I didn't disagree with plants generally being less env friendly.
Most CO2 emmision wrt to meat is misleading because they are part of the carbon cycle. Pumping out oil is not comparable here.
A lot of fossil fuel is utilised in the cultivation, storage, transportation of various seasonal crops, often across the world. Same as for meat. Generalizing plant vs meat often hides those behind moral arguments.
What false equivalency? Polluting is not the same as sustainable? Sustainable how? Animal husbandry has been practiced for millennias and in many places is the main food source where agriculture isn't feasible.

Making a wide general statement and nitpicking in the arument is lazy and dishonest. Atleast read what I was responding to.

[+] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] nestEggParrot@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your comment consisted of 2 points:

Calling me lazy an dishonest for asking a clarification on an ambiguous term 'sustainable'. I hadn't made any claims to be called at.
You again used sustainable to which i defined and responded how animal husbandry is infact sustainable.

So how have I not responded to your comment?

Its you pulling out accusations and imagining up arguments that was never made and making personal attacks rather than stick to making valid arguments and address the actual points being made.

Your argument about energy fails to distinguish between the typical carbon cycle of moving through plants animals and decomposition incontrast with the cabon introduced through fossil fuels. This was what I pointed out previously too.

And we cant just plop down plants that are human digestable in many places where we grow the feed for cattles. Correct me on that.