The ugly reality behind Tim Walz’s farm-friendly image
The ugly reality behind Tim Walz’s farm-friendly image
The VP candidate loves to snuggle baby animals. He’s giving factory farming a progressive sheen.
You're viewing a single thread.
Save you a click: Walz doesn't practice vegetarianism like the author and the other 5% of the population of the US that does, so he's secretly evil.
Not OP, but that's not exactly accurate. The article itself is much less dramatic than the headline. The article acknowledges how trump's policies would absolutely be worse
Mainly talks about implicit support of factory farming in campaign stops and the like. But also notes that it's not limited to Walz and far worse on the Republican side
Kind of wish they just ran with a different headline on this
Tim Walz needs to go vegan.
You dumbass
This statement is why no one likes vegans. You're demanding that someone adhere to your believe system. It doesn't matter how well you can argue your rationale, the demand itself is the reason.
It's the same level of insufferableness as Christian Warriors.
Not OP, but setting aside animal rights for a moment, the rational given here is effectively an argument against all social movements
Saying that one should not ever push or nuge someone towards what you think is right regardless of how well argued or how much of a point that you have
My point is that they aren't pushing or nudging, they are making a demand
Do most/many social movements not do the all three at the same time? For instance, demanding that voting rights acts should be passed while simultaneously trying to nudge people and politicians to support it
Veganism isn't a social movement. It's a culture movement closer to religion than anything. It has special dietary and lifestyle dogma that one must adhere to in order to be a member of the group.
It merely attempts to leverage existing social movements to push its much larger agenda, as any religion does.
I think that's misunderstanding the goals of those who advocate for it. Animal rights is the movement. Veganism is advocated as a means to achieve that end by stopping the support of the harm within animal agriculture & factory farming
So, like, a few years ago, I had this co-worker. She was vegan in the “annoying” way. Most vegans? You wouldn’t know it unless you knew them. In any case that wasn’t her.
She wasted no time telling everyone that they weren’t allowed to bring meat into the office- that the smell of it made her ill, and so, we had to be vegan to.
Well. Unfortunately for her that’s not a reasonable accommodation. Not that we didn’t try to make some effort (not microwaving food when she’s in the break room, etc,)(to be fair, our attempt to be reasonable ended after about the third sign declaring the office meat-free.)
In any case she waged a small war on it over the course of a few days- mostly hanging up passive aggressive signs and being snippy whenever some one walked by with anything even vaguely meat like, (including, in point of fact leftover mushroom stew that is, in fact, vegan. It’s why I think she was full of shit about the smell making her ill.)
Things came to a head when she decided it was a good idea to to go into the break room fridge and toss everything into the garbage. (Including another coworkers veg fried rice with crispy tofu,)
Now, do you think that anyone in that office was persuaded to go vegan?
Or do you imagine that HR fired her ass for being an overbearing, condescending bitch- and a thief as well?
I’ll give you a hint: the steaks my boss got and I grilled for lunch were delicious.
The point being: food is integral to culture, and in many ways, part of how we socialize. It’s not something that you can just demand we change and not expect people to react well to.
Making arguments are all well and good, but they won’t really persuade anyone either. You’re literally talking about changing a few millennia of cultural norms.
Sure we can have that discussion, but really, if you have to get preachy, you have to get demanding or “dramatic” like my ex-coworker…. All it does is makes people remember that rather than the actual impactful points of the discussion.
Eating a vegan diet could be the “single biggest way” to reduce your environmental impact on earth, a new study suggests.
Researchers at the University of Oxford found that cutting meat and dairy products from your diet could reduce an individual's carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent.
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements.
The production of animal-based foods is associated with higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than plant-based foods. The objective of this study was to estimate the difference in dietary GHG emissions between self-selected meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Subjects were participants in the EPIC-Oxford cohort study. The diets of 2,041 vegans, 15,751 vegetarians, 8,123 fish-eaters and 29,589 meat-eaters aged 20–79 were assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire. Comparable GHG emissions parameters were developed for the underlying food codes using a dataset of GHG emissions for 94 food commodities in the UK, with a weighting for the global warming potential of each component gas. The average GHG emissions associated with a standard 2,000 kcal diet were estimated for all subjects. ANOVA was used to estimate average dietary GHG emissions by diet group adjusted for sex and age. The age-and-sex-adjusted mean (95 % confidence interval) GHG emissions in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per day (kgCO2e/day) were 7.19 (7.16, 7.22) for high meat-eaters ( > = 100 g/d), 5.63 (5.61, 5.65) for medium meat-eaters (50-99 g/d), 4.67 (4.65, 4.70) for low meat-eaters ( < 50 g/d), 3.91 (3.88, 3.94) for fish-eaters, 3.81 (3.79, 3.83) for vegetarians and 2.89 (2.83, 2.94) for vegans. In conclusion, dietary GHG emissions in self-selected meat-eaters are approximately twice as high as those in vegans. It is likely that reductions in meat consumption would lead to reductions in dietary GHG emissions.
your first claim is actually just fluff. The actual research paper does not make that same claim.
your second claim is literally expired. The academy of nutrition and dietetics does not currently have a position about vegetarian or vegan diets.
remember that Bad Religion song, 10 in 2010? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6YQJda8EM The numbers weren't accurate, but that's way better messaging than throwing up a wall of text and science, oh so gross
Really grasping for reasons to not like him, huh? I wonder why you aren't broadcasting that Donald Trump needs to go vegan 🤔
He needs to go vegan too but he’s much less likely that’s why we’re talking about Tim Walz as the left and centre on the political spectrum are more open towards veganism that’s has existed since 1944.
LOL are you for real?
.. are you drunk or something? Or just Canadian?
You need to go away.