I understand cynicism, but not cynicism without nuance.

Ok, I’m going to leave the rest of this alone, because as you said, it seems like mostly opinion either way, but still don’t understand how you think meat eaters are being harmed by the poor psychological state of the animals while they were alive.

No, but the beef which enters a person’s body won’t be harmful to them (the person) at all.

I may be misunderstanding you. Are you talking about the harm caused in its production? As in pound for pound the harm caused by the production process? Because I would like to emphasize that I don’t think beef production is less harmful, the additional harm caused to the planet in industrial grade beef far outweighs the difference in animal welfare. It seems slightly weird to me to talk about the meat itself being harmful as it enters the person’s body when the harm is in the production.

I also don’t understand what you mean by separating “material” vs “psychological” conditions. If you’re talking about the psychological state the animals are in while they are alive, as far as I know, the statement stands, industrial cattle live slightly better lives (more space and such,) which results as far as I know, in a better psychological state*.

That’s not to say that beef is ok while chicken is not, if chicken is off the table for you, beef definitely should be as well.

*Though it is now occurring to me that comparing the psychological states of chickens and cows may not be an activity with a point.

Ok, but also, unless you’ve got time travel, talking about when we needed to start doesn’t help anyone. Talking about what we need to do now, maybe.

Insignificant, but cool. I didn’t know about the anti-greenwashing legislation they mentioned until now, that’s probably more significant.

Yeah, I agree here, they do supply all the data and methodology (though obviously some of it is paywalled) and I see how the way they presented it is probably the best for the LCD consumer, but I would have liked a decent concise summary of just the sustainability data.

You could just sit back and enjoy it instead of commenting like that.

Yes, not good, but better. I’ve worked in industrial chicken and been fairly close to industrial beef, industrial cows are treated mildly better because it is literally impossible for a cow to survive in the conditions chickens are kept in.

Also, their comment said that they wouldn’t eat chicken either, not that they wouldn’t eat chicken but would eat beef.

Not sure if this is meant as sarcastic?

Not how language works… Like, there are no hard lines, its just whatever can communicate the idea you want to communicate. You really don’t want to go down the road of demanding coherent and strict definitional categories for all words, and if you don’t demand it for all words, then you’re being a pedant for fully arbitrary reasons (the worst kind of pedantry).