Personally I would consider the extreme harm of animal agriculture against all of the sacrifices.

A sensible approach

I would consider long term malnutrition morally better than continuing the extreme harm against animals, but that’s a hard call that they didn’t make any statement on.

A subjective opinion i happen to agree with.

Evidently 47 million / 330m Americans are food insecure, so about 1/7 actually have to make a tough choice and I wouldn’t fault them nearly as much as the huge majority that eats meat just because they think it’s yummy.

I think this is on a sliding scale depending on the level of insecurity, but i think we generally agree on this also.

The reason let them eat cake is ridiculous is because it’s unbelievably out of touch with the common person.

Which was exactly my point.

To someone struggling with feeding themselves and/or their family "If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it." sounds a lot like someone talking down to you.

In this case 80+% of people have access to the “cake” (having a choice). It’s like saying “touch grass” is a sign if privilege because not everyone has the capability of moving around outside on their own.

Agreed, See response directly above.

You are technically correct, but the implication is “if you are in the small minority that cannot do this, you are not who I am referring to.”

That is not at all clear from the reply that i originally responded to. i think we might also disagree on what "small minority" means ( i wouldn’t consider 20% a small minority, but that’s subjective i suppose).

And even then, the implication with “personal choice” is that it’s not a tough moral decision where you are massively hurt by it.

Another implication not clear from their original reply.

Technically it is personal, and it’s a choice, but people don’t usually say “oh yeah I decided to give up not being freezing in the winter as a personal choice.” That’s a hard moral decision.

I agree, but :

THEM: Personal issues end where others right to exist begin. A personal choice is what color choice you wanna be wear in the morning.

THEM: If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it. And yes. Choosing to eat meat has victims. You’re eating your victims.

Doesn't convey that nuance ( for me at least )

There is absolutely no shot that at least 95% of people on lemmy do not have access to some sort of grocer in some way.

Not what i said, or what either of you said, though i will admit to probably taking the "walmart" part of that statement too literally.

Even so , access to a grocer isn't the same as access to enough food which is explained in my previous replies.

83% of Americans have access to it, and lemmy skews heavily towards people in tech / more well off people.

I'm not sure where that number comes from but assuming it's true it's still a far cry from the 99% you claimed (though now I’m thinking that was possibly hyperbolic on purpose and i missed it)

and lemmy skews heavily towards people in tech / more well off people.

Agreed.

. Even having the time to look into alternatives to reddit and be knowledgeable enough to actually engage in it is a privilege which most people do not have.

Agreed.

I might make a post about it just to see, but that sounds so unlikely that more than 1/20 people that educated with the time to invest into learning how to use lemmy would be in the <20% who are food insecure

I'd also be interested to see the results of that but generally agree.

I think all of what you showed they said was fair. 83% of people having a choice is the vast majority, and bringing up food deserts and people who can’t afford anything else, without starving or great hardship, is something they (implied) they would obviously concede.

Disagree on this one for several reasons.

• i wouldn't consider 83% a vast majority in this context, certainly a majority though, but that's obviously subjective.
• 83% of americans is not 83% of people, you've stated both in your reply like they are the same thing, they are not.
• The implication was not apparent from their original reply(the one i responded to), they sort of clarified later, but still in a way that implied they assumed physical location was the only issue.

A revelation to me, evidently plant based diets are just on the whole cheaper compared to meat, though this may not be true in food deserts.

I'm not sure enough about this to claim on the whole for either direction, best i can say (anecdotally) is that the meat industrial complex has the capability to undercut the agricultural industry in some cases (on a calorie to calorie basis and including nutritional balance).

The link is interesting though, there's more to the fiscal accessibility of non-meat food than i realised, it doesn't cover opportunity cost, but as a general study of fiscal access it has a lot of information that's new to me, i'll have a proper read.

As for meal prep time, yes that is very fair but can be alleviated heavily with getting a 2nd hand instant pot and making meals in that which take unironically 30 seconds, which is shorter than a drive-thru.

There's a few caveats/assumptions to that statement.

Access (in a fiscal and physical sense) to 2nd hand pressure cookers is not something i'd assume is widely possible with the kind of demographics that have been mentioned.

Not to say there would be no access, just that i'm not sure it's as much of a game changer as you make it sound.

I'm genuinely not sure what 30 second pressure cooker meals you are talking about but it sounds like magic, i don't mean this in an insulting way, if you could send me some examples i'd appreciate it, that would be very helpful to me personally.

Pressure cookers are arguably more dangerous than most other kitchen appliances, in that they are essentially bombs with a lot of safeguards, i'd be wary of purchasing a 2nd hand one of dubious origin, but i know that's partly a privilege thing on my part so it's possibly not as relevant as the other points.

TL;DR;

My entire original point can be summarised as:

Check your privilege, not everyone has the same circumstances as you.

Starting with unfounded absolutist proclamations weakens anything that surrounds it.

They never implied 100% of people

As i said:

ME: Regardless, i suspected it wasn’t as absolutist as it seemed, which is why my reply was prefaced with “If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time (in this context),”

they said if your personal choice can be criticized if it has victims. Most people don’t view “buy food I can afford or I/my family starve” as a personal choice.

