MilitantVegan @ MilitantVegan @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

199

Joined

1 yr. ago

Inaccurate. Everyone knows vegans prefer Debian.

Which Christianity?

Came in to ask, "Is it kjv? Is it kjv? I bet it's kjv." Didn't even have to ask, of course it is.

But it includes the constitution? In a sense that's almost too on the nose - if you're familiar with fundamentalist hermenuetics, then the parallels between their exegetical methods, and the constitutional interpretation methods of conservatives is too clearly identical to be accidental.

There are likely some Christians - even fascist ones, maybe particularly them - who likely find this offensive because they interpret it as an attempt to "add to the Word of God." The freaky thing is there is a nonzero chance that some Christians might actually see this as an "inspired" event, and embrace these added documents as being canonical parts of the Bible. Just as Trump is doing a fantastic job of cleaving the republican party in two, could we be witnessing what could turn out to be another major schism within the Christian sects?

Aside, this quote from the article doesn't seem entirely accurate to me. While it is true that there are likely a lot of conservative Christians that this portrays, it should also be known that some of the most passionate and dedicated fascists view the Bible as the only actually legitimate law, and most definitely study it as dutifully as a trained lawyer:

"Not that it matters, of course. The pages of Trump's "Bible" could all be blank, and there's a good chance no one would ever know it. In the right-wing publishing industry, books are not made to be read. They are to be displayed on your shelves, unopened, so you can glance at them and feel that somewhere, a liberal is "owned.""

And to add to all this, the company that maintains Brave is run by a well known anti-lgbtq bigot.

Beans (usually black beans, but I've been looking more into other varieties lately), lentils, peas, soy curls, tofu, tempeh, tvp, rice, oat groats, barley, quinoa, bulgur, amaranth, other grains I can't remember at the moment, and seitan: wherever most people would use mutilated body parts.

Yeah, to be honest there really is no consensus about this within vegan communities. I would say from an ethical stand point, the biggest thing would be if a company is continually abusing animals in their processes. And animal testing is a difficult subject too, because virtually every food has been subjected to animal testing.

I do think it's also worth mentioning that plants really are perfectly fine to center a diet around, in and of themselves. I had a really difficult time transitioning to a plant-based diet because addiction is in my genes. But at the same time I was at a place in my life where my health was declining fast, I felt like shit all the time, and I was having to force myself to eat every day. I hated food. But after I got used to eating 100% plants, all of that completely changed. I felt better than I ever had. My arthritis-like symptoms (and other inflammatory problems) completely vanished. I had all kinds of energy that I never used to. And as I got better at cooking plant based and found good places to eat, I actually fell in love with food again. Plants are fucking great.

Yeah, that was me. If you'd like to see my thoughts on why these differences in language matter, here's my last comment on that thread:

https://lemmy.world/comment/8591091

But I want to ask another question: why does this kind of language evoke such a reaction in you? An animal is a living, intelligent being, with their own volition and life that they want to live. We humans are murdering them (among many other awful things). Why is it so controversial for us to simply call these things what they are?

Tofu is made essentially the same way cheese curds are made, but using beans instead of dairy. It produces the iconic brick of compressed bean protein (and sometimes calcium depending on what catalyst is used). It's existed for something like 2000 years, and Ben Franklin may have played a role in bringing it to the US.

TVP is very different. It involves using solvents like hexane to remove most everything from the bean except the protein, and generally results in small amorphous chunks of material, or even tiny bits that are used as an alternative to ground up muscle tissues.

From the little I've seen of discussions, it depends on the implementation. I haven't looked at the details yet, but apparently there are some groups who require at least an initial animal biopsy, and I think someone said something about some growth mediums requiring animal exploitation as well.

Then there's the animal testing side of things.

Since both health and animal rights matter to me, I have no interest in consuming the stuff. If a commercially viable company emerges that can make these meats without any animal exploitation or suffering though, then I might recommend them to others.

Okay, let's talk language. Colloquially, in our age, the word 'milk' is most commonly associated with the somewhat thick, off-white substance that is produced by cows, or any other substance with similar culinary properties. When we hear or read the word, the natural thing that comes to mind is of this substance, and meaningfully, that it is an object meant for human consumption.

So if I, as a vegan, were to use the language that you want me to, it would mean reinforcing the idea that the stuff mother cows produce is a product meant for human consumption. You're trying to push me into complying with the linguistic framework that legitimizes your perception of reality, and your misconduct. I do not accept that as legitimate, and since 'milk' to me implies something for human consumption, only plant milks are milk by my definition.

I refer to the stuff cows produce in the most accurate way that I can - a specialized formula that is meant for the nutritional needs of calves, and most definitely not for human consumption. Baby cow formula.

