I feel you’re intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.
Veganism is specifically about the moral implications of commodifying animals - plant-based is about consuming plants - so while all vegans are plant-based not all plant-based folk are vegan.
In really simple terms:
Imagine two kids who don’t eat ice cream:
The first kid doesn’t eat ice cream because they really love cows and don’t want them to be used to make milk for ice cream. This kid also won’t wear leather shoes or go to the zoo because they don’t want any animals to be used by people. This is like being vegan.
The second kid doesn’t eat ice cream just because the ice cream store closed down and there’s no ice cream to buy anymore. This kid would still eat ice cream if they could get it, and they’re fine wearing leather shoes or going to the zoo. This is like being plant-based because of economics (what the farmer was talking about).
So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream, they’re doing it for very different reasons. That’s what @jerkface@lemmy.ca was saying - the farmer was talking about a future where people would eat plant-based food because animal products would be too expensive to make, not because everyone suddenly decided to become vegan and care about animals.
I feel you’re intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.
I feel like you and jerkface are answering a question I didn’t ask injecting your own morality, and refuse to answer the question I did ask. You can go back up to my post 3 or 4 earlier in the thread. I said the following:
“Since the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between ‘plant-based’ and “vegan” here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only ‘plant based’ look different in any way?”
Inside this discussion I don’t care why the outcome is the way it is. The farmer doesn’t care for this statement in his interview.
In really simple terms: Imagine two kids who don’t eat ice cream
I didn’t ask for any of that. I asked for this:
So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream,
Thank you. That was my original point with my original question with my first post to this thread.
they’re doing it for very different reasons.
I don’t care about the reasons why. The farmer doesn’t care why (for his statement). Neither of us are saying people are making a political or or moral decision. The farmer is saying that the lack of labor will force the outcome to appear as the same result of a vegan diet.
That’s all. All the extra vegan politics/philosophy/morality is irrelevant to this thread.
Idk to me it seemed like @jerkface@lemmy.ca was just trying to explain the difference between vegan and plant-based - hence “I don’t expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means “plant-based”, not “vegan”. “Plant-based” is a functional description, while “vegan” is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.”
“Since the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between ‘plant-based’ and “vegan” here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only ‘plant based’ look different in any way?”
So by your logic if he was a pig farmer instead and said “In the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldn’t be able to grow pigs” - you’d say that’s splitting hairs since the outcome is functionally the same?
Idk to me it seemed like @jerkface@lemmy.ca was just trying to explain the difference between vegan and plant-based - hence “I don’t expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means “plant-based”, not “vegan”. “Plant-based” is a functional description, while “vegan” is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.”
The farmer was communicating in a single sentence that labor shortages would cause us to adopt a vegan diet. The farmer wasn’t writing a treatise on supply chains, different economic modalities, or the realities of modern agribusinesses with regard to impacts on nature. He as summarizing the state of the food supply, as consumers are aware, in terms that consumers have an understanding of, and he was successful.
Here’s why I don’t buy your viewing of jerkface’s post. Jerkface wasn’t trying to be helpful. He was, first, insulting the farmer’s intelligence. Second, jerkface was using this insult to inject his own moral philosophy into a conversation where it wasn’t relevant and which didn’t invite it. So now jerkface is establishing that not only is the farmer an uneducated idiot, but that jerkface is the one bringing the knowledge to the masses from on high correcting the mistakes of the innocent simply minded farmer. Jerkface was manufacturing a game of pedantry to create an opportunity to stand on his soapbox about veganism. If jerkface is a vegan himself, he certainly lived up to the stereotype of a vegan.
If that wasn’t enough, by your definition @zeezee , jerkface was wrong with his correction to use “plant-based” instead of “vegan”. You yourself said that “plant-based” could mean vegetarianism. By most definitions of vegetarianism I’m aware of, that includes ovo-lacto. Since we’re talking about a dairy farm here, the “plant-based” definition is too broad because it would include dairy, which is exactly what the farmer is saying will be unavailable with the labor shortage. So jerkface’s game of pedantry is wrong because of pedantry, by your own supplied definition.
So by your logic if he was a pig farmer instead and said “In the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldn’t be able to grow pigs” - you’d say that’s splitting hairs since the outcome is functionally the same?
Veganism, as far as I’m aware, is concerned exclusively with what we put in our mouths for food and drink, the sources of those, and the welfare/impact of which they were obtained. The vegan term itself is, by its definition, inexorably linked with eating. You could say the phrase “make the choices in what to eat resulting in the equivalent of a vegan diet”, but there’s fundamental redundancy in there because the audience already knows that veganism is a way of eating. So the shorthand of “go vegan” communicates the same idea to the audience in shorthand summary. This is what the farmer did and did so successfully.
Islam is far more than diet choices. The diet choices is not even the top of the list of a Muslim attributes for me. My “top of the list” things would things like: devotion, ritual, prayer multiple times per day, Ramadan/Eid, minarets, Quron, call to worship, Arabic, pilgrimage, Mecca, Abrahamic. Sure, eventually the pork dietary choice is in there, but it would be a confusing summary statement from the pig farmer. I’d get there eventually.
Even if the pig farmer had framed it first as his Islam was just about the aspect of the faith surrounding eating if he said “In the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldn’t be able to grow pigs”, I’d also be confused for a moment why the lack of pigs would mean all of us would have to start ritually fasting, because that is another component of eating that surrounds Islam.