Generally that's a reasonable point to make, which then leads in to the conversation about what constitutes a choice.

like your example of people making a "sacrifice" for their ideals, at which point does a conscious sacrifice no longer qualify as a "choice".

Is it choosing to starve ? long term malnutrition ? Heating vs food ?

It is not even close to “let them eat cake.” 8/10 people are not in poverty, and 7/10 could without much hardship reduce their meat consumption to near zero. 9/10 peasants could not eat cake.

Just to be clear, are those ratios legit or just an example?

Either way the way you are using them doesn't make sense.

The "let them eat cake" reference was to imply they were making statements without any consideration of their relative privilege.

Not to the same degree as a royal that doesn't understand the peasantry, but in the same vein.

“You live near a walmart” is true for the majority of Americans, and probably 99.9% of people on lemmy.

I can't even begin to address that level of ...i'm not even sure what to call it.

I'm just going to assume you don't really believe that 99% of ALL people on lemmy live "near" to a walmart.

The implication is almost anyone reading that statement has no excuse, and that if you don’t live near anywhere you can get vegetables, then you are one of the exceptions implied by you not starving not being considered a “personal choice.”

As i said previously, physical accessibility is only one factor affecting the ability for impoverished people to access enough food for a nutritionally healthy diet.

I'll quote it here for you :

ME: Assuming you have a home, even if you lived next door, that’s not even close to a guarantee you’d be able to afford a continuous level of food that matches your ideal and also reaches a level of healthy nutrition.

If you need examples of another, there is fiscal accessibility (affordability).

Even if you can physically get to it, if you can't afford it , it's not accessible.

This includes :

• outright not being able to afford something
• having to choose between the cheaper (and nutritionally more acceptable) meat options vs the more expensive non-meat option.
• being able to consistently afford this level of food without detrimental effects on your overall fiscal situation.

There's also temporal accessibility, can you get to the food in the time around your 3 jobs ? do you have the time and mental bandwidth to prepare a meal rather than microwave something.

And before you start in, yes prep and shopping time apply to all types of foods, I’m saying this is a exacerbating factor when taken with the other two.

Regardless of how you feel about it, the meat industry is big enough in scale and reach that they can price their meat mush at a lower price point that non-meat alternatives in a non-trivial amount of situations.

I'm not even making the argument that it's a majority, I’m saying it exists and shouldn't be disregarded.

Arguably you could consider that a personal choice, but when their example is “which T shirt to pick” I don’t think that’s their implication.

It was, they mention personal choice and them immediately follow up with this:

THEM: If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it

They follow up with hyperbolic examples of when someone might get a "pass".

THEM: This is the “what if you were on a deserted island and there was only a single cow in it. Would you eat it”

Then follows up with a reply with "vast majority" and "Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real."

Fucking right?

Food in a bottle with little to no prep is where it's at.

I'm still waiting for them food cubes from starfield

When i can occasionally get focused on some meal prep (or remember that meal prep exists) just coking up an industrial sized VAT of generic food+sauce and sticking that in the freezer is also a good one, if you can negotiate with the brain to make it happen.

Same here.

Him also being ridiculously hot is a welcome side benefit.

Just like with police. A minority of bad cops give all cops a bad name.

Except motorcyclists aren't an inherent part of a purposely oppressive system that routinely does horrific things as a core part of its working.

If a motorcyclist calls another out for bad behavior they don't (usually) have to risk their life and livelihood to do so.

ACAB comes from the idea that it's not possible to remain in that group as a subjectively good person.

I get it, you hate motorcyclists, possibly for good reason but the idea that a genuine equivalence exists between them and police is absurd.

It isn't and this is the one of many replies in which you haven't provided even a single example.

This is because you can't provide something that doesn't exist.

Even if your reading comprehension was at such a level as to genuinely think there was an example of what you are saying in that text, you'd provide it.

I can't see a scenario where you aren't trolling for engagement.

I expect some personal attacks, continued feigned ignorance, perhaps some bargain basement deflection , all very standard and boring and that's OK, if that's your skill ceiling i won't hold it against you.

But.. i'm willing to be surprised if you have something novel, perhaps some obscure fallacy I’ll have to look up, something that sets you apart from the basement dweller trolls, something noteworthy, perhaps enough to get you elevated to troll management?

You got this, i believe in you.

Also, i'll save you some time , a reply that doesn't contain a quotable example of what you've claimed will just be ignored, no more engagement for you.

citation?

A single example is fine, i can't find any, but perhaps i'm missing something important.

Cauterisation with extremely hot metal works to seal a wound (and as far as upfront costs go, is cheaper).

Doesn't mean modern medical care isn't the preference.

smug prick.

I was going for sarcasm, but i can see the interpretational difference.

I suppose game recognises game.

"On this site, they are one and the same." sounds like something a condescending, smug prick might say as an opener.

but by all means, tell me more about what everyone on this public forum thinks.

I disagree, the consequences of how people see and interact with you based on that one vote isn't separate from any other consequences the vote has.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

True, the difference i suppose is the body count, both location and volume.

Gonna be hard to calculate those numbers though.