Hi! I've not much to add other than I appreciate your reply!

It's on our birth certificates and everything.

I am not trying to trick you, or trap you, or discredit you (or indeed all vegans or anyone else). I am not here to argue on behalf of veganism or against, and I thought my language in my comment was sufficiently diplomatic to convey that I am not trying to attack you, so let me be clear about what I understand and why I ask the question I ask. Please understand that I am not trying to be condescending.

Firstly, I consider that Grainne's post contains an implicit moral stance along the lines of "one has to be a vegan to be a leftist". I don't know for sure that that is they meant to convey, and I apologise to Grainne if that is a misrepresentation.

Secondly, I understand, based on what you have written, that that would be a statement you would broadly agree with. Again, I apologise if I have misunderstood you. But I will proceed on that basis and you are free to correct me, or not, if indeed you care at all.

Now, I would ask if we could clarify that statement? It is one thing, for example, to propose that animal suffering is bad (I think most would agree) and that veganism is "a", or "the", most practical of reducing it. In that case you would be well within your rights to disregard hypothetical questions about Inuit people, because at that point we are having a discussion about practicalities. It is another thing, though, to put forward the proposition that "one has a moral duty to be vegan". Now we would be having a discussion about moral philosophy, and I would like to know how you arrived at your conclusion before I decide whether or not to take it under advisement.

At this point, if you, personally, would not care to be having a discussion about moral philosophy, feel free to skip to the end.

So why do I think it is fair to ask about the Inuit? Well, because "either animal exploitation is always wrong, or there are circumstances in which it is not wrong" is not a trap that I am trying to set. It is a logical truth, and I am interested to know what circumstances you think it would not be wrong, if there are any. For my part, I believe that I should reduce animal suffering, but I believe lots of other things. I believe we should strive to live sustainably, and I believe it is wrong for me to impose my beliefs on others without a good reason. I would certainly feel very iffy telling the Inuit, who have proved that they can live sustainably for thousands of years, that they should change their ways. But if I conclude that I shouldn't judge the Inuit for that, then that raises the further question; how far does that go? If I have no right to judge the Inuit, do I have a right to judge a fell farmer in the lake district? I have no idea whether or not it is true since it isn't my field, but I could certainly see that there is perhaps an argument to be made that it might be more ecologically friendly to make clothes from local wool than it would be to ship in vegetable cashmere from overseas. Would it be wrong, in that case, to farm sheep for wool?

Or let's take the opposite approach and say, hypothetically, that everyone, including the Inuit, should be persuaded to be vegan. How far does that go, exactly? I have seen vegans liken animal farming to slavery and genocide, and I certainly can't say that they're wrong to do so, but it raises the question; how far should we be willing to go? We've fought wars to stop slavery. We've fought wars to stop genocide. If I genuinely believed that slaughtering animals was akin to genocide, should I be willing to kill people working in an abattoir? If I wasn't would that make me a moral coward?

These are questions that I ask myself, and I don't have the answers to them. You are under no obligation to answer any of them for me. The reason I wrote this wall of text is essentially because I simply wish that you had interpreted my comment more charitably than you did, and I want to persuade you that these kinds of questions do not necessarily come from a place of bad faith.

FWIW, I am not vegan, but I'd like to be - or something close to it - eventually. I struggle with disordered eating, so it's hard, though.

I thought you were referencing this bit by comedian James Acaster: https://youtu.be/Zt5qJC1xQ8A

The Last Stand is a common title. Do you mean The Last Stand: The War Between Wall Street and Main Street over California's Ancient Redwoods by David Harris?

I think it's a bit rich for anyone in "modern" society (or however you want to call it) to be giving moral guidance to societies that proved that they can actually live sustainably and relatively peacefully for thousands years.

I'm not the OP, but it's not irrelevant.

I'd agree that it would be irrelevant in your example here because you mentioned militarism and the war in Iran, which means it would be obvious bullshittery to interpret "people should avoid joining the military" as "people should never join any military". But if you had said "people should never join any military", then perhaps a few follow-up questions might not go amiss, because that's quite a contentious statement.

In this case, it's not unfair to infer a blanket statement of all animal exploitation is bad. In which case, what about the Inuits? If it applies to the them, then you would presumably suggest that they should abandon their traditional (and provably sustainable) lifestyle and integrate into mainstream Canadian/Russian/etc. society. In which case; congratulations! You're (arguably) doing a colonialism! If it doesn't apply to them, then you're conceding that animal exploitation isn't always wrong, which means when it is or isn't is now up for debate.

Lots of people seem to think that losing weight is simply a matter of calories in and calories out, and if calories in exceeds your BMR then stop eating. But that's like saying that gambling is a matter of winnings and losses, and if the losses exceed your budget then stop gambling. Simple enough for the average person, but obviously useless advice for someone who has a problem.

That's the Romans and the Gauls, though. France wasn't a thing until the 800s and Italy was invented by Garibaldi in 1861.

If there’s a country in Europe whose citizens can beef with the French it’s ours.

U wot m8

Reminder: "separating the art from the artist" is an approach to engaging with an artwork, and is a separate question from whether or not you should engage with an artwork when doing so has real life consequences.

Whether or not you should consume HP Lovecraft media despite the fact he was a racist is entirely up to you because he is long dead. He doesn't make any money. He isn't even racist any more. Because he's dead.

When you consider whether or not you consume Harry Potter media, you must consider that JK Rowling will make money and will donate that money to anti-trans groups. If you still go on to buy licensed merch, or pay a streaming service to watch it, you will literally be helping to propogate transphobia. Continue to enjoy anything you currently own if you want. That is where separating the art from the artist comes into it. But if you still actively promote the material online and thereby increase the demand for it; again, transphobia, arguably.

I also think Java is shit, but if you manage to get a NullPointerException while writing a hello world program, maybe anon is just not cut out for computers?