The French government issued a decree Tuesday banning the term “steak” on the label of vegetarian products, saying it was reserved for meat alone.
You asked for reasons
Why, pray tell, are you insistent on diluting the clarity of that label? Is it so aesthetically pleasing to you that you just cannot help yourself but enjoy it even though you don’t want to have to do anything with meat?
And I gave reasons
it is for those who want to stop supporting the destruction of the planet and the murdering of billions of sentient beings for their pleasure.
Your cognitive dissonance fries your brain.
“It is for certain people” is not a reasoning. How is it for those people? What is the benefit they would gain from that? Is that benefit marginal, or significant? Does it impact other people? How do those things balance out? Should we ignore interests of other people because we judge them morally inferior, even if it’s a seemingly innocuous thing as a word continuing to signify what it has signified since time immemorial? Politically/strategically speaking, is pissing those people off by infringing on their language making it more or less likely that they adopt the set of morals we think they should adopt?
How is it for those people
In the same way people who don’t want to get drunk drink alcohol free beer if they like the taste. And there is no moral assessment in drinking one or the other. I gave you a possible reason. Just like the person which drinks alcohol free beer might have to drive. It is a reason, you get all emotional and I think you should work on that or else you end up like the antivegan meatflakes. Good luck
In the same way people who don’t want to get drunk drink alcohol free beer if they like the taste.
Alcohol free beer is made from water, malt, and hops. Meat-free steak is not made from animals.
Do you acknowledge that that makes a difference? If I want to sell something that’s made from water, sugar, carbon dioxide and raspberries, I’m free to call it a soda, but not beer, because beer is made from specific ingredients, because it always has been, and thus is what people expect when they buy beer.
You can’t just say “but, well, both are beverages and when other people drink beer I drink soda”: That does not even begin to make soda and beer interchangeable because calling them the same does not make them substantively the same, they’re still different products (or categories thereof). Ask a biologist: Barley, hops, raspberries, all completely different species.
It is a reason
You gave an analogy. An analogy is not a reason, or reasoning, but a way of saying “here this thing is similar, and for that thing there’s a reasoning and it also applies here”. Thing is: Neither did you show how the two are sufficiently similar (and I just showed how they’re fundametally different), you also failed to give a reasoning why alcohol-free beer should be allowed to be called beer (the reason, btw, is that beer with negligible levels of alcohol is just as old as beer that makes you drunk).
You’re not even half as thorough with any of this as you think you are. You may feel strongly about it but on its own that only means that your conviction is strong, not that your reasoning is. Doubling and tripling down on “But I really think this is the case! I feel it very strongly!” isn’t going to convince people: Conviction isn’t contagious. If you want people to follow in your footsteps you’ll have to do better. And if it isn’t for wanting for people to follow in your footsteps, to come over to your position, why are you arguing on the internet?
antivegan meatflakes
IDGF about what you eat. I’m arguing about food labelling. Also have you even skimmed that study, I’ve never even heard about r/antivegan but things like this:
Though r/AntiVegan users might be criticised for engaging in “myside bias”, the evaluation of evidence in a manner biased toward one’s own opinions, they nonetheless present relatively well-reasoned critiques of scientific research. For example, those that call attention to the issues associated with the use of non-comparative control groups, the over-generalising of findings from small samples, and averaging data while neglecting individual differences and outliers.
or
Both advice-seeking and advice-giving ex-vegans used r/AntiVegan as a social support forum and as a personal diary of the process involved in returning to their omnivorous diet: “Checking in after two months of ex-veganism … I have gained weight … Oh, I also got my period”.
don’t exactly paint a damning picture.
