Thanks for providing some info, sadly the 29mpg on the hybrid is not the norm or good
For a load-bearing vehicle it absolutely is. And I showed that it compared favorably to these minitrucks. This whole thread is about comparing trucks to trucks. If you need to carry shit, you are hurting the environment if you buy a mini-truck over a Silverado or F150.
it looks like your buddy is doing some great mileage compared to say the info from
Well, 10 years goes a long way. You literally picked a 2011 Silverado. Perhaps look at 2023 numbers on the same site?
As for Kei, as I said it’s hard to get a fair chance when the only places nearby sell heavily-used older vehicles. Gas mileage has largely skyrocketed of late because Auto manufacturers are getting scared.
But ultimately, If you have any truck and don’t need its carrying ability, you’re an asshole. I think the case of a japanese mini-truck being the “best choice” is ultimately too rare to hold your breath for.
A step further, the REAL sad truth is that most minitrucks aren’t even legal in the US without being modified to a max speed of 25mph because they don’t meet safety and emission standards for road vehicles. That’s why so many around here are old. Before 1998, they’re grandfathered in and people in other countries that don’t grandfather old vehicles are offloading them.
Do we really want to be cheering on unsafe high-emission vehicles as the “cure” to the F150?
It doesn’t matter that much to me, I won’t go out of my way to shut down a vegan extremist, I don’t care enough.
I’ve got a few close to me, and they go out of their way to shut down other people close to me. I’ve lived around and been involved in various ways with people in the various meat-related industries. It hurts them, and I care about them, so I care about the issue.
I don’t expect everyone to feel that way. But it’s like the difference between “internet atheists” who are a dime a dozen, and “that guy you actually know that thinks it’s appropriate to treat non-atheists as absolute morons”.
cutting animal product is easier than picking the local farm meat so it’s what I choose
I can respect that. It’s a band-aid solution in my opinion, but if I look at how I tolerate half-ass government actions, I have to honestly accept that a band-aid solution should not be faulted too much.
the most important part is stopping the torture on animals
I think we’d diverge here, but that’s ok. To me, sustainability is more important than animal comfort any time we can’t feasibly have both, so long as a farmed animal is generally better off than the same species in the wild by some agreeable metric - which both cows and chickens generally are (except liberty, but few non-human species put any QoL value on “freedom”).
I hate the mentality that if it’s not perfect we don’t do it, it’s the same for vegans hating on vegetarian.
1000% percent. Vegans are not “going to win” and have a kumbaya utopia (dystopia) where people across the world are forbidden to eat animals and harshly punished when they try. And they’re sure not going to get a world where the masses choose veganism. But there’s a LOT of even ranchers and hunters of all people who would stand at their side for better regulations on humane treatment.
I’m not Godwinizing this. The analogy is apt. Not because Veganism is as bad as the White Supremacy movement, but because militant veganism is culturally near-identical with regards to levels of organization, cohesion, and belittling and exclusion of the opposing majority.
Vegans are not special. It’s like if I had the same nationality as someone, do you really need to call out someone from the US that shit on European (assuming you are from the US) ?
No, vegans aren’t special. Thank you. And yes, I consider it my responsibility to call out the American anti-Mexican rhetoric that’s been rekindled because if I don’t, I am complicit. I am struggling not to tangent into at least 20 other incidents between old racial slurs and attacks insults about homosexuality where I’ve had to stand up against “my class”, but the moment I hadn’t done so, then I’m as bad as them.
this article that list a few vegans that are against militant
Unfortunately, this article supports my point in a way I don’t know you intended. This is an article discussing how militant vegans (including the creators of Dominion) are against the tactic of insulting non-vegans directly in their goal of getting everyone to stop eating meat. Further, this clearly rebuts your earlier claim that militant veganism isn’t “a community”.
Remember, if you’re activists against someone’s behavior, you’re attacking that behavior. You need to be damn sure the behavior you’re attacking is objectively wrong. Good-cop Bad-copping it doesn’t change that.
And I never wanted to say most vegans agree with extremists. Theses assholes are ruining veganism image
Then, do the world a favor, and call them out. It probably doesn’t get veganism across the line of reasonableness (stopping pushing for others to be vegan is where that happens) but it gives you a bit more of an ethical foundation.
