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 @[email protected] 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?
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 @[email protected] 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?