant-based not all plant-based folk are vegan.
In really simple terms:
Imagine two kids who donāt eat ice cream:
The first kid doesnāt eat ice cream because they really love cows and donāt want them to be used to make milk for ice cream. This kid also wonāt wear leather shoes or go to the zoo because they donāt want any animals to be used by people. This is like being vegan.
The second kid doesnāt eat ice cream just because the ice cream store closed down and thereās no ice cream to buy anymore. This kid would still eat ice cream if they could get it, and theyāre fine wearing leather shoes or going to the zoo. This is like being plant-based because of economics (what the farmer was talking about).
So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream, theyāre doing it for very different reasons. Thatās what @jerkface@lemmy.ca was saying - the farmer was talking about a future where people would eat plant-based food because animal products would be too expensive to make, not because everyone suddenly decided to become vegan and care about animals.
I feel youāre intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.
I feel like you and jerkface are answering a question I didnāt ask injecting your own morality, and refuse to answer the question I did ask. You can go back up to my post 3 or 4 earlier in the thread. I said the following:
āSince the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between āplant-basedā and āveganā here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only āplant basedā look different in any way?ā
Inside this discussion I donāt care why the outcome is the way it is. The farmer doesnāt care for this statement in his interview.
In really simple terms: Imagine two kids who donāt eat ice cream
I didnāt ask for any of that. I asked for this:
So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream,
Thank you. That was my original point with my original question with my first post to this thread.
theyāre doing it for very different reasons.
I donāt care about the reasons why. The farmer doesnāt care why (for his statement). Neither of us are saying people are making a political or or moral decision. The farmer is saying that the lack of labor will force the outcome to appear as the same result of a vegan diet.
Thatās all. All the extra vegan politics/philosophy/morality is irrelevant to this thread.
Idk to me it seemed like @jerkface@lemmy.ca was just trying to explain the difference between vegan and plant-based - hence āI donāt expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means āplant-basedā, not āveganā. āPlant-basedā is a functional description, while āveganā is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.ā
āSince the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between āplant-basedā and āveganā here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only āplant basedā look different in any way?ā
So by your logic if he was a pig farmer instead and said āIn the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldnāt be able to grow pigsā - youād say thatās splitting hairs since the outcome is functionally the same?
Idk to me it seemed like @jerkface@lemmy.ca was just trying to explain the difference between vegan and plant-based - hence āI donāt expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means āplant-basedā, not āveganā. āPlant-basedā is a functional description, while āveganā is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.ā
The farmer was communicating in a single sentence that labor shortages would cause us to adopt a vegan diet. The farmer wasnāt writing a treatise on supply chains, different economic modalities, or the realities of modern agribusinesses with regard to impacts on nature. He as summarizing the state of the food supply, as consumers are aware, in terms that consumers have an understanding of, and he was successful.
Hereās why I donāt buy your viewing of jerkfaceās post. Jerkface wasnāt trying to be helpful. He was, first, insulting the farmerās intelligence. Second, jerkface was using this insult to inject his own moral philosophy into a conversation where it wasnāt relevant and which didnāt invite it. So now jerkface is establishing that not only is the farmer an uneducated idiot, but that jerkface is the one bringing the knowledge to the masses from on high correcting the mistakes of the innocent simply minded farmer. Jerkface was manufacturing a game of pedantry to create an opportunity to stand on his soapbox about veganism. If jerkface is a vegan himself, he certainly lived up to the stereotype of a vegan.
If that wasnāt enough, by your definition @zeezee , jerkface was wrong with his correction to use āplant-basedā instead of āveganā. You yourself said that āplant-basedā could mean vegetarianism. By most definitions of vegetarianism Iām aware of, that includes ovo-lacto. Since weāre talking about a dairy farm here, the āplant-basedā definition is too broad because it would include dairy, which is exactly what the farmer is saying will be unavailable with the labor shortage. So jerkfaceās game of pedantry is wrong because of pedantry, by your own supplied definition.
So by your logic if he was a pig farmer instead and said āIn the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldnāt be able to grow pigsā - youād say thatās splitting hairs since the outcome is functionally the same?
Veganism, as far as Iām aware, is concerned exclusively with what we put in our mouths for food and drink, the sources of those, and the welfare/impact of which they were obtained. The vegan term itself is, by its definition, inexorably linked with eating. You could say the phrase āmake the choices in what to eat resulting in the equivalent of a vegan dietā, but thereās fundamental redundancy in there because the audience already knows that veganism is a way of eating. So the shorthand of āgo veganā communicates the same idea to the audience in shorthand summary. This is what the farmer did and did so successfully.