Without them people would hear vegan and think about nature, saving animals, saving the evironnement
I hate that most vegans I meet won’t agree with me on animal protections in farms because my goals still involve people eating them (EDIT: them=animals. Stupid English language unclear pronouns). I consider my home state’s new free range chicken law a massive win because it doesn’t play with the meaning of “free range” like many big companies do, but most vegans consider it “just another step in normalizing humans eating animals”. You’ve heard the statement “making perfect the enemy of good”, right? Well, there’s a step worse, which is making “my personal preference the enemy of perfect”.
Let me make this clear. We exist in a world where we can scaleably give farm animals a better quality of life than they’d get in the wild with a better environmental impact than not eating them, but it requires regulations that vegans are often unwilling to openly support because it’s not what they want.
But right now they only think about 30 years old Karen screaming at them for no reason calling people murderer and so on.
Agreed. Memes become that because they’re often true. “How do you know someone is a vegan?” EVERYONE has experienced that particular little joke dozens of times if not more. I used to have a coworker who aggressively preached veganism at me, as he gained a ton of weight and his health degraded. This is not me saying that vegans can’t be healthy, but he was definitely doing veganism a disservice.
True, actions speak. So I do what I can. You probably don’t but that’s an assumption I admit
And this right here is the problem. But you know that and I’m not sure you care.
You’ve got a lot of assumptions, but that’s OK
I’m not the one judging the supermajority of people as “unworthy” and “uneducated”. I make very few assumptions, and even fewer judgements. Look in the mirror.
Even if they’re anecdotal. Like people don’t need to be educated. I disagree.
People don’t need to be propagandized. I’m all about education. I encourage education. For most problems, education is the way out. Listening to someone take their morals and convince you of some hokey pseudo-scientific claim of fact is not education.
As I reinstate, it’s simply anti vegan rhetoric that you’re so on board with
Would you listen to yourself? If someone says something that doesn’t match this clearly fictional view about a meatless-utopia is “rhetoric”. Like I’m reading some “how to screw with perfect people, by Mr. Satan” pamphlets? How about this counter. The vegan side simply doesn’t hold water. Period. That’s it. My so-called rhetoric is just “calling bullshit”.
For clarity, I don’t think you’re an idiot or uneducated, just misguided and have been misinformed for so long, your very core is against the idea, and you’re smart enough to justify why you feel like that.
Why? Because I disagree with vegans? All I see is trollish behavior and downvotes from people who demonstrably show lack of knowledge. When I grew up, my friends were becoming environmental engineers and farmers, and my family struggles have made me acutely aware of the complex nutritional questions that exist. I’m “misinformed” because I’ve been surrounded by experts in the various fields. But I suppose you would tell a PhD in nutrition that they’re misinformed on the health side if they don’t agree with you, and would tell a PhD in Environmental Engineering the same. I bet you would tell a small-time farmer that they’re misinformed about how their negative-margin milk cow (since the strike price of milk is down) is still necessary because it’s the only way their plant crops are profitable.
We’re alllll just misinformed. But the vegans, oh boy, just like the Christians, those vegans know the right of it. And they’ll save my soul if I just let them.
At the end of the day, you are against veganism
Correction. I’m against preachy, militant, veganism. More specifically, I’m against all proselytization, but that from veganism is the worst I’ve seen of late. I have vegans in my family, and I have no problem with them.
but I do hope one day people like yourself can see the fight against oppression doesn’t stop at humans
I already don’t. While you’re fighting to get everyone to stop eating meat, I do my part to fight against Big Ag (meat and plant). I support free range laws that are actually animals getting to live their best lives. I’m against anti-natalism (like PETA and anti-farm initiatives) because that is oppression, too. I fight against preachy vegans because they are oppressing animals in their own way.
It’s millions of random people that have nothing to do with each other and thus don’t see the loud minority or feel the need to correct them
So vegans are “special”? Can you think of other examples of groups of millions of people where there’s no such expectation on their members to call out bad behavior by their fringe? I’m white; skin color is not a community, but I would still be complacent if I didn’t stand against white supremacists. And in terms of randomness and “community” size, there’s more white people than vegans.
they do not represent the many 60 yo Asians that just don’t eat meat.
