Plant-based diets may also be vegan or vegetarian but do not have to be as one may choose to eat plant-based due to personal health concerns and not animal rights ones for example.
With your provided definition of “plant-based” @[email protected] 's response would be wrong then. There’s no room in the farmer’s assertion for the “plant based” or vegetarian definition, but only vegan. The farmer’s statement isn’t saying “we’ll have to reduce our consumption of animal products” but instead “we will have to reduce our consumption of animal products to zero”.
I feel you’re intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.
Veganism is specifically about the moral implications of commodifying animals - plant-based is about consuming plants - so while all vegans are plant-based not all plant-based folk are vegan.
In really simple terms:
Imagine two kids who don’t eat ice cream:
The first kid doesn’t eat ice cream because they really love cows and don’t want them to be used to make milk for ice cream. This kid also won’t wear leather shoes or go to the zoo because they don’t want any animals to be used by people. This is like being vegan.
The second kid doesn’t eat ice cream just because the ice cream store closed down and there’s no ice cream to buy anymore. This kid would still eat ice cream if they could get it, and they’re fine wearing leather shoes or going to the zoo. This is like being plant-based because of economics (what the farmer was talking about).
So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream, they’re doing it for very different reasons. That’s what @[email protected] was saying - the farmer was talking about a future where people would eat plant-based food because animal products would be too expensive to make, not because everyone suddenly decided to become vegan and care about animals.
I feel you’re intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.
I feel like you and jerkface are answering a question I didn’t ask injecting your own morality, and refuse to answer the question I did ask. You can go back up to my post 3 or 4 earlier in the thread. I said the following:
“Since the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between ‘plant-based’ and “vegan” here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only ‘plant based’ look different in any way?”
Inside this discussion I don’t care why the outcome is the way it is. The farmer doesn’t care for this statement in his interview.
In really simple terms: Imagine two kids who don’t eat ice cream
I didn’t ask for any of that. I asked for this:
So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream,
Thank you. That was my original point with my original question with my first post to this thread.
they’re doing it for very different reasons.
I don’t care about the reasons why. The farmer doesn’t care why (for his statement). Neither of us are saying people are making a political or or moral decision. The farmer is saying that the lack of labor will force the outcome to appear as the same result of a vegan diet.
That’s all. All the extra vegan politics/philosophy/morality is irrelevant to this thread.
Idk to me it seemed like @[email protected] was just trying to explain the difference between vegan and plant-based - hence “I don’t expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means “plant-based”, not “vegan”. “Plant-based” is a functional description, while “vegan” is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.”
“Since the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between ‘plant-based’ and “vegan” here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only ‘plant based’ look different in any way?”
So by your logic if he was a pig farmer instead and said “In the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldn’t be able to grow pigs” - you’d say that’s splitting hairs since the outcome is functionally the same?
Veganism is a moral philosophy that rejects the exploitation and commodification of animals.
Plant-based is a dietary choice defined in terms of high frequency of plants and low frequency of animal food consumption.
Plant-based diets may also be vegan or vegetarian but do not have to be as one may choose to eat plant-based due to personal health concerns and not animal rights ones for example.
With your provided definition of “plant-based” @[email protected] 's response would be wrong then. There’s no room in the farmer’s assertion for the “plant based” or vegetarian definition, but only vegan. The farmer’s statement isn’t saying “we’ll have to reduce our consumption of animal products” but instead “we will have to reduce our consumption of animal products to zero”.
I feel you’re intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.
Veganism is specifically about the moral implications of commodifying animals - plant-based is about consuming plants - so while all vegans are plant-based not all plant-based folk are vegan.
In really simple terms:
Imagine two kids who don’t eat ice cream:
The first kid doesn’t eat ice cream because they really love cows and don’t want them to be used to make milk for ice cream. This kid also won’t wear leather shoes or go to the zoo because they don’t want any animals to be used by people. This is like being vegan.
The second kid doesn’t eat ice cream just because the ice cream store closed down and there’s no ice cream to buy anymore. This kid would still eat ice cream if they could get it, and they’re fine wearing leather shoes or going to the zoo. This is like being plant-based because of economics (what the farmer was talking about).
So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream, they’re doing it for very different reasons. That’s what @[email protected] was saying - the farmer was talking about a future where people would eat plant-based food because animal products would be too expensive to make, not because everyone suddenly decided to become vegan and care about animals.
I feel like you and jerkface are answering a question I didn’t ask injecting your own morality, and refuse to answer the question I did ask. You can go back up to my post 3 or 4 earlier in the thread. I said the following:
“Since the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between ‘plant-based’ and “vegan” here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only ‘plant based’ look different in any way?”
Inside this discussion I don’t care why the outcome is the way it is. The farmer doesn’t care for this statement in his interview.
I didn’t ask for any of that. I asked for this:
Thank you. That was my original point with my original question with my first post to this thread.
I don’t care about the reasons why. The farmer doesn’t care why (for his statement). Neither of us are saying people are making a political or or moral decision. The farmer is saying that the lack of labor will force the outcome to appear as the same result of a vegan diet.
That’s all. All the extra vegan politics/philosophy/morality is irrelevant to this thread.
Idk to me it seemed like @[email protected] was just trying to explain the difference between vegan and plant-based - hence “I don’t expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means “plant-based”, not “vegan”. “Plant-based” is a functional description, while “vegan” is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.”
So by your logic if he was a pig farmer instead and said “In the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldn’t be able to grow pigs” - you’d say that’s splitting hairs since the outcome is functionally the same?