You specically said If they're just nicotine, I don't really see the problem. All the problems that come from smoking, aren't caused by the nicotine, but by the delivery vehicle, and in this case, doesn't seem to be an issue.. Emphasis mine. You seem to be suggesting that there is no risk associated with these kids using nicotine products? The link I provided indicates the opposite:
Animal research has found that even in small doses, nicotine exposure in adolescence causes long-lasting changes in brain development, which could have negative implications in human adolescents for learning, memory, attention, behavior problems, and future addiction.
I wonder how much land access affects this. It's easy to build bigger properties when you've got a lot of land. The UK has much less land area compared to the US or even France, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Norway, Poland and Italy. Not all of that land is actually buildable, either.
I'm not against the sentiment, I'm against how you're making it and the tone you're taking whilst doing so.
Comments like *100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.
But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids*. come across as needlessly confrontational and are an example of a fallacy of relevance. No one was blaming mothers buying meat for climate change. No one was advocating for businesses to be allowed To ignore their environmental responsibilities. You raised arguments that were irrelevant to the article, then doubled down by moving the goal-posts further to encompass additional societal problems like the lack of nutritional food in some parts of the US, all of which are irrelevant to the point of the article.
Also, my point stands: the world arguably should go vegan. Doesn't mean they can. Your point doesn't invalidate theirs.
Great, except I'm not discussing that comment with you, I'm discussing your comments re. the costs and time requirements of veganism.
But OK, I'll bite. The comment you linked has already been addressed multiple times. Your numbers were incorrect and your comment re. mothers buying meat misses the point of the original article, which is extolling the environmental virtues of going vegan for those that can. Ideally everyone should go vegan. This is not the same as saying everyone can.
What's your point? Arguments for veganism only apply to those who can eat vegan. They obviously don't apply to those that can't. You concern re. food deserts is a very valid one but that isn't a criticism of veganism, it's benefits or its impact on the environment. Working to eliminate food deserts and improve nutritional options for everyone is a part of tackling climate change. For those Americans that do have access to some vegan options (about 80% of the population) going vegan or at least 'flexitarian' is cheaper, quicker, healthier and better for the environment.
In edition, your point about families having time, whilst valid, is again not a criticism of veganism, it's a criticism of a multitude of wider societal issues.
I mean, to be fair, this isn't proposed as the solution to climate, but rather part of the solution. Your points about income and meat prices are totally valid, but they're things that we as citizens can pressure our governments to adopt as part of the encouragement of a reduced meat diet.
I mean, we can do all of those things and reduce our meat intake. They're not mutually exclusive. How about we encourage people to do everything they can, rather than gate-keeping solutions?
How flexible is flexible? The room I game in has uneven floorboards. I'd be worried that a glass mat, tempered or otherwise, would immediately shatter on anything other than a perfectly flat surface.
With great difficulty