Ojai, CA- Clinton Brewer (73), has been arrested after assaulting close to one dozen people at a local vegan restaurant, Larry's Secret Garden. Clinton was seen entering the restaurant during the dinner rush with raw steaks in each hand. He walked from table to table slapping people in the face with the bloody cuts of...
“I’m fine with discussing veganism as long as the vegans stop making objectively true but uncomfortable points.”
The first point is obviously subjective (and your interpretation) but the other two are facts. Animals need to die for you to be able to eat them and somebody intentionally killed them in order to sell them to you for consumption. Calling this murder is a bit polemic but not factually wrong as it’s an intentional and pre-mediated killing - the thing we call “murder”. And yeah, if everyone stopped eating meat, climate change would slow down because fewer resources would be spent on breeding and raising cattle. It’s a scientifically proven fact and also kind of a no-brainer. You don’t think people will stop eating meat but that doesn’t make the point any less factual.
I do eat meat, by the way. I just don’t deny uncomfortable facts and don’t get angry at people stating them. This is exactly what I meant when I said your guilt is your own. You know these facts are true but you don’t want to confront that. This makes you uncomfortable to the point that you lash out at vegans who you perceive as guilt-tripping while they’re just stating facts.
Just because a point is factual does not make it worth discussing or mentioning in an interesting convo. If everyone stopped driving a 1-2 ton personal metal brick on wheels and started biking climate change would also be slowed, or if half the population died right now it would also be slowed, or if the sun exploded. Who cares? These are not realistic solutions to that problem so what is the reason you would bring it up when discussing diets? Is the reason to inform? It just seems to me like someone mentioning “murder” and “if no one ate meat” while discussing diets is not looking for useful conversation.
You mention the difference is in believing it to be possible. I believe that meat harvested from slaughtered animals will someday be a rarity, but not soon enough to be (part of) a real solution for climate change. Lab meat is just now hitting consumer stores, and climate crisis is on our doorstep.
It sounds like you already have counterarguments to those two points. Why not make them in a discussion instead of refusing it outright based on what you perceive as weak arguments? I’m not vegan and won’t argue about the merits of these arguments, my only point is that it’s unwise to refuse a discussion unless your opponent adheres to arbitrary rules you postulate.
As to your second paragraph, I think you’re referring to a different commenter. I don’t believe I made a point about believing something to be possible. Please do correct me if I’m missing something, though. I do agree with you here. Lab meat won’t save the climate. But, to be fair, that wasn’t your original point which talked about forgoing meat consumption altogether. Which I don’t believe will happen since we can’t even reduce car sales but it could definitely be part of a solution for climate change.