commie @ commie @lemmy.dbzer0.com

About

---

Read more

Posts

12

Comments

2,788

Joined

2 yr. ago

can you give me a compelling reason?

this is how blocking should work. if you are publishing something to the public, there is no reason to expect others can't see it comment on it

if you think they deserve it, you should make sure they get it.

your third claim is going to take some reading for me, but I would bet dollars to donuts that I'm going to find out that they're counting greenhouse gas emissions from the feed that is given to animals, which makes sense if you don't think about it too long. but most of what we need to feed to animals is actually agricultural waste product, so by feeding it to animals, we are conserving, not producing.

your first claim is actually just fluff. The actual research paper does not make that same claim.

your second claim is literally expired. The academy of nutrition and dietetics does not currently have a position about vegetarian or vegan diets.

this study is about individual purchasers, not institutions.

no, it's not.

Are you …defending deforestation of the Amazon?

no. I'm pointing out a lie about Amazon soy being fed to cows

it would be if it caused the industry to pollute less or even just stop growing. it doesn't.

it's better than "threadiverse" which at once includes the name of a Facebook product and seems to also give Facebook all the credit for mastodon, Lemmy, pixelfed, peer tube be etc, while also making them appear to be second class citizens.

but I am not endorsing this "social web" thing yet, either.

almost all soy that becomes animal feed is a byproduct of pressing soybeans for oil. about 80% of all soybeans are pressed for oil and the byproduct is what is fed to animals. but cattle, as you can see in the chart I provided, hardly get any of the global soy crop

why is your "update" over a decade old? how often are they released?

ignoring corruption is gross. trying to distract from it with a whataboutism Is some degree worse

hardly any soy goes to cows at all.

https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png

stop wasting both of our time.

you’re free to not respond at any time.

Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation.

can you substantiate this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNPV5c2Verc

I'm surprised you don't have a better understanding of exploitation

you have no idea what my understanding is. that's not the subject of our discussion. don't make this personal.

we are discussing the vegan society's understanding.

the barest definition is a synonym of "use". the vegan society could clear up this ambiguity but they have chosen not to do so, and there is no reason to assume they prefer a special definition of exploitation.

The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent,

no, it's not. it's exploitation by the barest definition, like exploiting a fallow field or a forest. the definition of exploitation can by synonymously defined as "use". using a corpse is exploiting it. using a corpse which has, with informed consent, been consigned for use is still exploitation.