It's as if they've never eaten a bland piece of flesh before. And at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. One of the realities I had to accept was that even if everything I ate for the rest of my life tasted awful, that's not enough of a reason to stab someone in the throat.

My messages are the blue ones. I'm not suing anyone.

You're probably right. The game console is a handheld emulator because she liked playing Tetris on mine, not a PS5 or something.

Do you use a baguette to make your nuggets into mini sandwiches?

DM sent, looking forward to giving it a shot

Anecdotally, a random post about cows is what rebooted my thinking about animals. Now I live on a sanctuary and help animals every day. The person who made that post will never know how they changed my life. I don't think there will be any way to quantify things like that into data points reliably.

You always remember your first...

First time I played a show I didn't loop my cable through the strap, stepped on it in the middle of a song and pulled it out of the guitar. I've fucked up worse after that for sure but I don't remember those and still think about that one. Just getting up there and doing it takes a lot of courage and most people don't have the guts to even go on stage at all. So just practice and do it again.

So close...

Bees are vegan so the honey inside them is vegan. Just eat bees 🐝 😋

Really good progress for that amount of time.

Definitely get your pinky into the mix ASAP or else it will bottleneck you a lot. Just use it for stuff. Play power chords with your pinky instead of your ring finger sometimes. Slow what you recorded waaaay down and force yourself to find notes to use your pinky for instead. If you want to play this kind of material - and you've progressed really quickly - you'll be kicking yourself later if you don't get started on that soon.

That's not the same reason as me. So you wouldn't encourage someone to buy the "humane" option, but you hope they buy it... and want to get involved in having that option - that you wouldn't encourage but hope they buy - make the buyer feel better about the animal abuse they are participating in. Ultimately reducing the likelihood that they will reflect on animal use as an issue and go vegan. Yeah, I'm not on board with that. And I wouldn't hand a stun gun to a murderer and feel like I'm doing something good, either.

The "then what?" was after the 1,500 shrimp, referring to the aftereffects of supporting a "humane slaughter" initiative. Which absolutely perpetuates the notion that animal abuse is acceptable if done the right way. Not vegan, and does not align with my values.

Some are lying outright, most are misrepresenting the percentage of what they buy. In either case both express a belief that one is more moral than the other. Do you agree with that? Would you encourage someone to buy the humane/cage-free option? The questions I was asking before weren't rhetorical, by the way. This will be my last reply to you if your response doesn't answer that last question.

Okay, so I donate a dollar and 1500 shrimp die painlessly instead of excruciatingly. Then what? Here's a quote from the Shrimp Welfare Project website: "Raising higher welfare shrimps enables producers to remain viable in a changing marketplace and more sustainable seafood can sell for a price premium, increasing revenue." Sounds like I would just be perpetuating the horror that is the life of a shrimp and helping those animal abusers make more money.

Reported for rule 2/3 but I'll respond anyway. Have you ever outreached to a carnist? "Well I buy humane/local/cage-free, though." These measures put the idea in the heads of people that it is okay to use animals in this way as long as you're nice enough. That is not vegan and it actively interferes with people seeing the injustice for what it is.

If someone is going to stab my friend I'm going to try to get them to stop, not tell the stabber "he would suffer less if you shot him instead."

If the "we" you're referring to is vegans, I don't agree with that. It's the best "they" (animal abusers) have because it allows them to keep abusing animals and get a pat on the back for doing it better.

What if pressing that button meant a billion more chickens would be killed? Is that a net good? A million chickens? One chicken?

The button says "no more chickens in cages" but the button was created by animal abusers and you don't know what else that button does. How many plant-based eaters are going to be swayed into buying chicken corpses because there's an updated "humane" label? How many years does their actual liberation get set back by participating in that? How do you know?

"Is it vegan" and "is it a net good" I see as two different questions. I don't think it's vegan.

Is it a net good? I'm unsure. There are some who argue that improving conditions makes it easier for animal exploitation to happen. I tend to agree with that. Makes it "better" for the individual animal, but potentially hinders progress overall.

NTT asks what makes humans different from animals.

NTT asks what is true of the animal, that if true of the human would cause you to give the human the same moral evaluation as you do the animal. NTT is not asking you to just point out differences.

I do understand what you're saying. The first sentence in my last comment covers everything you just said here. "I don't agree with insulting those who are uninformed."

I don't agree with insulting those who are uninformed. I was responding to your "this is what is stopping me from going vegan" statement. If you know something is wrong, it doesn't matter what anyone else says about it. Their views and how they express themselves doesn't change how right or wrong something is.

I'd recommend watching something like this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5hGQDLprA8 to better understand the vegan position and the ethics behind it.

What's there to delve further into? Do you believe it is wrong to enslave animals and exploit them? If so, you should be vegan. What does someone else's opinion have to do with any of it?

If you hold the view that it's wrong to enslave and exploit animals then it's understandable why supporting a place like McDonalds, one of the largest promoters of animal death in the world, doesn't mesh well with that. Even if you're buying the plant-based option. Like someone else said, it would be weird for a vegan to go to a butcher to buy dinner rolls.

Seriously. If you're not vegan you're not doing your "best." This sub sucks.

Maybe reread what I said. The source of the money does not discredit a study. You need to identify a problem with the methods used to do that.

Unless you have a valid criticism of the methodology of the study, just pointing out that it was funded by any particular organization or company does nothing to discredit the results.

Grow up says the person murdering animals so they can have their tendies

Thank you for your response. My title is specific to the field and it doesn't turn up any results so it's hard to determine.