> But people value Instagramming their bacon too much.

...Yeah pretty sure that's not the reason. Vegetarian meals are usually more colorful and better for photos, bacon is a very boring photo.

It's the taste. Tempeh is a decent bacon substitute, beans are not. I feel like I'm missing some sarcasm here or something.

I'm not defending eating meat here. All I'm saying is you might want to broaden your own horizons as to why people eat it.

To pretend things like taste don't exist makes your argument disingenuous and makes anyone likely to dismiss your arguments right away.

If you're going to boil it down so simply, there are cruelty free sources of meat, and since you choose to ignore that and your only argument is cruelty... I'm just going to ignore everything else you say, because the one area I do understand, I understand you're making stuff up about.

HN hivemind is triggered! Thanks for spreading awareness (I'm vegan btw)

This isn't spreading awareness, this is how you make people sick of your cause. This is like the angry preacher who goes down to college campuses and yells that sex is the devil. After enough missing-the-point, anyone not on your side gives up listening or actively assumes anything else you say is also missing the point.

> Which is really pathetic if you think about it.

Blaming individuals for a demographic problem is not productive. It doesn't seem like you read that part though...

How is it a demographic problem? Who is forcing you to eat meat? Most societal changes are brought about by individuals with the courage to question something that is wrong but socially normalized.

Reducing systemic, global issues to the actions of the individuals is simplistic. It's technically true that if everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow these industries would collapse, but it's also true that if people would simply stop killing each other, we wouldn't need prisons. People are not autonomous rational actors, we're creatures with a context, wills, and desires. "Simply be more virtuous" glosses over why the choices people have to make and are able to make exist in the first place. Don't eat meat, sure, I won't argue that in the right context that's the virtuous choice, but why is it on US to change, rather than the people at the actual levers of power?

Also, "simply be more virtuous" is never a solution that has ever worked. I've had similar conversations - "getting a job is easy, just pick a good major and work hard like I did." Sure, but what did standing there and saying that do? When I go meet with the city council, and I say those exact words, what has been accomplished? What policy can be written, what programs can be started, based off casting an accusation like that?

Who is forcing you to use single use plastic? Who is forcing you to drive a car powered by an internal combustion engine? Who is forcing you to eat food produced on degrading land? That's not how the tragedy of the commons works.

> Most societal changes are brought about by individuals with the courage to question something that is wrong but socially normalized.

[Citation needed]

The truth is that most sweeping societal change is driven by a central government and always has been. Everything from the transition to city-states, the industrial revolution to civil rights. Individuals convince their central governments to act, but you can't just convince an entire population to change their mind without a monopoly on violence.

>Who is forcing you to eat meat?

Are people "forced" to celebrate Valentine's day? Are they "forced" to wear blue jeans? Listen to either rock OR pop OR rap OR country?

Demographic == culture. We eat meat because we eat meat because we ate meat, for ten thousand years.

Do you blame a child for their "choice" of religion? Do you blame a family that drives to work over taking the bus, which sucks 4 hours extra out of their day because they live in Pocatello, Idaho and don't have much of a transit system?

> But people value Instagramming their bacon too much.

You realize people enjoy bacon for the flavor, right?

If they're smart enough to subdue me and my entire civilization using technology unfathomable to my puny human mind then I guess I don't really get a say and it doesn't matter what I think anyway, now does it?

There's an analogy to livestock in there if you look hard enough.

So if intelligence is the marker, is it ok to manipulate mentally handicapped people?

We're not talking about marginal intelligence difference. You're making the exception the rule. We're talking different species here. The food chain applies and if you're not at the top there's no advocate built into nature for you. You're a commodity and the only thing securing your survival is your value and the responsibility of the species above you.

Of course I would. Do you think my lack of objection somehow shows a moral inconsistency? I think you do -- but that's only true if you project a very rigid and symmetrical concept of moral intuition on to me, which I promise you I don't hold.

I'd be more interested in their recipes.