You know the answer to this, so why ask? Just make your accusation directly and take your smugness in lump sum rather than annuity.

You've got a crystal ball here?

Some people change their behavior when they learn they their current behaviors are contributing to significant harm and there is a viable alternative to reduce harm.

We've got a choice about whether we contribute to the harm caused by commercial fishing or not.

Seems this is a sensitive topic for you; is there perhaps some cognitive dissonance at play? If so, it’s probably worth teasing out the details and reassessing behaviors or beliefs.

You hear this kind of argument a lot, people like to accuse one another of "virtue signaling". I like to call it the Joker argument- "You're just like me underneath, Batman." It's an argument you can trot out in any situation too, even if you don't have any real point to make, because it isn't an argument at all, but rather a character attack. It's lazy and dishonest.

Presumably you responded to the wrong comment by mistake, but if not what argument are you referring to? All I see is a simple question that most certainly doesn't say anything about anyone's character. It is true that any possible answer to the question won't tell us much in the grand scheme of things, but that shouldn't stop someone from having a little curiosity now and again. Curiosity is the spice of life, as they say.

It has certainly changed my habits substantially.

I don’t eat a lot of fish, and what I do eat is mostly aquacultured here in New Zealand: freshwater salmon and green-lipped mussels are the lowest impact options available to me.

I sometimes have wild-caught fish when I’m away with friends who spearfish. On the very rare occasion I buy wild-caught fish, I’m very picky about species and method (long lines or maybe set netted, never trawled)