In short, veganism is all about eating, while Islam is many other things that has a few items surrounding eating choices/restrictions. So I would be a bit confused initially by the pig farmer’s statements where no one was confused what the dairy farmer meant when he made his vegan comment.
I feel you’re intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.
Veganism is specifically about the moral implications of commodifying animals - plant-based is about consuming plants - so while all vegans are plant-based not all plant-based folk are vegan.
In really simple terms:
Imagine two kids who don’t eat ice cream:
The first kid doesn’t eat ice cream because they really love cows and don’t want them to be used to make milk for ice cream. This kid also won’t wear leather shoes or go to the zoo because they don’t want any animals to be used by people. This is like being vegan.
The second kid doesn’t eat ice cream just because the ice cream store closed down and there’s no ice cream to buy anymore. This kid would still eat ice cream if they could get it, and they’re fine wearing leather shoes or going to the zoo. This is like being plant-based because of economics (what the farmer was talking about).
So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream, they’re doing it for very different reasons. That’s what @jerkface@lemmy.ca was saying - the farmer was talking about a future where people would eat plant-based food because animal products would be too expensive to make, not because everyone suddenly decided to become vegan and care about animals.
I feel like you and jerkface are answering a question I didn’t ask injecting your own morality, and refuse to answer the question I did ask. You can go back up to my post 3 or 4 earlier in the thread. I said the following:
“Since the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between ‘plant-based’ and “vegan” here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only ‘plant based’ look different in any way?”
Inside this discussion I don’t care why the outcome is the way it is. The farmer doesn’t care for this statement in his interview.
I didn’t ask for any of that. I asked for this:
Thank you. That was my original point with my original question with my first post to this thread.
I don’t care about the reasons why. The farmer doesn’t care why (for his statement). Neither of us are saying people are making a political or or moral decision. The farmer is saying that the lack of labor will force the outcome to appear as the same result of a vegan diet.
That’s all. All the extra vegan politics/philosophy/morality is irrelevant to this thread.
Idk to me it seemed like @jerkface@lemmy.ca was just trying to explain the difference between vegan and plant-based - hence “I don’t expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means “plant-based”, not “vegan”. “Plant-based” is a functional description, while “vegan” is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.”
So by your logic if he was a pig farmer instead and said “In the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldn’t be able to grow pigs” - you’d say that’s splitting hairs since the outcome is functionally the same?
The farmer was communicating in a single sentence that labor shortages would cause us to adopt a vegan diet. The farmer wasn’t writing a treatise on supply chains, different economic modalities, or the realities of modern agribusinesses with regard to impacts on nature. He as summarizing the state of the food supply, as consumers are aware, in terms that consumers have an understanding of, and he was successful.
Here’s why I don’t buy your viewing of jerkface’s post. Jerkface wasn’t trying to be helpful. He was, first, insulting the farmer’s intelligence. Second, jerkface was using this insult to inject his own moral philosophy into a conversation where it wasn’t relevant and which didn’t invite it. So now jerkface is establishing that not only is the farmer an uneducated idiot, but that jerkface is the one bringing the knowledge to the masses from on high correcting the mistakes of the innocent simply minded farmer. Jerkface was manufacturing a game of pedantry to create an opportunity to stand on his soapbox about veganism. If jerkface is a vegan himself, he certainly lived up to the stereotype of a vegan.
If that wasn’t enough, by your definition @zeezee , jerkface was wrong with his correction to use “plant-based” instead of “vegan”. You yourself said that “plant-based” could mean vegetarianism. By most definitions of vegetarianism I’m aware of, that includes ovo-lacto. Since we’re talking about a dairy farm here, the “plant-based” definition is too broad because it would include dairy, which is exactly what the farmer is saying will be unavailable with the labor shortage. So jerkface’s game of pedantry is wrong because of pedantry, by your own supplied definition.
Veganism, as far as I’m aware, is concerned exclusively with what we put in our mouths for food and drink, the sources of those, and the welfare/impact of which they were obtained. The vegan term itself is, by its definition, inexorably linked with eating. You could say the phrase “make the choices in what to eat resulting in the equivalent of a vegan diet”, but there’s fundamental redundancy in there because the audience already knows that veganism is a way of eating. So the shorthand of “go vegan” communicates the same idea to the audience in shorthand summary. This is what the farmer did and did so successfully.
Islam is far more than diet choices. The diet choices is not even the top of the list of a Muslim attributes for me. My “top of the list” things would things like: devotion, ritual, prayer multiple times per day, Ramadan/Eid, minarets, Quron, call to worship, Arabic, pilgrimage, Mecca, Abrahamic. Sure, eventually the pork dietary choice is in there, but it would be a confusing summary statement from the pig farmer. I’d get there eventually.
Even if the pig farmer had framed it first as his Islam was just about the aspect of the faith surrounding eating if he said “In the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldn’t be able to grow pigs”, I’d also be confused for a moment why the lack of pigs would mean all of us would have to start ritually fasting, because that is another component of eating that surrounds Islam.
In short, veganism is all about eating, while Islam is many other things that has a few items surrounding eating choices/restrictions. So I would be a bit confused initially by the pig farmer’s statements where no one was confused what the dairy farmer meant when he made his vegan comment.