[alterom]

>Equating eating meat with martyrdom in the year 2026 is, in fact, the same cognitive dissonance you personally deny

You completely missed the point.

In the context of picking battles, martyrdom is (self) sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, with no direct gain for the cause.

Abstaining from meat, to me, will take away one of the not-so-many joys I have in my life, without possibly making a meaningful impact on unethical farming.

I'm well off. You might be. Most people in the US are not.

And in the end of the day, poor people are going to buy the cheapest products in the grocery store.

So, there's always be a demand as long as there's supply.

More than that. We don't really have a choice for where meat comes from anyway. There's no requirement to put that on the label, along with nutritional data.

That, by the way, is another example where legislation can make a lot of difference.

My point is that abstaining from meat is about as useful as that young man setting himself of fire in the US to help children in Gaza.

Same goes about feeling bad about eating meat (while eating it).

The impact on the cause is zero.

Your energy would be better spent fighting the ag-gag laws, requiring disclosures on the labels, making ethically farmed products cheaper (and factory farmed produce more expensive), and so on.

You having morally conflicted feelings doesn't help anyone.

And it's simple, really: you are complicit in doing a bad thing. But the complicity is not in doing the thing, it's in supporting the system where in doing it is the rational choice for the majority of people.

Your choice in doing or not doing the thing has very little impact on whether the thing happens.

[satvikpendem]

Aren't vegetables cheaper than meat? I'd assume poor people also like the taste of meat, as was evolutionarily advantaged, not that it's the cheapest.

[alterom]

>Aren't vegetables cheaper than meat?

Do you even do any grocery shopping where you live?

Not long ago, I could get chicken for $0.99/pound, same as the cheapest tomatoes, whereas quality tomatoes sold for $2.99/pound.

Now the prices for meat are up, but chicken still costs $1.99/pound[1], while decent tomatoes are $3.99/pound[2].

Even if you are thrifty and find cheaper tomatoes, they are incomparable to chicken in nutritional value.

You know the expression "chicken soup for the soul"? There's a reason it's not "tomato soup for the soul" (as much as I love gazpacho).

> I'd assume poor people also like the taste of meat

Try eating on a budget instead of assuming what them "poor people" like.

[1] https://www.safeway.com/shop/product-details.960014952.html?...

[2] https://www.safeway.com/shop/product-details.184570092.html

[aziaziazi]

The comparaison of chicken and tomatoes is a strawman.

First off: people don’t swap them in their diet, a better exemple would be wheat or soy - which are what the 0.99/p chicken eat [edit: and it's closer in term of nutrients].

Second: the shelf price you mention includes gouvernement subsidies and economy of scale. The grains price should be the one paid by the fermer, adjusted for smaller packaging. Your comparaison may stands where you live because of political choices and societal evolution. It doesn’t in a more liberal and non regulated juridictions, does it?

[alterom]

>The comparaison of chicken and tomatoes is a strawman.

It's a direct answer to the question asked by the parent.

The answer is: no, vegetables are not cheaper than meat in the US.

It is perverse. Which is my point: what enables the low, low price of chicken isn't merely the laws of supply and demand.

>First off: people don’t swap them in their diet, a better exemple would be wheat or soy

Those are not vegetables. Those are grains and legumes, respectively.

>Second: the shelf price you mention includes gouvernement subsidies and economy of scale.

No shit.

Which is my point exactly: the problem is addressed by government regulation, and exists because of government regulation, including, but not limited to, subsidies to particular forms of farming, and ag gag laws.

>Your comparaison may stands where you live

Well of course I can speak about where I live.

And yeah, we're talking in English on a US-based website (specifically, a Silicon Valley one). I am talking about the US, a country of about 350M people.

It's not like I'm talking about a small state few people have heard of with no impact on anything. The situation in the US matters because it influences a lot.

Canada isn't that different from the US food-wise, for that matter.

[aziaziazi]

Ah I might be confused by my low english skills but it seems grains and legumes are vegetable. I was curious and a quick search returned several sources confirming that however I'd be pleased to learn other usages.

> a plant or part of a plant that is eaten as food. Potatoes, beans and onions are all vegetables.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

I'm don't want to argue on definitions though but the chicken/tomatoes comparaison hardly make sense in an answer to satvikpendem: he mentioned vegatable in comparaison to meat in a poor people diet. In that situation one would certainly aim mainly for cheap and nutritious staples AKA grains and legumes instead of tomatoes.

At least we agree on the regulation impact! I wish you a pleasant Californian day :-)

[satvikpendem]

They are vegetables technically speaking, the parent is being too literal and obtuse with their inference of what I was talking about.

[satvikpendem]

If you are going to be that literal then I'm not sure what to say. By vegetables yes I meant a plant based diet (including legumes and grains which are vegetables technically speaking) vs one with meat, not literally tomatoes versus chicken. You might have given a direct answer but it's not what was implied in the context of the thread. I do agree that there is a big problem with the current regulations and subsidies artificially pushing down the price of meat, yet even still it is cheaper to not eat meat. And I say this as someone who does eat meat.

Aside, I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive in your comments, it doesn't make for good discourse when one says things like "you've completely missed the point" or "no shit" or the oft seen pattern of quoting and rebutting each line. If I were to speak to my friends that way I'd quickly lose friends.

[redsocksfan45]

Bro you're picking the most yuppy veggies you can find to strain to make your point. "I can't just eat the cheap tomatoes, I demand the finest!"

Quit being such a fruit.

[nickburns]

> In the context of picking battles, martyrdom is (self) sacrifice, with no direct gain for the cause.

On the first clause, exactly. (The second clause appears to be a bit of ad lib.)

> Abstaining from meat, to me, will take away one of the not-so-many joys I have in my life

I don't think the concept of 'martyrdom' encompasses self-interest. It does however consider the cause/s of other beings. So I maintain, not a very cognitively consonant use of the term.

[alterom]

>On the first clause, exactly. (The second clause appears to be a bit of ad lib.)

The original definition of martyr is: "a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty for declaring belief in and refusing to renounce a religion"[1].

It's suffering for the sake of being true to one's faith; impact of that decision on anyone else not being a factor in whether one is a martyr.

Abstaining from meat consumption when it's something you really enjoy is martyrdom in that sense: you are sticking to your moral principles while having no impact on the proliferation of unethical farming.

>I don't think the concept of 'martyrdom' encompasses self-interest

You think incorrectly. The concept of martyrdom means forgoing the self-interest of self-preservation and not being in pain. There's no martyrdom without sacrifice.

>It does however consider the cause/s of other beings.

It may, in the modern sense of the word, but it doesn't have to. See the linked definition. The causes for which one martyrs themselves may vary. The unifying factor is suffering in the name of the cause.

Not suffering with the effect of making something happen. It's choosing to suffer in the name of something that makes one a martyr.

Martyrdom is not an efficient way to bring the cause closer to reality.

> So I maintain, not a very cognitively consonant use of the term.

You can maintain it's not the correct usage of the term, dictionaries be damned, but cognitive consonance has nothing to do with that.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr

[DangitBobby]

Many individuals independently making the choice has made a difference, both in harm reduction on the demand side and choice on the supply side. It's never been easier or more accessible to be vegetarian/vegan.