Personally I would consider the extreme harm of animal agriculture against all of the sacrifices.

A sensible approach

I would consider long term malnutrition morally better than continuing the extreme harm against animals, but that’s a hard call that they didn’t make any statement on.

A subjective opinion i happen to agree with.

Evidently 47 million / 330m Americans are food insecure, so about 1/7 actually have to make a tough choice and I wouldn’t fault them nearly as much as the huge majority that eats meat just because they think it’s yummy.

I think this is on a sliding scale depending on the level of insecurity, but i think we generally agree on this also.

The reason let them eat cake is ridiculous is because it’s unbelievably out of touch with the common person.

Which was exactly my point.

To someone struggling with feeding themselves and/or their family "If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it." sounds a lot like someone talking down to you.

In this case 80+% of people have access to the “cake” (having a choice). It’s like saying “touch grass” is a sign if privilege because not everyone has the capability of moving around outside on their own.

Agreed, See response directly above.

You are technically correct, but the implication is “if you are in the small minority that cannot do this, you are not who I am referring to.”

That is not at all clear from the reply that i originally responded to. i think we might also disagree on what "small minority" means ( i wouldn’t consider 20% a small minority, but that’s subjective i suppose).

And even then, the implication with “personal choice” is that it’s not a tough moral decision where you are massively hurt by it.

Another implication not clear from their original reply.

Technically it is personal, and it’s a choice, but people don’t usually say “oh yeah I decided to give up not being freezing in the winter as a personal choice.” That’s a hard moral decision.

I agree, but :

THEM: Personal issues end where others right to exist begin. A personal choice is what color choice you wanna be wear in the morning.

THEM: If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it. And yes. Choosing to eat meat has victims. You’re eating your victims.

Doesn't convey that nuance ( for me at least )

There is absolutely no shot that at least 95% of people on lemmy do not have access to some sort of grocer in some way.

Not what i said, or what either of you said, though i will admit to probably taking the "walmart" part of that statement too literally.

Even so , access to a grocer isn't the same as access to enough food which is explained in my previous replies.

83% of Americans have access to it, and lemmy skews heavily towards people in tech / more well off people.

I'm not sure where that number comes from but assuming it's true it's still a far cry from the 99% you claimed (though now I’m thinking that was possibly hyperbolic on purpose and i missed it)

and lemmy skews heavily towards people in tech / more well off people.

Agreed.

. Even having the time to look into alternatives to reddit and be knowledgeable enough to actually engage in it is a privilege which most people do not have.

Agreed.

I might make a post about it just to see, but that sounds so unlikely that more than 1/20 people that educated with the time to invest into learning how to use lemmy would be in the <20% who are food insecure

I'd also be interested to see the results of that but generally agree.

I think all of what you showed they said was fair. 83% of people having a choice is the vast majority, and bringing up food deserts and people who can’t afford anything else, without starving or great hardship, is something they (implied) they would obviously concede.

Disagree on this one for several reasons.

• i wouldn't consider 83% a vast majority in this context, certainly a majority though, but that's obviously subjective.
• 83% of americans is not 83% of people, you've stated both in your reply like they are the same thing, they are not.
• The implication was not apparent from their original reply(the one i responded to), they sort of clarified later, but still in a way that implied they assumed physical location was the only issue.

A revelation to me, evidently plant based diets are just on the whole cheaper compared to meat, though this may not be true in food deserts.

I'm not sure enough about this to claim on the whole for either direction, best i can say (anecdotally) is that the meat industrial complex has the capability to undercut the agricultural industry in some cases (on a calorie to calorie basis and including nutritional balance).

The link is interesting though, there's more to the fiscal accessibility of non-meat food than i realised, it doesn't cover opportunity cost, but as a general study of fiscal access it has a lot of information that's new to me, i'll have a proper read.

As for meal prep time, yes that is very fair but can be alleviated heavily with getting a 2nd hand instant pot and making meals in that which take unironically 30 seconds, which is shorter than a drive-thru.

There's a few caveats/assumptions to that statement.

Access (in a fiscal and physical sense) to 2nd hand pressure cookers is not something i'd assume is widely possible with the kind of demographics that have been mentioned.

Not to say there would be no access, just that i'm not sure it's as much of a game changer as you make it sound.

I'm genuinely not sure what 30 second pressure cooker meals you are talking about but it sounds like magic, i don't mean this in an insulting way, if you could send me some examples i'd appreciate it, that would be very helpful to me personally.

Pressure cookers are arguably more dangerous than most other kitchen appliances, in that they are essentially bombs with a lot of safeguards, i'd be wary of purchasing a 2nd hand one of dubious origin, but i know that's partly a privilege thing on my part so it's possibly not as relevant as the other points.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about, mate.

Enforce free-range, but just don't let the food they're producing and not utilising go to waste.

Right. So, in this scenario, you have billions of humans that you'll just kill and then say "it's for their own good"?

That only applies to industrail scale farming which Alaknar has taken distance away from in this thread.

Yeah, if only I didn't specify cutting down on consumption which would drive a "wind down" of breeding...

But hey, good to know you're so concerned about farm animal welfare that you want to kill them all.

genetic freaks are so deformed

holy ableism batman. If animals are people, then denying domesticated animals reproductive access because of their genetics is genocide.