Great, except I'm not discussing that comment with you, I'm discussing your comments re. the costs and time requirements of veganism.
But OK, I'll bite. The comment you linked has already been addressed multiple times. Your numbers were incorrect and your comment re. mothers buying meat misses the point of the original article, which is extolling the environmental virtues of going vegan for those that can. Ideally everyone should go vegan. This is not the same as saying everyone can.
Okay, but again, I was responding to someone who said the world should go vegan and explaining why a lot of people in the U.S. can't do that.
I don't know why you're so against me explaining that.
I'm not against the sentiment, I'm against how you're making it and the tone you're taking whilst doing so.
Comments like *100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.
But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids*. come across as needlessly confrontational and are an example of a fallacy of relevance. No one was blaming mothers buying meat for climate change. No one was advocating for businesses to be allowed To ignore their environmental responsibilities. You raised arguments that were irrelevant to the article, then doubled down by moving the goal-posts further to encompass additional societal problems like the lack of nutritional food in some parts of the US, all of which are irrelevant to the point of the article.
Also, my point stands: the world arguably should go vegan. Doesn't mean they can. Your point doesn't invalidate theirs.
You never said that your problem was me being needlessly confrontation before. I would argue that you've been needlessly confrontational this whole time. Is it okay when you do it?
Didn't this start with someone saying everyone should go vegan?
This particular thread started with your comment here: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/10351315
I'm pretty sure it started with my comment here- https://sh.itjust.works/comment/10349694
Great, except I'm not discussing that comment with you, I'm discussing your comments re. the costs and time requirements of veganism.
But OK, I'll bite. The comment you linked has already been addressed multiple times. Your numbers were incorrect and your comment re. mothers buying meat misses the point of the original article, which is extolling the environmental virtues of going vegan for those that can. Ideally everyone should go vegan. This is not the same as saying everyone can.
Okay, but again, I was responding to someone who said the world should go vegan and explaining why a lot of people in the U.S. can't do that.
I don't know why you're so against me explaining that.
I'm not against the sentiment, I'm against how you're making it and the tone you're taking whilst doing so.
Comments like *100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.
But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids*. come across as needlessly confrontational and are an example of a fallacy of relevance. No one was blaming mothers buying meat for climate change. No one was advocating for businesses to be allowed To ignore their environmental responsibilities. You raised arguments that were irrelevant to the article, then doubled down by moving the goal-posts further to encompass additional societal problems like the lack of nutritional food in some parts of the US, all of which are irrelevant to the point of the article.
Also, my point stands: the world arguably should go vegan. Doesn't mean they can. Your point doesn't invalidate theirs.
You never said that your problem was me being needlessly confrontation before. I would argue that you've been needlessly confrontational this whole time. Is it okay when you do it?