“Just don’t eat meat” isn’t veganism. Veganism is “just WON’T eat meat… and just WON’T eat other animal products”.
More importantly, look at the context. All he did was point out that vegans NEVER call down militant veganism. If he’s wrong, and I’m wrong, stop saying “there’s no responsibility” and show me just a few sites by “Western hip vegans who tweet” or whatever the hell subset of veganism we’re going to run with, where they are calling out militant vegans on their bullshit. I’ll wait, but I won’t hold my breath.
Let me give my counterpoint. What you’re really trying to say is that vegans have no responsibility to call down militant veganism because most vegans think there’s nothing wrong with it.
You’re fine to believe all that, it just comes across as though you’re assuming everyone who eats meat has done the due diligence in finding out what happens behind closed doors
Not really. Actions speak. People who are choosing to eat meat are choosing to do so for some reason. If vegan food is really better than meat in every possible way, nobody would choose to eat meat for any reason.
Someone doesn’t need to be as educated on the meat/vegetable discussion as I am to make those decisions. Obviously I feel the same way about most vegans as you do about meat eaters. I’ve literally had unprepared vegans tell me that it’s better to let overpopulation wrack an area than to hunt and eat deer.
That’s not the case, and it’s too obvious you’re wrapped up in your own views to ever change based on what one guy tells you on the Internet
There comes a point where one is educated enough on an issue that it’s not easy to get them to flip-flop in the opposite direction of all the evidence and their conclusions. That is not the same as closedmindedness or zeal. But more importantly, the “ecology, health, ethics” gishgallop often used in vegan debate is ineffective at doing anything but guilt someone too ignorant to see it happening (which is the whole point I was making tot hat person, who was shifting the topic). Or did you mention ignorance above because it’s about converting those who don’t know better?
Which is OK, people who care are putting in the work, and the world will be better for it.
With all due respect, it’s bad faith to accuse everyone with the opposite view as yours of being uneducated. I have discovered myself to be more educated and prepared than most militant vegans, put in more work, and make the world a better place than they do. The reason is that ultimately, veganism stems from a singular ethical position… not unlike the “single issue voters” so common in modern Democracy. If all you’re seeing is “right and wrong”, you can convince yourself on every other issue. I like to also point out how many good-faith religious folks are convinced homosexuality is harmful because they think it is immoral. Unfortunately, that’s where I see vegans on these topics.
I hope you find compassion one day, because I’m certainly not telling you why you should be.
I think you are exemplifying this remark. You are so zealously and irrationally convinced of this “one and only right morality” that any human who would eat meat has no compassion. Ironically, I used to (and occasionally still do) feel the same way about vegans, since the only workable veganism involved agricultural anti-natalism. You note how above I said I’m more educated on topics than most vegans? The ones I’m not “more educated than” are the real problem here. They’re the ones that, eventually, will admit that their vision of utopia involves preventing farm animals from being born as a better outcome than those animals living a better-than-nature life that happens to end on a dinner plate. I cannot get over the fact that position is the one more lacking of compassion.
So I guess this is the part where I hope YOU find the compassion one day to overcome your squeamishness and do your part to hunt a deer, keep some chickens, or just go to a local butcher to help the entire ecosystem.
No, I’m a case study of “I actually grew up in a farming community, had enough vegan friends, and came up with my own conclusions” See, I see zealous vegans the same way I see dirty cops or post-1/6 Trump fans. Best-case is deluded, worst case is bad-faith.
One common trend is how much vegans will double- and triple-down on the idea that because they feel veganism is morally superior, it’s actually magically better in every other way, from health to the environment. When you discuss with someone whose “spoke” arguments are based upon what they consider a moral imperative, the truth doesn’t matter.
There’s something wrong with the health/environment/morals tripod of veganism. Everything that is real has pros and cons, and everything that doesn’t have cons is a fiction or exaggeration. The way these moral vegans come out swinging, their description of the vegan reality is indefensible. Eating vegetables is alleged to be tastier, better for the environment, healthier, easier, cheaper, faster, more ethical. Then come the contradictions… people, even experts, who eat meat as part of their healthy diet, farmers that keep livestock (despite having to PAY the government more in taxes, not getting subsidies) because it’s more sustainable for them. The list goes on, until you’re picking the battles based on the things the other side won’t immediately see as willful ignorance.