Islam is far more than diet choices. The diet choices is not even the top of the list of a Muslim attributes for me. My ātop of the listā things would things like: devotion, ritual, prayer multiple times per day, Ramadan/Eid, minarets, Quron, call to worship, Arabic, pilgrimage, Mecca, Abrahamic. Sure, eventually the pork dietary choice is in there, but it would be a confusing summary statement from the pig farmer. Iād get there eventually.
Even if the pig farmer had framed it first as his Islam was just about the aspect of the faith surrounding eating if he said āIn the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldnāt be able to grow pigsā, Iād also be confused for a moment why the lack of pigs would mean all of us would have to start ritually fasting, because that is another component of eating that surrounds Islam.
In short, veganism is all about eating, while Islam is many other things that has a few items surrounding eating choices/restrictions. So I would be a bit confused initially by the pig farmerās statements where no one was confused what the dairy farmer meant when he made his vegan comment.
Iām not sure why you are so adamant about it, but the decisions about what to eat are part of the praxis of veganism, but they are merely consequences of the values of veganism. These values are applied universally, not just to what a vegan eats. I donāt even spend money on movies with animal performers.
You have very strong feelings and opinions about something which you have not researched, have not encountered in life, and have not spent a lot of thought on. Why is that?
āPlant-basedā is a term coined by the vegan community. It refers to a diet that (perhaps coincidentally, as in this case) is compatible with vegan values, though thatās not the definition. It does not include eggs, milk, etc.
Sorry, I didnāt mean to leave you all upset for a month. And boy, do you ever appear to be upset at what was intended to be an innocuous comment. I wasnāt trying to insult the farmerās intelligence. I was expressing that I wouldnāt expect someone with such different interests in life to know anything about what veganism actually is. You have read in a lot to my text. You have some strong feelings. Which is not surprising. These are matters of life and death for billions of individuals a year.
Sure maybe they came off a bit snobby but I still donāt necessarily agree with your stance either - veganism isnāt āall about eatingā - itās a moral framework that rejects animal commodification - like my earlier example of not wearing leather or going to the zoo.
This extends to all sort of stuff - having pets, keeping bees, sheering sheep, testing on animals, etc.
Just as Islam is āmore than diet choices,ā veganism is far more than just a diet. The dairy farmerās use of āveganā would be like the pig farmerās use of āMuslimā - both incorrectly reduce comprehensive philosophical/ethical frameworks to just their dietary components.
But yeah w/e sometimes itās easier to use the wrong term to convey an idea - which is why I still appreciate @jerkface@lemmy.caās effort to clarify that here so other people can learn as well.
Tho I see we can continue this argument forever so Iām gonna dip out as Iāve got other stuff to get on with.
like my earlier example of not wearing leather or going to the zoo.
Thatās fair. I concede that point that there is more to veganism than eating.
I still see that jerkfaceās injection here was an insulting way (to the farmer) to try to shoehorn in the vegan philosophy into a conversation that didnāt contain it and does more of a disservice to the movement and give vegans a bad name.
Tho I see we can continue this argument forever so Iām gonna dip out as Iāve got other stuff to get on with.
I respect that too. Thank you for conversing up to this point. I hope you have a great day!
He literally used the word āveganā. You didnāt have to engage with my comment if you found it off-topic, but instead, you have written more words than anyone else in this entire thread. You are displaying so many classic behaviours, like telling vegans how to be vegan, or how to convert someone to veganism when you yourself would not be converted by someone following your advice. Youāre aggravated by our existence because you want us to just stop reminding you of something you donāt want to think about.
Your defensive behaviour has all the signs of carnism, the unconscious and evaluated value system that says that it is acceptable or even good to sometimes be cruel and violent towards vulnerable individuals. These unconscious beliefs that govern your allowable behaviour are in direct contradiction with other values you hold more consciously, such as that it is good to be kind and empathetic, especially towards the vulnerable. Holding all those ideas in your head at the same time requires a lot of psychological framework. Itās exhausting maintaining it all.
Youāre too late. You missed your chance at condescension and contributing your vitriol. This conversation ended already a month ago with concessions from both sides and mutual respect. Perhaps your absence from the conversation was the reason we were able reach a point of understanding from both sides.
