• nandeEbisu@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    4 days ago

    That’s ridiculous. The singular of ravioli is raviolo, a singular pop tart couldn’t possibly be multiple ravioli.

  • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    9·
    4 days ago

    Sorry it’s actually a lasagna.

    There are 3 foods. There is soup. There is salad. And then there is lasagna. That’s it.

    • nik9000@programming.devEnglish
      10·
      4 days ago

      I have an in-law who’s a vegan and explained it as “if I consume less there’s a tiny bit less cruelty. A tiny bit less demand.” I like that. It’s not about purity. It’s about trying.

      I’m still not vegan. I suppose that doesn’t say good things about me.

      • AnarchistArtificer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        4 days ago

        This might just be non-vegan apologia, but I like to think that recognising the ethical merit in veganism is a step in the right direction, especially if you manage to not feel unhelpful levels of guilt about it (my ex’s mom was annoying as hell, because she would cry if she ever thought about the fact that the meat she was eating used to be an animal. She felt so guilty about it that the cognitive dissonance caused her to reflexively avoid growth.)

        I used to be irrationally somewhat anti-vegan, but now I am merely non-vegan. I’m not even vegetarian yet, but I am closer to that than I was a year ago. I’m not there yet, but I’m trying. It makes me uncomfortable to recognise the cognitive dissonance in me when I acknowledge that my current diet is not in line with my personal ethics. However, sitting with that discomfort is one of the ways in which I’m trying.

        Along those same lines, give yourself space to grow. The fact that you recognise being non vegan as not saying good things about you is itself, a little good thing, in my opinion. It’s not much, but that self awareness is definitely pointing you in the right direction.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        4 days ago

        I can see where your in-law’s coming from, but to put a finer point on it:

        Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

        That’s why vegans aren’t interested in “cruelty free” animal products. It’s not just the fact that there is still a lot of cruelty involved; we’re opposed to animal exploitation regardless. Veganism naturally came out of the animal rights movement.

      • MTK@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        4 days ago

        It’s nice when as a society we decide whose lives matter and whos don’t

        • humorlessrepost@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          4 days ago

          We all do. Some people just extend that that circle larger than others.

          Carnivores/omnivores extend it to most humans.

          Pescatarians to mammals with regard to food, but often not to other mild inconveniences like pest control.

          Vegetarians to the rest of animals with the same caveat.

          Jains to animals with fewer caveats, but not to bacteria, plants, or fungus.

          And we’re distant cousins of all of these.

          There are arguments to be made for each line, like sapience, sentience, consciousness, and pain response, but the line chosen is largely arbitrary.

            • humorlessrepost@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              4 days ago

              Somewhere between vegetarians and jains, depending on how much they respect the right to life of non-mammal animals (roaches, mosquitos, ants, etc) outside of food contexts. But veganism isn’t generally a distinction from vegetarianism with regard to right to life, just rights more broadly, so it’s on a somewhat different axis. Many seem only concerned with “cute” animals (i.e. mammals and a small subset of marine animals) outside of food contexts, but I’m sure there are some who wouldn’t bug-bomb their house. I doubt many sweep the ground in front of them to avoid stepping on bugs, like devout Jains. In fact, most vegans would consider that extreme, which betrays their bias towards the cute animals that deserve to live, since they’d absolutely go out of their way to not step on one of their preferred species.

              • MTK@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                4 days ago

                Look, religion is one thing, science is another.

                Jainism is a religion, as peaceful as it is, it also has it’s flaws. Some jains use dairy products because it is generally acceptable, though with modern practices it obviously violates their core principles, but loopholes like that are common to religions.

                Veganism is pretty simple and practical, it is all about reducing harm. Of course each vegan has their own interpretation of what constitutes as unnecessary harm and what doesn’t, but it is rooted in our scientific understanding of who can actually be harmed.

                It is far more than a diet, it is the understanding that my wants are not above others needs and rights, human or otherwise.

                The way I see it, Veganism is the most moral framework that is rooted in reality.

          • MTK@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            4 days ago

            Considering that you have about the same amount of brain power as a plant, I might just be convinced.