head_socj

Well I suppose the future will prove one of us wrong

So veganism isn't related to or affected by agriculture? The plight of farmworkers worldwide is invalid because it's not as traumatic as slaughterhouse workers? You keep trying to frame my argument as anti-veganism, but it's really not. At this point I can only consider that I've triggered you in some ridiculous way that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about

I mean throwing up a study about how vegans in the UK produce less greenhouse gas emissions than high-meat eaters only proves that veganism is better at producing less pollution. I never argued that it's not.

But the study you referenced doesn't account for worker exploitation, inequity in food distribution, or trade asymmetries. I think plant-based diets are fine, but many vegan products occupy industries that still perpetuate monocropping and resource-intensive production lines that produce massive profits for executives while leaving farmers with the short end of the stick.

I don't have a bone to pick with vegans, I just think being vegan is a stop along the way to a healthy planet, not the destination. I'm striving to be as nuanced as I can when I offer my critique, which is essentially we need to start discussing why slaughtering animals is morally bad but exploiting workers and agriculture in third world countries isn't. Having a healthy planet and lifting people out of poverty shouldn't be mutually exclusive goals.

Yeah still condescending. Whatevs

To be fair you haven't even offered anything I can respond to; you're just flailing.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Good luck with life.

I don't see a need to be passive aggressive just because a stranger doesn't agree with you. More the point: it's only ignorant if you think you we live in a vacuum

If you can't understand, then you're proving my point.

Loved that movie. I guess I see where you're coming from; but your rhetoric stinks of elitism and condescension.

Is that really your argument? If farms just increased their labor costs by 300-500%, we could all just be happily employed farmhands?

I won't split hairs about what enthusiasm really looks like, but I'll respond to your last point: I agree, but it is naive and dangerous to argue that the United States has even come close to acknowledging its sins. Until then, you all will bear the full weight of those sins, like it or not.

My perspective is that forcing people to become organ donors feeds into a narrative that humans as physical entities are only significant in terms of the value they create (in this case, value manifests as the possible transplantable organs). This is a fundamentally Western perspective, informed by economic theories that promote the valuation of all tangible assets without considering exogenous variables that could adversely effect "value", or otherwise writing them off as costs.

I'm opposed to your perspective because it creates the precedent for Westerners to continue rationalizing the dehumanization of people under the safety umbrella of good capitalist business practices. As I said earlier, I believe your argument lacks validity outside of a Western context.