this study is about individual purchasers, not institutions.
this study is about individual purchasers, not institutions.
no, it’s not.
it would be if it caused the industry to pollute less or even just stop growing. it doesn’t.
it’s better than “threadiverse” which at once includes the name of a Facebook product and seems to also give Facebook all the credit for mastodon, Lemmy, pixelfed, peer tube be etc, while also making them appear to be second class citizens.
but I am not endorsing this “social web” thing yet, either.
why is your “update” over a decade old? how often are they released?
ignoring corruption is gross. trying to distract from it with a whataboutism Is some degree worse
what I meant is that I don’t expect you to remember me: we are not friends
we are not friends
we can agree on some things!
yea. it seems like you are holding two contradictory ideas at once. I hope you can resolve that
so you can see that it is not vegan
But afaik vegans dont finance or encourage animal “use”.
nor participate
your personal definition is not widely used enough to make it into a lexicon.
the barest definition of “exploit” is “use”. using animal products is the exact thing vegans don’t do.
it’s exploitation of an animal. what definition are you using that makes this vegan?
To reduce the amount of consumed beef, you have to change the restaurant.
has that ever happened? during the mad cow disease scare, there was a decrease in production that necessarily led to decrease in production, but production has climbed almost unfettered since then.
everyone agrees that beef production is bad for the environment.
not inherently
this is how blocking should work. if you are publishing something to the public, there is no reason to expect others can’t see it comment on it