That’s the opposite of what you were accusing corporations of doing.
That’s the opposite of what you were accusing corporations of doing.
this is how blocking should work. if you are publishing something to the public, there is no reason to expect others can’t see it comment on it
Edward Bernays
some years later, once corporations had more solid control of legislatures and were no longer afraid of legislation, they started using the carbon footprint idea in reverse as propaganda - they claimed individual responsibility was a myth, only legal action against corporations will help with climate change, so eat whatever you want and buy all the gas you want and buy all the corporate products you want, and don’t feel guilty about it, because it doesn’t matter.
citation needed
Are you …defending deforestation of the Amazon?
no. I’m pointing out a lie about Amazon soy being fed to cows
almost all soy that becomes animal feed is a byproduct of pressing soybeans for oil. about 80% of all soybeans are pressed for oil and the byproduct is what is fed to animals. but cattle, as you can see in the chart I provided, hardly get any of the global soy crop
hardly any soy goes to cows at all.
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png
a 80% cut has an impact! so does 50%.
i don’t think so. i don’t think it matters what you do in the grocery store or in a restaurant.
You don’t have to be a rabid vegan to make an impact.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
the fact is that the industry continues to grow.
this is warmed-over poore-nemecek 2018. that’s the primary basis for the claims about the climate, but the methodology of that study is fucked, and it’s a disservice to actual climate science to keep touting this meta"study" that misuses its source material and myopically focuses on distilling data instead of understanding the complexity of our agricultural systems. the textile industry’s water use, land use, and emissions, i guarantee, are being counted in poore-nemecek as emissions from beef. i didn’t pull out the data from the separate reference to water use, but i will eat my hat if that doesn’t, as well.
eating less beef has not been effective at stopping the growth of the beef industry for all the people who have done so. we need a real solution, and trying to influence individual consumer choice isn’t working.
edit: down voting doesn’t change the truth
common definitions of exploitation make no mention of consent either.
veganism eschews all exploitation. there is no carve out for consent in the vegan society’s definition
I asked the question I meant to ask
, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.
right but this is not enough evidence to assume it is immoral. we need some reason to believe it is immoral, or it is probably ok
what is a better use for grass than to feed cows?
calling me names doesn’t change the fact that I’m right
no one at the store has free will, but I do?
If enough people didn’t buy the product then there wouldn’t be a demand and the person that pays the “milker” wouldn’t pay them anymore.
we made milk before we had money. there is no reason to believe it will ever stop
And I believe the “rape of animals” vegans refer to is taking their milk without consent.
milking isn’t rape, either.
I will soon be 40, but I recently found some pictures that I sent to my then girlfriend now wife where I look fuckin great