I see the rest of the responses from you today are on this month old thread. I see youāve built a whole fictitious character to rage against. I hope that is helpful to you in some way, even if it doesnāt match reality. I wonāt your other responses, The funny thing is, I saw you post in some other unrelated threads. With my experience with you in this thread I didnāt expect much positive contribution from you, however, I found that I did think you made some good points in those other contexts. Its disappointed I didnāt see that version of you here. cāest la vie
With your provided definition of āplant-basedā @jerkface@lemmy.ca 's response would be wrong then. Thereās no room in the farmerās assertion for the āplant basedā or vegetarian definition, but only vegan. The farmerās statement isnāt saying āweāll have to reduce our consumption of animal productsā but instead āwe will have to reduce our consumption of animal products to zeroā.
I feel youāre intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.
Veganism is specifically about the moral implications of commodifying animals - plant-based is about consuming plants - so while all vegans are plant-based not all plant-based folk are vegan.
In really simple terms:
Imagine two kids who donāt eat ice cream:
The first kid doesnāt eat ice cream because they really love cows and donāt want them to be used to make milk for ice cream. This kid also wonāt wear leather shoes or go to the zoo because they donāt want any animals to be used by people. This is like being vegan.
The second kid doesnāt eat ice cream just because the ice cream store closed down and thereās no ice cream to buy anymore. This kid would still eat ice cream if they could get it, and theyāre fine wearing leather shoes or going to the zoo. This is like being plant-based because of economics (what the farmer was talking about).
So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream, theyāre doing it for very different reasons. Thatās what @jerkface@lemmy.ca was saying - the farmer was talking about a future where people would eat plant-based food because animal products would be too expensive to make, not because everyone suddenly decided to become vegan and care about animals.
I feel like you and jerkface are answering a question I didnāt ask injecting your own morality, and refuse to answer the question I did ask. You can go back up to my post 3 or 4 earlier in the thread. I said the following:
āSince the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between āplant-basedā and āveganā here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only āplant basedā look different in any way?ā
Inside this discussion I donāt care why the outcome is the way it is. The farmer doesnāt care for this statement in his interview.
I didnāt ask for any of that. I asked for this:
Thank you. That was my original point with my original question with my first post to this thread.
I donāt care about the reasons why. The farmer doesnāt care why (for his statement). Neither of us are saying people are making a political or or moral decision. The farmer is saying that the lack of labor will force the outcome to appear as the same result of a vegan diet.
Thatās all. All the extra vegan politics/philosophy/morality is irrelevant to this thread.
Idk to me it seemed like @jerkface@lemmy.ca was just trying to explain the difference between vegan and plant-based - hence āI donāt expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means āplant-basedā, not āveganā. āPlant-basedā is a functional description, while āveganā is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.ā
So by your logic if he was a pig farmer instead and said āIn the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldnāt be able to grow pigsā - youād say thatās splitting hairs since the outcome is functionally the same?
The farmer was communicating in a single sentence that labor shortages would cause us to adopt a vegan diet. The farmer wasnāt writing a treatise on supply chains, different economic modalities, or the realities of modern agribusinesses with regard to impacts on nature. He as summarizing the state of the food supply, as consumers are aware, in terms that consumers have an understanding of, and he was successful.
Hereās why I donāt buy your viewing of jerkfaceās post. Jerkface wasnāt trying to be helpful. He was, first, insulting the farmerās intelligence. Second, jerkface was using this insult to inject his own moral philosophy into a conversation where it wasnāt relevant and which didnāt invite it. So now jerkface is establishing that not only is the farmer an uneducated idiot, but that jerkface is the one bringing the knowledge to the masses from on high correcting the mistakes of the innocent simply minded farmer. Jerkface was manufacturing a game of pedantry to create an opportunity to stand on his soapbox about veganism. If jerkface is a vegan himself, he certainly lived up to the stereotype of a vegan.
If that wasnāt enough, by your definition @zeezee , jerkface was wrong with his correction to use āplant-basedā instead of āveganā. You yourself said that āplant-basedā could mean vegetarianism. By most definitions of vegetarianism Iām aware of, that includes ovo-lacto. Since weāre talking about a dairy farm here, the āplant-basedā definition is too broad because it would include dairy, which is exactly what the farmer is saying will be unavailable with the labor shortage. So jerkfaceās game of pedantry is wrong because of pedantry, by your own supplied definition.
Veganism, as far as Iām aware, is concerned exclusively with what we put in our mouths for food and drink, the sources of those, and the welfare/impact of which they were obtained. The vegan term itself is, by its definition, inexorably linked with eating. You could say the phrase āmake the choices in what to eat resulting in the equivalent of a vegan dietā, but thereās fundamental redundancy in there because the audience already knows that veganism is a way of eating. So the shorthand of āgo veganā communicates the same idea to the audience in shorthand summary. This is what the farmer did and did so successfully.
