Not a vegan but I would personally go for the grass fed humans.
Probably juuust enough justifications in your post to not be crucified 
1 Like
I think the trouble is that the asshole-minority always want to speak for the non-asshole-majority, but it’s a bleeding pain to criticise them without being accused of criticising the whole group. A pain, if not engineered, at least encouraged by the assholes.
I’m pretty sure this might be universal to all groups and causes everywhere.
2 Likes
Sure. In this day and age of ‘social’ media and fast communication all discussion gets dominated by the ‘assholes’ on all sides.
I’m not sure assholes is the right term though. This type of overbearing person (on all subjects) is often well-meaning. Just often socially inept. Anybody who is really into a specific subject is somewhat annoying to people who aren’t into the subject as much.
Umm, Cancer = Brexit (EU immigration causing NHS crisis/Brexit causing NHS crisis)
Immigration = sort of obvious.
Plus, you’ve obviously not been reading the Daily Mail for a while. They’ve had a change of editor and the new editor hates the previous editor’s guts so they’ve done an almost complete about face on the EU/Brexit.
They’re still all for Brexit but you now get coverage like this:
which doesn’t contain a single sentence about “enemies of the people” or hysterical outrage at the thought that EU nationals might not all be deported on the stroke of midnight on March 29th.
I was not opposing anything. Just musing as to why it was wanted.
1 Like
Count me in.
2 Likes
@anon67050589: The days of militant vegan evangalism are pretty long gone. Any mention of it these days is apocryphal, at best.
@reactionabe: People give you a hard time over pineapple on pizza? That’s pointless and absurd. Pineapple and black olive make best pizza.
9 Likes
Welcome.
7 Likes
Sweet, I love blowin’ shit up!
2 Likes
Don’t I? I would be happy to compare credentials w/r logical fallacies.
What, starting with “appeal to authority?” 
Here’s how I see it:
Someone commits the etymological fallacy if they say “The English plural of ‘octopus’ is ‘octopodes’ not ‘octopi,’ because that is the correct way to do plurals in ancient Greek from which we get the word.” (Because they are conflating usage in a different context, here an ancient language, with the meaning at hand.)
So someone would likewise commit the etymological fallacy by saying “You can’t call the stuff in pictured with the fresh Thai basil above ‘(vegan) buffalo mozzarella’ because in Italian mozzarella di bufala is a protected designation of origin term.” (Because they are conflating usage in a different context, here a PDO, with the meaning at hand.)
However, one would also commit the etymological fallacy by saying “The English plural of ‘octopus’ is ‘octopodes’ not ‘octopuses,’ because contemporary English usage accepts ‘octopodes’.” (I.e. it’s true that “octopodes” is acceptable, but it is also true that ‘octopuses’ (and ‘octopi’) is acceptable in contemporary English usage. One usage does not forbid the other.)
In the same way, one also commits the etymological fallacy by saying “You can’t call the stuff in pictured with the fresh Thai basil above ‘(vegan) buffalo mozzarella’ because contemporary English usage accepts ‘buffalo mozzarella’ as dairy mozzarella made from Italian water buffalo milk.” (I.e., while true, it is also true that ‘vegan buffalo mozzarella’ is also used in a variety of media, including in commercially available cookbooks. One usage does not forbid the other.)
There isn’t any kind of justified reason to broadly dislike veganism though many people do. I get that sometimes vegans are preachy or annoying, but that’s the case with a noisy percentage of every diet. Vegan, keto, gluten-free, even the “standard” (it isn’t) Western meat-heavy omnivorous diet–there’s not really any difference between “uh, actually I’m vegan,” and a person who eats meat regularly complaining about how annoying people that don’t are to them, even when none that they know of are in their presence.
What really frustrates me is how much antipathy people have for veganism and vegetarianism, which while not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea, don’t negatively impact the world in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, organic farming movements, as nice as the idea sounds, are actually pretty bad for the planet. Organic farming is, at best, an appeal to antiquity. The horrifying reality is, if we farmed the way we farmed even 100 years ago, far more people would be starving now than there are. Yet, despite this fact, “going organic” is considered an unquestionable Mainstream Good Thing.
I understand the notion that natural is better, but no farming is natural, ever. Between 50 and 30 thousand years ago our distant ancestors started unnaturally selecting plants and that was it. That’s when we started interfering with the natural process of things, we started to change the world to make it better for us, but it also means that we are reducing the biodiversity of the planet, which significantly increases the risk that we’ll lose the ability to feed ourselves. It could be a mutation in a common mold, or a sudden change in animal behavior triggered by climate change, there’s all kinds of things that could knock a massive hole in the human food supply and the only way we can protect ourselves from it is with tools like genetic engineering and industrialized farming.
I’m not saying that people should be cheering on pesticides and huge agribusiness. Monsanto and their ilk are almost entirely amoral corporations that nobody should be cheering for, and who don’t care about sustaining the human race beyond their own skin and profits. We need the technologies that they are gatekeeping, but we don’t need, and sure as hell don’t want them to be the keepers of it. That technology belongs to humans, not specific ones, all of them, and cannot be chained to capitalism because there will be cases where something seems completely safe, but then we find out they aren’t and we have to stop using them immediately. Things like neonicotinoid pesticides, when originally developed, were supposed to be safer for the environment. It turns out they’re probably seriously interfering with bees, which puts the entire world’s food supply in danger. If we are working collaboratively rather than to turn a profit, that’s challenging, but doable. With capitalism making the calls, anything that might result in less profit, is suppressed, contested, buried, whatever.
