significantly fewer plants are harvested if you switch to a fully vegan diet.

that has never happened.

you commies are all so predictable smh

am i a commie or a conservative? this is incoherent.

That’s true, because what you said holds no truth at all.

what i said is true or it is not.

Link literally any source that backs your conservative, status-quo reinforcing position,

i don't need a source. you have claimed that being vegan is better. it's up to you to show that is the case.

Because you don’t have a position

i do, and i've said it plainly, repeatedly: being vegan doesn't help. each year the animal agriculture industry grows, despite the existence of vegans.

Materialism really does lend itself to anti-intellectuals who think they’re so smart, doesn’t it?

this just ad hominem. it doesn't change the truth of what i've said at all.

I pointed out the flaws in your point and your “argument” was that since no one is vegan, veganism isn’t better for the environment.

that's not what i said.

“The vast majority of people are not communist, therefore communism wouldn’t be better for workers.”

“The world isn’t powered by renewables, therefore renewables aren’t better than coal.”

“Things aren’t currently better, so no change would make it better.”

none of these accurately characterize my position

You’re arguing from a position of complete nonsense, and it’s not an “appeal to ridicule” to call out bad logic and sealioning tactics.

your accusation of sealioning is bad faith

calling me a troll (and saying that i haven't made any strong claims), doesn't change the truth of anything i've said nor bolster your own claims.

You’ve said nothing except for flat denial and asserting illogical nonsense lol

if that were the case, you could show the flaw in my logic. tagging on your appeal to ridicule and poisoning the well indicates an inability or unwillingness to engage in good faith.

bad-faith conservative you are

baby, i'm an anarchist. it's bad faith to tell people what their politics are instead of believing them.

Go back to talking about...

this, too, does not change the truth of what i've said, nor bolstered your own claims

Go ahead and claim I’ve committed another formal fallacy on an informal discussio

i'm pretty sure all the fallacies i've called out are informal.

going great, thanks!

I don't recall in particular, but even if he did, you are making a leap to claim he was working for Russia or trump

it's not gaslighting. you are making assumptions about motivations that directly contradict what he has said.

it hasn't decreased the industrys impact yet

being vegan has no effect on the environment

i thought he was mad other people weren't making the same decisions he is.

being vegan has a smaller footprint.

i reject the narrative of footprints. the issue is resource use and pollution, and those don't happen in grocery stores or restaurants: it happens during production. being vegan doesn't stop production, so being vegan doesn't help the environment.

I object to the supposition that Russia wanted trump to win. I believe Russia wanted Americans divided and trump was simply a means to that end.

this is an appeal to ridicule. it is not a rebuttal.

Lmfao that’s your argument?

this is an appeal to ridicule. it is not a rebuttal

Read a scientific study in-between your theory, sometime.

evidence your claims some time

I want a better system, but I don't believe buying beans helps me get there

Coal pollution is also higher now than when renewable energy was first invented, therefore renewables wouldn’t help us!

I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then you've almost reached the right conclusion. I wouldn't say "wouldn't", I would say "haven't".

as it turns out, i provided exactly as much evidence as you did, but you have, once again, included an appeal to ridicule.

this is an appeal to ridicule, not a rebuttal.

i have made no claim like that. by contrast, you have claimed that being vegan is better for the environment. since the industries you claim to be targeting with your veganism continue to grow, being a vegan is not actually better for the environment.

this reads like 5 non-sequiturs.

if the industry doesn't decrease production, being vegan has done no good.

My point is proven science

no it's not.

by what metric can you claim that veganism has made the environment better? pollution and resource use has only increased since the 1940s when veganism was invented.

why?

it is not appeal to futility, it's an appeal for an effective solution.

you’re on the same footing as me.

very astute.

I didn’t even touch on all the deforestation

the paper does, and it's deeply flawed. no one should trust these over simplifications of our vastly complex agricultural systems.

there is a bureaucratic machine for dealing with this kind of problem

ok well here's a tip: Libby by Overdrive has different availability of resources depending on your institution, but the app allows you to load all the cards they know about. And they have some kind of affiliation with Kanopy (for movies and tv), who seems to have a universal collection, but limits access to some of their holdings using a ticketing system like carnival rides. More library cards means more tickets-per-month. And Hoopla is sort of a hybrid: it has ebooks, audiobooks, tv, movies AND MUSIC, but your library pays for so many items-per-day across all of its patrons, so if one of your libraries has hit its daily limit, just... switch cards.