Islam is far more than diet choices. The diet choices is not even the top of the list of a Muslim attributes for me. My ātop of the listā things would things like: devotion, ritual, prayer multiple times per day, Ramadan/Eid, minarets, Quron, call to worship, Arabic, pilgrimage, Mecca, Abrahamic. Sure, eventually the pork dietary choice is in there, but it would be a confusing summary statement from the pig farmer. Iād get there eventually.
Even if the pig farmer had framed it first as his Islam was just about the aspect of the faith surrounding eating if he said āIn the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldnāt be able to grow pigsā, Iād also be confused for a moment why the lack of pigs would mean all of us would have to start ritually fasting, because that is another component of eating that surrounds Islam.
In short, veganism is all about eating, while Islam is many other things that has a few items surrounding eating choices/restrictions. So I would be a bit confused initially by the pig farmerās statements where no one was confused what the dairy farmer meant when he made his vegan comment.
Iām not sure why you are so adamant about it, but the decisions about what to eat are part of the praxis of veganism, but they are merely consequences of the values of veganism. These values are applied universally, not just to what a vegan eats. I donāt even spend money on movies with animal performers.
You have very strong feelings and opinions about something which you have not researched, have not encountered in life, and have not spent a lot of thought on. Why is that?
āPlant-basedā is a term coined by the vegan community. It refers to a diet that (perhaps coincidentally, as in this case) is compatible with vegan values, though thatās not the definition. It does not include eggs, milk, etc.
Sorry, I didnāt mean to leave you all upset for a month. And boy, do you ever appear to be upset at what was intended to be an innocuous comment. I wasnāt trying to insult the farmerās intelligence. I was expressing that I wouldnāt expect someone with such different interests in life to know anything about what veganism actually is. You have read in a lot to my text. You have some strong feelings. Which is not surprising. These are matters of life and death for billions of individuals a year.
Sure maybe they came off a bit snobby but I still donāt necessarily agree with your stance either - veganism isnāt āall about eatingā - itās a moral framework that rejects animal commodification - like my earlier example of not wearing leather or going to the zoo.
This extends to all sort of stuff - having pets, keeping bees, sheering sheep, testing on animals, etc.
Just as Islam is āmore than diet choices,ā veganism is far more than just a diet. The dairy farmerās use of āveganā would be like the pig farmerās use of āMuslimā - both incorrectly reduce comprehensive philosophical/ethical frameworks to just their dietary components.
But yeah w/e sometimes itās easier to use the wrong term to convey an idea - which is why I still appreciate @jerkface@lemmy.caās effort to clarify that here so other people can learn as well.
Tho I see we can continue this argument forever so Iām gonna dip out as Iāve got other stuff to get on with.
Thatās fair. I concede that point that there is more to veganism than eating.
I still see that jerkfaceās injection here was an insulting way (to the farmer) to try to shoehorn in the vegan philosophy into a conversation that didnāt contain it and does more of a disservice to the movement and give vegans a bad name.
I respect that too. Thank you for conversing up to this point. I hope you have a great day!
He literally used the word āveganā. You didnāt have to engage with my comment if you found it off-topic, but instead, you have written more words than anyone else in this entire thread. You are displaying so many classic behaviours, like telling vegans how to be vegan, or how to convert someone to veganism when you yourself would not be converted by someone following your advice. Youāre aggravated by our existence because you want us to just stop reminding you of something you donāt want to think about.
Your defensive behaviour has all the signs of carnism, the unconscious and evaluated value system that says that it is acceptable or even good to sometimes be cruel and violent towards vulnerable individuals. These unconscious beliefs that govern your allowable behaviour are in direct contradiction with other values you hold more consciously, such as that it is good to be kind and empathetic, especially towards the vulnerable. Holding all those ideas in your head at the same time requires a lot of psychological framework. Itās exhausting maintaining it all.
Youāre too late. You missed your chance at condescension and contributing your vitriol. This conversation ended already a month ago with concessions from both sides and mutual respect. Perhaps your absence from the conversation was the reason we were able reach a point of understanding from both sides.
I see the rest of the responses from you today are on this month old thread. I see youāve built a whole fictitious character to rage against. I hope that is helpful to you in some way, even if it doesnāt match reality. I wonāt your other responses, The funny thing is, I saw you post in some other unrelated threads. With my experience with you in this thread I didnāt expect much positive contribution from you, however, I found that I did think you made some good points in those other contexts. Its disappointed I didnāt see that version of you here. cāest la vie
Thank you as well, have a nice day :)