Yeah, you’re dead on, and believe me, a lot of us know it, and I hope we do fix it. I’m doing as much as I can I guess, and I promise that there are a lot of other people doing what they can, even if its not publicized like the bad stuff. We’ll see if it matters in the end.

The president also pardoned a bunch of domestic terrorists, screwed over our farmers, and undermined our energy security and trade domination, not to mention replacing every federal job he could with incompetent buffoons. I hate that old white guy.

I understand the sentiment (believe me, we agree more on the democrats than we disagree), but unless you’ve got some guns you’re gonna go shoot in DC that’s probably not gonna be how it happens.

Otherwise, we cannot get new parties (with legit political power on a federal level) without serious election reform, reform that will only happen from within the current party structure. So while we need new parties in the long run, we’ve got some work to do for which we are going to have to work with Democrats.

How do you propose they do that? Keep in mind that your proposal must not give up more power to Republicans.

I understand cynicism, but not cynicism without nuance.

Ok, I’m going to leave the rest of this alone, because as you said, it seems like mostly opinion either way, but still don’t understand how you think meat eaters are being harmed by the poor psychological state of the animals while they were alive.

No, but the beef which enters a person’s body won’t be harmful to them (the person) at all.

I may be misunderstanding you. Are you talking about the harm caused in its production? As in pound for pound the harm caused by the production process? Because I would like to emphasize that I don’t think beef production is less harmful, the additional harm caused to the planet in industrial grade beef far outweighs the difference in animal welfare. It seems slightly weird to me to talk about the meat itself being harmful as it enters the person’s body when the harm is in the production.

I also don’t understand what you mean by separating “material” vs “psychological” conditions. If you’re talking about the psychological state the animals are in while they are alive, as far as I know, the statement stands, industrial cattle live slightly better lives (more space and such,) which results as far as I know, in a better psychological state*.

That’s not to say that beef is ok while chicken is not, if chicken is off the table for you, beef definitely should be as well.

*Though it is now occurring to me that comparing the psychological states of chickens and cows may not be an activity with a point.

Ok, but also, unless you’ve got time travel, talking about when we needed to start doesn’t help anyone. Talking about what we need to do now, maybe.

Insignificant, but cool. I didn’t know about the anti-greenwashing legislation they mentioned until now, that’s probably more significant.

Yeah, I agree here, they do supply all the data and methodology (though obviously some of it is paywalled) and I see how the way they presented it is probably the best for the LCD consumer, but I would have liked a decent concise summary of just the sustainability data.

You could just sit back and enjoy it instead of commenting like that.

Yes, not good, but better. I’ve worked in industrial chicken and been fairly close to industrial beef, industrial cows are treated mildly better because it is literally impossible for a cow to survive in the conditions chickens are kept in.

Also, their comment said that they wouldn’t eat chicken either, not that they wouldn’t eat chicken but would eat beef.

… ok, I did not realize that, I thought it was the leaves…

Not sure if this is meant as sarcastic?

Not how language works… Like, there are no hard lines, its just whatever can communicate the idea you want to communicate. You really don’t want to go down the road of demanding coherent and strict definitional categories for all words, and if you don’t demand it for all words, then you’re being a pedant for fully arbitrary reasons (the worst kind of pedantry).

Idk, but maybe I’ll get on later for flowers

I don’t think I’ve ever had kombucha, but that would probably be pretty good.

I can’t buy those here, and also why flowers?

No sarcasm

Yes, that sucks, I didn’t realize the standards were done like that, that should change. It still seems to me like the repairability and lifespan problems are in all modern appliances, and thus don’t specifically apply to more efficient ones, but from a financial perspective, if its that much extra, yeah, bad lifespan and repairability sucks even worse. What we need is a shift in the industry towards prioritizing useful lifespan (which I imagine would be a bigger sustainability gain) more so than we need marginal efficiency gains.