On Tue, 18 May 2021 14:28:24 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

and that is the thrust of your problem.

My problem! By 'my' you are also including the millions of other
people who would rather not exploit animals when they don't need to?

Yes specifically your problem it seems, obviously shared with a subset
of evangelical vegans, but far from the majority IME.

What, you think most vegans who in most cases (eg, even if not
'ethical') wouldn't prefer everyone to also not be causing animals to
suffer and die unnecessarily? I can get how people who have chosen not
to eat meat because they don't like the taste or texture or have been
advised off it for medical reasons but most vegans aren't doing it for
themselves (primarily) but for the animals.

We have several vegetarian family members, and one vegan. The vegan made
their decision for their own reasons and we respect that.

How jolly decent of you. You are happy for them to *not* be causing
animals to suffer and die and you (who are), are you happy to respect
them!!

If feeding
them, we make the effort to provide food they will enjoy.

As you should as a good host irrespective of the reason surely?

We have sat in
a restaurants together (remember when that was a thing?)

(g sort of, I've never been a big fan (possibly because food isn't a
big part of my identity). I will use the odd cafe now and again if
they aren't too busy and give fast service).

and enjoyed
whatever meals we ordered together.

Erm, yes, why wouldn't it? Or are you saying you might have been put
off by the lack of pain and suffering *their mean* required?

Yet at no point did they feel the
need to take out a megaphone and start lecturing anyone and everyone in
earshot that by eating that lasagna, they are participating the RAPE of
a cow or any other nonsense.

Probably a sensible move. I wouldn't think of doing that either ...
however, in a *discussion group* ... that seems to contain loads of
talk about health and the environment ...

Pleasant conversation, and enjoyment of a shared meal being far more
likely to engender people to their way of thinking,

It can do for sure. Other times you have to lock people in prison
because they don't seem to heed the message..

than the megaphone
program of harassment you seem to be following.

Aww bless. ;-)

As I said, I know you have a vested (family) interest in what many
would very much consider the unnecessarily exploitation of animals and
I appreciate I believe you have said you personally are cutting back
on how much meat you eat (as are most who are bright enough to heed
all the warnings) but as I mentioned previously, not only is this a
discussion group but the issues under discussion are already affecting
all of us ('humanity') in ways most simply don't have a clue about.

And of course people are resistant to change, be it having to wear a
seat belt, not drinking and driving or not smoking in enclosed public
places and to try to *make* people do those things (especially those
who haven't had to for the longest), they sometimes need the threat of
fines or similar. They are likely to be equally 'annoyed' when they
are told they have to pay 'extra' to drive their car into big cities,
or may have to buy an electric car if they want to drive somewhere at
all, in the same way they are bound to complain if you force them to
buy an electric boiler or stop doing something because it's destroying
the environment or causing unnecessary pain, suffering and death to
innocent and sentient creatures, just because they have been
conditioned to 'like' how their cooked flesh tastes. Do you think
people who don't (and never have) eaten meat don't enjoy what they do
eat?

Just because not eating meat isn't the norm now, I'm pretty sure it
will (have to) be in the future, as we evolve into a new era of
actually taking responsibility of how we have assumed we could keep
doing the old things for ever when it's pretty obvious we can't.

Cheers, T i m