There’s no element of physical addiction to meat-eating. The supermajority of humans eat animal products because it is the right choice for them, for their health, based upon their morals, and in many cases for their sustainability.
So sorry if “knowing what I’m fucking talking about” is antivegan rhetoric. Have a nice day, I don’t expect a reply.
If you wanted to be honest, it would be “look, I know it’s going to fuck up your ecosystem and local sustainability, but animal lives are important to me” or “look, I know it’s harder to eat healthy and requires more research and supplements, but we can figure it out”. Those are positions I’d respect, if disagree with (because my ethical position, a fairly well-established one, considers eating meat to be perfectly fine)
The Argument From Evil, properly stated, concludes that no god exists because it defines God as a necessarily omnipotent/omni-benevolent being. I think it’s weak because it leans on a version of God that most religious people don’t REALLY believe. It then leans on the fact that lines like “God is not good” or “God is not omnipotent” gets religious folks’ back up.
If the only way an atheist argument wins is because the valid logic objections to it are frustrating to Christians, it’s not a great argument.
But stated right, it IS still an argument for the nonexistence of God, not an argument that “God exists but is immoral”.
I’ll be the first to say the new trend of atheists horribly mangle the Problem of Evil, and while they rebut responses like yours, they tend to do so horribly and emotionally. But properly stated, Divine Command theory really doesn’t work.
The LPOE is challenging one of two traits for God: omnipotence or omni-benevolence. And those two concepts are defined in reasonable, quantitative ways. The God in the your example is a direct acceptance of the LPOE by the admission that god isn’t “benevolent” at all by that definition. Which is perfectly fine, but it does create a lot of very valid moral or ethical problems, along the line of Hedonistic salvation.
The rest of my reply doesn’t belong with LPOE, but this is focusing on the rules side instead of the suffering side.
You see it as a parent setting rules for a child, but it can also accurately be seen as (sorry, both of these come from the show Suits, and apparently the showrunners have a problem with moms) “mommy tells the child he’ll get a Playstation if he lies to the judge about daddy hitting her”. OR, “mommy will punish you if you tell daddy what she did with the mailman last night”. Rules are not inherently Good by most standards.
And that’s before you add the uncertainty. We’re 100% definitely not “following rules that our parents gave us”. We’re following rules we found typed up on a piece of paper that some people **insist ** came from our parents, and maybe they did. And some of them seem really weird or even harmful, and seem to contradict what we think mom and dad want for us. And we have to decide whether or not we’re going to follow them before our parents come home. Because daddy will murder us if we’re wrong. And I don’t mean a beating, I mean with his God-glock.
What many atheists do not understand is that human logic does not apply to God(s), just like the feelings of my dog wanting a slice of pizza do not apply to me
This is true, but you can still pass some judgement on a dog who acts out of possessive-aggression. But of course, we are more responsible for our actions than dogs, aren’t we? Why? Because we have more agency than dogs. Guess who has the most agency, assuming there’s a God? That would make him the most accountable. When he does something prima facie evil and the more you analyze his actions the weaker the objections get, then “Good is just what God wants and evil is just what he doesn’t want” simply doesn’t cut it.
Is God evil, probably, what is evil? What is good? Is God just? In application to others if you’re following Christian ideology he theoretically is in the long term, but in application to their self definitely not.
I think there are Christian ideologies that can make sense of it all, but contingent salvation is as filmsy to philosophical attack as wet cardboard. I would encourage you to listen/read Dr. Josh Rasmussen for his in-depth research into the Problem of Evil and Salvation from an open-minded Christian perspective. He, too, concludes that God cannot pass the Problem of Evil if there is contingent salvation. But he stands by the Ontological Argument, so conceding “God isn’t all-good” is not on the table for his POV.
The biggest problem I have with Atheist logic is that if there is a god that it should follow human logic and because there is suffering and issues in the world there must be no god or that God isn’t worth following. If after life beliefs are correct do you think it matters if you took a moral high ground against an unfair god?
