As I recall, a major reason it didn’t take off was very simple: the new “Sunday” only came every 10 days instead of 7!

The best bit about it was definitely the evocative month names.

13! A prime number indivisible into anything. Ugh!

Always the final resort to “you’re arguing in bad faith”… You have no more idea what motivates me than I have about you, so why bother making this unfalsifiable accusation? Anyway. You have expressed what you don’t understand about my argument, just as I’ve already expressed what I don’t understand about yours, as well as I possibly can. Nobody else is listening. Let’s just leave it there.

Obese means fat, not just overweight. The fact that there are twice as many non-obese among the poor does not make them thin! Unless it’s that people get fatter and fatter as they get poorer, until they get really poor and they suddenly they become skeletal, is that what we’re claiming? This whole talking point makes no sense and you seem rational enough to be able to admit that.

How can there be “huge swathes” of Americans who are “poorer than” the Americans who are so poor that they can only afford junk food and thus explain America’s obesity statistics. This whole talking point makes no sense.

Tell me that you haven’t read 1984. “War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength”, and today “obesity is hunger”, apparently.

Yes, that was my point. The word “hunger” is being conflated with food insecurity. We all know what “hunger” means, and it is not the same thing as malnutrition or food insecurity. I don’t care if it’s been redefined by NGOs to make a (valid) point more punchy, it’s not the same thing. It’s manipulative Orwellian use of language. That’s all I have to say here.

It doesn’t “surprise” me, it’s a common talking point. I’ve been to America, including the poorer bits. I know the statistics about obesity and social class - do you?

if you are dealing with hunger

Personally I can never get past this line. Malnutrition perhaps, but nobody in the world’s richest, fattest country - where the fattest people are the poorest ones - is dealing with “hunger”. I wish we could just abstain from manipulative Orwellian language.

PS: sure, downvote away to dispel your cognitive dissonance, but that won’t magic away the correlation between poverty and literal obesity in the world’s richest country

PPS: to be clear, “hungry” is either a useless or a manipulative word. Anyone can be “hungry”, no matter how well-fed they are, so in that sense it’s a useless term. In the other sense, meaning calorie-starved, it’s obviously wrong, since the poorest US states (Mississippi et al) are also the fattest. Sorry, but nobody here is thinking straight. The issue is one of nutrition and food security, not hunger.

YSK: this is clearly entirely jurisdiction-dependent and we don’t all live in the USA.

This is a decent point. Ignore the inane downvotes you’re getting for simply expressing your opinion in a polite and good-faith manner.

Personally I share your take, but you’re not helping the cause by insulting people.

Between what the law says and what actually happens, there is a yawning gulf. It’s the same in basically all jurisdictions where there are animal-welfare laws. The meat industry is powerful and consumers are unrelenting in their clamor for cheap meat. With such incentives, the weakest link is always going to be animals, which by definition have no voice.

This is exactly my mental response to this kind of story. Total hypocrisy. Try to ignore the pushback, cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

Yeah that’s true but in this scenario it’s your fault, not theirs.

Every social-media platform strips EXIF metadata before publishing the photo.

So the issue is the trustworthiness of the social-media platform itself. Personally I always strip the metadata before sharing anything anywhere.

That’s helpful. These estimates do tend to vary a bit depending on assumptions (type of plane or car, what occupancy etc). The 2t I quoted was slightly high. My point was that there’s no other way to emit 1 tonne in 6 hours.

Apart from the methane problem, all livestock farming takes, by definition, a massive amount more land than arable farming to produce the same amount of food. On a stressed planet of 9 billion people, there simply is not enough land to feed everyone with red meat.

First, well done for taking it seriously and doing your bit.

The point of the post (I think) is simply to illustrate that certain actions are much, much more important than others. Anecdotally, there are still plenty of people out there who believe that, say, turning off a couple of (low-energy) lights, or “recycling” a plastic bag, are somehow major good deeds that allow them to kick their feet up and celebrate with a steak. There’s still way too much ignorance about all this, IMO.

In reality (as you seem to understand), some gestures are far more important than others. Ditching red meat (and dairy) really is a big deal. Everyone who claims to care about this problem should at least consider doing it.

This is a nice articulation of nihilism.

The paradox being that the attitude is both justified and… certain to only make the problem worse.