#Anyway don't eat animal products if you want and disagree if people eat meat

[dandelion-network]

Jericho's Book Review of We Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast by Jonathan Safran Foer

In these 225 pages (I'm excluding the notes, appendix and bibliography in this count), I found that the author would repeatedly circle back to points and personal reflections. It's a stylistic choice I'm sure but in employing this type of writing style, the 225 pages feel both under-utilized and too long. There is so much to be said about climate change and our connection to it and I feel like so much wasn't touched on at all. At the core of this book, the message is that if humans eat less meat (save it for dinners and/or special cultural events), that it could significantly increase our chances to combating climate change. I don't disagree with him as the numbers for the damage industrial animal agriculture is quite clear. It's that he doesn't argue for it as strongly as I've seen it argued by other people. I can't remember if he even names capitalism as a massive component to the issue of climate change at all. But he makes it clear that over-consumption of animal products, meat specifically, is the issue. I agree but I don't agree with him in proclaiming "over population" as an issue because that's an eco-fascist talking point. Capitalism wastes more than what can be consumed, first of all. There's also him equating weight with eating habits when it's very much tied to genetics and specific conditions, not because people are over consuming meat. Part of this book feels like a memoir because he talks about his family a lot and I believe it's his tactic to showing the immediate connection between humans and the climate. I think he does it also to show how he struggles with his own internal conflicts about the topic and wants to be as transparent about it as possible because he knows he isn't perfect and he doesn't expect perfection from others either. I've seen reviews immediately call him a hypocrite or say he's doing some kind of self-flagellation whenever he brings up having eaten meat even though he's been a vegetarian for several years. Personally, I think it's smart that he does bring up his own struggles to show that effort and at least trying is the whole damn point, not perfection. And that people shouldn't get stuck on perfection but should focus on the act of trying. Because many people don't even try, for whatever their reasons are. But veganism as it has been explained to me is the effort to reduce harm, effort being the key word. If you can't reduce harm for X but can reduce harm for Y, then why wouldn't you reduce harm for Y? It's not an all or nothing thing. Anyways, I think the youtube channel Our Changing Climate had a much more well constructed argument to whether or not veganism is the answer, (spoiler alert, it's a part of it but not thee answer), and a great job in general tackling the issue of climate change. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwYoe...

[sparklybinder]

When you meet someone nice and realizes just know that they're an extreme vegan that shames people and does not put triggers on animal violence in their stories... Yeah :')

[triviallytrue]

This post is turning into a wall of text, so restarting the thread here @postsforposting.

I was debating whether this response was worth writing, since a lot of your post consists of comparing what I said to libertarians, evangelicals, reactionaries, and radfems, rather than actually engaging with it on an object level. But I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is not indicative of an overall inability to engage with something you disagree with without comparing it to Other Bad Thing.

So, why are libertarians wrong about "revealed preferences" in the first place? Because, as you have so gratuitously pointed out, they often mistake material inability to do something (eg. pay a doctor's bill for their kids) with unwillingness to do something.

But the crux of the issue is the inability to pay; if someone with quite a bit of wealth refused to pay for their child's medical care, it is no longer unreasonable to judge their behavior as immoral. You acknowledge this very briefly, by saying "because it's true for you personally, doesn't make it true for everyone."

But then you don't elaborate on that and spend the next paragraph talking about why "revealed preferences" is bullshit, a comparison which hinges entirely on it being a huge imposition on everyone else to stop eating meat, akin to being asked to pay expensive medical bills.

Is that true? I doubt it. Meat is generally more expensive than vegetarian options, and huge portions of the world that are far less privileged than the average English-speaking internet user seem to manage. I suspect my claim, that becoming a vegetarian is an inconvenience but not impossible or a great burden, is true for the vast majority of people who would read my post.

Next is the whole section on scrupulosity. So the thing is, a pretty huge amount of moral philosophy has the potential to trigger scrupulosity. The correct response to this is not to ban moral philosophy, or shut down conversations about it with "well, this hurts scrupulous people, so you shouldn't say it." Wanting to be free of moral hardship is not lazy, but it's also not an argument about moral philosophy. If you or others are incapable of talking about moral philosophy on the internet without suffering hardship, then I suggest you avoid engaging with it, instead of calling people who do engage with it "cruel".

Then we have the "comparison to radfem rape arguments" section, which is... hard to engage with seriously. I mean, I'm talking about a cohesive group of people (meat eaters) and you're comparing it to radfems conflating two distinct groups of people (men and rapists) and accusing me of making the same argument! It's like you understand certain things are bad, but you don't understand why they're bad, so you just compare anything you don't like to the bad thing!

I don't understand why you think my argument is hateful and cruel. Not caring that much about animal suffering is reasonable, imo. And if you care so much about animals that being accused of not caring about them comes off as "hateful and cruel"... why not just be vegetarian, and exempt yourself from this line of thinking entirely?

One of the more inexplicable quotes here is "why do you think caring or not caring is binary?" The original post very clearly says "I don't care about animal suffering very much", and in a reblog, I elaborate on the shades of caring vs not caring. I feel like most of your response is you arguing with an imagined version of my view that does not have a lot in common with my actual view.

Anyway. I don't think I'll reply to this again, since this is getting very long and it doesn't seem like we're going to have productive discussion, but I thought I should at least put this out.

[necessaryveganism]

my mom just doesn't get it. she always asks me to buy milk and sometimes even meat for her when i go buy myself food because "you're going to the store anyways & you need to think about everyone" even though i've explained multiple times it makes me uncomfortable and feel horrible about myself. i've been vegan for 1,5 years and always say no, yet she still brings this up occasionally and tells me i don't respect the family and that i refuse to see it from their view, it's eating me up inside...

As I see it right now, you sent this ask because you’re at a crossroads. You dislike the position you’ve been in for the last 1.5 years, and now you’re definitely wanting to make it change. You have two choices; make peace with it, or fight harder. 

The first choice is something that many people who live with non-vegans have to tolerate. Part of earning your keep is getting food for everyone to eat, even if that food is not vegan. It might be easier to pick up a box of cereal that contains some whey than a cut of steak, but in the end, you’re personally selecting and purchasing items that are the product of incredible cruelty. It’s difficult, but it might just have to be a part of the life that you’re living, even if you disagree with it. Remember that your personal abstinence from these items contributes to a reduction in what is being purchased, and you’re still making a difference in all that you do. 

However, I also believe complacency is the coward’s way out. 

You’ve clearly been vegan for quite a while, so by now, the desire to stop animal exploitation in all of it’s forms should be one of your basic moral principles. Now we arrive at the second option, the one that I personally advocate for; fight harder. 

Why fight harder, especially against family members, even if you already have been for so long? Because the animals that they’re killing with their lifestyles don’t have the chance to speak. That’s your job. It’s easy to understand why being asked to pick up the result of death and suffering causes you discomfort, especially when this comes coupled with contention in the family, but you have to look beyond yourself for a moment. I know you said you’ve fought this before, and that you’re still facing opposition for your refusal. Refusal is absolutely the right choice, but even after all this time, you cannot stop advocating for the ethical decision, even if it’s tiring and frustrating. If you need motivation to be persistent, imagine speaking to the dairy cow whose milk your family is drinking, telling her that her suffering is okay because you just bought it, you didn’t drink it. 

Non-vegan families put a lot of vegans in tough positions, but a few minutes of discomfort with family members is infinitely better than contributing to an industry that kills billions of living, sentient beings each year. 

Best of luck to you, and wishing all vegans in your same position enough strength to continue being a voice for the voiceless. 

-Admin Samantha