Ironically, I would hope a Christian would be the first person to say YES IT MATTERS because they stand behind martyrdom as a legitimate virtue. Let me put it this way. If Christianity were true with one exception, that the Devil ultimately wins instead of God, would you kneel to him because your eternity is more important than actually being a good person? Would you be able to respect a person who does unspeakable evils, knowing they are unspeakable evils, because they get to selfishly be immortal?
If so, I think you’ve just given atheists the win. If not, then at least you can understand (if not agree) rejecting a God you think is evil.
The same goes for religious people, you have to accept that God let’s bad things happen to you.
Yeah, I’m fine with that. I think the true god is neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent. God can be a jerk sometimes, but so can I, and I don’t have to debase myself or put him far above me, so I can forgive god. If that gets me a good afterlife, I got there in a way I’ll never regret. If that gets me eternal damnation, at least I know I didn’t selfishly throw away my morals for personal gain.
Mostly THAT was EPs. Some of the best albums are EPs, but they’re short.
Rose for the Dead EP, was my favorite one. 6 songs.
NIN Broken was 8 songs.
A lot of punk albums have plenty of songs, but they’re so short some of them have terrible play times. OpIvy Energy (the first bootleg I ever had) is only about 35 minutes long and the whole thing mostly fit on one side of a (small) cassette tape.
I could probably find more, but that’s just off the top of my head.
The sad truth. I threw out my CD binders at least 10 years ago. I still have some of that uploaded to the cloud, but I’ve swapped provider a few times and probably lost some.
And more often, I Just listen on spotify or youtube music.
I don’t ask people I’m debating vegan adjacent topics with if they eat meat
I didn’t ask if you were a vegan. I was asking why you’re repeating arguments I’ve rebutted a dozen times in lemmy. We’re deep enough that no random person is going to read this, so if you’re just arguing for veganism, it can stop now. I need to know if the environmental argument is foundational to you before I waste time repeating stuff I’ve said plenty of times elsewhere, knowing you’ll be the only person to read it.
To be honest, I’ve dealt with the classic 3-leg gishgallop of this topic (environment, health, ethics) enough that I’m learning to disengage fast. I just need to be sure there’s value in the conversation before it just turns into that. That’s not about voir dire. It’s about Street Epistemology. If we’re discussing something non-foundational to you, the conversation is frankly meaningless.
And frankly, I had to ask the question because you are bringing up infamous objections (like “land use” in full ignorance or negligence of marginal land) that are as much a staple of the vegan-missionary movement as… well, anything I hear out of pro-life arguments.
I am a vegan but I had been arguing against livestock use from an environmental perspective for many years before becoming a vegan or even a reductionist
Interesting. Are you of the position that there is no world where even a single livestock animal being consumed is *ever environmentally better than that same animal NOT being consumed? Do you have well-conceived answers to the symbiosis problem and animal population problem? I mean, is it a goal for the Western World’s carbon impact to dip below pre-industrial levels, and do you genuinely think fossil fuel climate change can be circumvented by terraforming our methane footprint artificially? Is there a meaningful view here that might change, or will it remain secondary to your vegan ethical position?
Though after learning some ideas from utilitarianism related to statistics and commutative events as well as ideas from virtue ethics about modeling behavior and living heterodoxy my stance on boycotts or at least reduction in other areas has changed as well.
Peter Singer, I presume? This is actually a separate topic I have some experience discussing. I, too, am largely Utilitarian in my ethical foundation. But I do strongly reject his argument on many grounds. A rejection I don’t want to intermingle with an environmental discussion, if you get my point above about how easily these discussions can turn into a 3-legged stool of constantly rotating complex discussions.
I’ll avoid responding to your arguments on the main subject because it would pressure you to respond when you’ve made it clear that you don’t want to continue having the discussion based on who I am
Sorry to steal your decision to use court terminology, but I object. I simply don’t want to respond if you aren’t arguing for the environment because it matters to you. I need to understand whether you being convinced that consuming some animals is good for the environment would CYV on anything at all, or if you’d just lean on “but I think it’s wrong to consume animals”.