What I am saying is that it’s far more hypocritical to support organic farming than it is to hate something that’s probably a net zero or net positive for the environment and survivability of the human race (vegans and vegetarians). At worst, a vegan or vegetarian might be kind of annoying to some people, some of the time. At best organic farming is mildly safer for people and the water table, and generally not meaningfully better in terms of quality or taste. Sometimes organic foods are claimed to taste better or be more nutritious, but the first is entirely subjective, and neither hold up meaningfully when tested. In pretty much anything other than that best case scenario, organic farming is wasteful, produces more carbon and more waste, produces less viable product, and is far more susceptible to pathogens and less tolerant of environmental change.
With things like selective breeding and genetic modification, we don’t have to wait for things to adapt. With genetic engineering especially, don’t have to rely on being able to create a hybrid cultivar that is resistant to changes with just the genes available in current cultivars. We can go in and specifically fix things. It’s risky right now, but it’s considerably less risky than it was a decade ago, and less risky then than it was a decade before that, and prior to that it was “impossible.” These are the tools we’ll need to survive the next 200 years, and they’ll likely become non-optional faster than you’d expect.
…Of course the real interesting twist to all of this is that lots of the angry carnivores, “bad” vegans/vegetarians (that chose the way of life to use as some sort of moral superiority cudgel), and organic-only proponents are all pretty much drawing from the same psychological well. Angry carnivores complain about vegans/vegetarians and call them weak and annoying to feel superior to them, also being able to afford lots of meat is a class status symbol. “Bad” vegans/vegetarians who chastise strangers and call their friends and family monsters are rarely doing so out of a deeply-valued sense of inter-species equality, and more because being a vegan/vegetarian is–at least for a lot of people–also a class status symbol. (I add that to differentiate between people who can only afford things like beans, rice, and lentils or who eat that way for heritage, religious, or cultural reasons from the generally affluent white people who choose to eat that way to feel superior to others) Organic-only advocates? That’s a class status symbol too. Organic food is expensive, spoils faster, and tends to be smaller. So basically, when you filter for just the worst advocates of any of the three (there’s certainly crossover in this Venn diagram too, of course) most of them end up not really caring so much about the thing they’re browbeating you over, and are instead just interested in the way it makes them feel superior to others, and how it communicates class/status to anyone who might be around.
Anyway, as for the Food magazine editor. Dude, your job is to make sure that stupid shit doesn’t get printed, and based on this incident, I rather suspect you’re terrible at your job.
1 Like
I was being ever so slightly light-hearted (possibly inappropriate where the Mail is concerned, I’ll concede.)
But since you raise it, I am aware of the new Mail editor and his change in tack. He still works for a hateful organ whose decades of abuse of civility (remember it sympathised with the Nazis), most especially the 25 years of Dacre, do not get forgiven or glossed over after just a few weeks of a new broom - who still wants Brexit, just not a ‘red meat, destroy the country’ Brexit.
Just as the Guardian will for a long time still get referred to as the Grauniad occasionally, it takes a long time to earn back any respect and the Mail is not there yet, so it will continue to be the cartoon press baddie, for years to come. It deserves it. In 10 years’ time, if it has throughout that time eschewed its hatemongering “fear this!” approach to news and editorials, it may start to be considered rehabilitated. Yes, my loathing for everything it stands for - even today - is very deep.
1 Like
I’m not sure why you decided an appropriate way to respond to me in your previous post was to explicitly call me ignorant – I thought from this thread that condescension was something vegans were opposed to! – but pointing out that I’m verifiably not seemed to be a reasonable response.
The fact that a small group (or really, some area of commerce in this case) has recently appropriated a term that is in widespread current use with an accepted meaning doesn’t suddenly mean the meaning has shifted “because etymological fallacy”. It doesn’t work that way.
Even if it did: of course you’re completely free to call something that is neither cheese nor from a buffalo “buffalo milk mozzarella”, and to enjoy the food, just as some people enjoy “espresso” made with an aeropress or “apple pie” made with Ritz Crackers, but surely you’ll agree with me that when people like @heh and @anon59592690 raise usage issues, throwing fallacy names in their faces doesn’t move the discussion forward. I mean, just look at this derailment.
1 Like
What if it was made in Buffalo, NY?
5 Likes
d_r I sincerely apologize. Apparently I was misreading the tone of the thread and my contributions to it, and thought this was in good humor. I was definitely not trying to insult (I was trying to have a go at “I don’t think it works that way”), but I get that hurt is not so much experienced in my intentions, as in the effects of my actions.
3 Likes
You got me there. I succumb to your logic wit.
2 Likes
I think that’s still a reasonable convention. Other people’s feathers getting ruffled is not a sufficient justification for me to alter my behavior from (what I believe to be) sensical to farsical.
1 Like
Are there animal products in juice? Because he looks juicy, and claiming to be vegan is very on-trend for instagram juicelords.
2 Likes
Lovely. Not practical at larger volumes though. Which is why I’d like to see more small farms and less factory farms.
1 Like