In the same way, the rotting carcasses of slaughtered animals, and their mutilated body parts are not "meat", because meat also implies something meant for human consumption. Grains and legumes are my main source of "meat," because again, I do not except the distorted perceptions of carnism.

Now let's take this topic more broadly. Are the words vegans use merely 'edgy', or is it an attempt to encapsulate the totality of how monumentally bad of a predicament you carnists are putting us in? "Chick culling" sounds almost innocuous. Why don't you try looking up that term on YouTube, and see what that entails.

Are you aware that in the US alone, over 11 billion animals have been killed for food already this year? The basic definition of a holocaust (not to be confused with the Holocaust) is a slaughter done on a mass scale. People frequently lose their minds when a vegan refers to the mass slaughter of animals as a holocaust, despite the fact that it is truly the largest, perpetual, mass slaughter in human history.

That's not even getting into the environmental destruction, and pandemic potential of this holocaust that you're taking part in. Maybe you should check out the vegan communities and take more time to get educated on all the topics. You might come to realize that there is no language edgy enough to capture the full breadth of how awful carnism is.

https://animalclock.org/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9cEEDbM_GvU&pp=ygUNQWxleCBIZXJzaGFmdA%3D%3D

I love this, "If vegans weren't [x], we would..." ... what? Take us seriously, what do you mean by that? Are you implying that if only I would say the approved things, you would actually go vegan?! Is vegan discourse a Shin Megami Tensei dialogue tree game, where making the arbitrarily chosen, pre-approved word choices is the key to success?

And I suppose all those people who were saying, "all lives matter", were right when they said they 'no longer' support movements like BLM because a few riots happened?

Be real, you just want vegans to shut up and keep our heads down, so you don't have to have your animal abuse challenged.

Anyway it's not about what I think. The facts are that many things contribute to the rise of obesity and other western lifestyle diseases, including a sedentary lifestyle, poor diet (involving many factors), and possibly even things related to pollution. There is more than enough data to show, however, that the primary factor is animal consumption - including dairy. The Adventist health studies show this clearly, as well as many others.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/health-concerns-about-dairy

Well, it is serious. Cow's milk is a formula that's adapted for the purpose of taking a small calf, and transforming them into a huge cow as rapidly as possible. Is it any surprize that we have obesity, diabetes, and heart disease epidemics?

If this leads to more veg options at better prices, sounds like a win to me.

Unusual? You should check your biases. Plant milks have been around for a long time (at least the 1400s), are anything but unusual, particularly when the majority of the world has intolerance to baby cow growth formula.

https://vinepair.com/articles/history-of-plant-milk/

And? You've already demonstrated that you're a psychopath (and probably have heart disease and diabetes as well). Are you so weak that you need to murder defenseless animals to feel good about yourself? How about you take a screenshot of this exchange for posterity. Maybe someday if you ever have the benefit of a moment of clarity, you can look back at it and cringe at yourself.

Other than that, fuck off. Psychopath.

I am just going to respond to all of your other messages here, because it's the same answer: it is not my job to educate you. YOU are the one who is continuing to live in a way that's morally repugnant. What you are doing is directly supporting a system that is routinely putting billions of lives through a real life hell - their entire existence is suffering - only to be butchered at the equivalent of an adolescent or juvenile age. What you are consuming is the traumatized remains of beings who were basically children, who were confined as part of a perpetual holocaust that's being conducted at an unprecedented scale. They committed no crimes. They are completely innocent. And you abuse them anyway, and mock the few people who try to undo this injustice.

That's not even getting into the devastating health effects of consuming animals, or the wanton destruction of the environment and greenhouse gas emissions that go with it.

Do you count yourself a leftist, or in any way oppose the fascist republicans? Well the animal ag industry is one of their primary sources of revenue, and meat and dairy consumption is central to the white nationalist identity. Non-vegan leftists are not leftists at all, because you can't even bring justice to your own dinner table, and you are directly paying the fascists every day.

It is YOUR job to get educated, and get right.

I could get into the complexities of when and where maple syrup may be more or less harmful, but that's a bit of effort for a nested lemmy thread that's been downvoted so far as to not matter. Point is, in the context of western industrialized societies, the majority of people would see benefits from abstaining from refined sources of sweeteners, including maple. There might be some unique compounds in it, but when you look at the percentages of what's in the stuff, it's basically 98% just sugar.

Also I would suggest reading Marion Nestle's, Food Politics. It gives an inside view of the corruption in nutrition science. One of the things she said that stuck with me was when she said that she gets suspicious any time anyone is doing studies on a single food item.

There is science behind it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPE5q92JuWc&pp=ygUZd2h5IGRvIHBlb3BsZSBoYXRlIHZlZ2Fucw%3D%3D