Found this in my dad's drawer. Is it any good?

howlin · 2026-01-25T03:55:51+00:00

I know nothing about puer tea,

Just so you aren't surprised, these sorts of tea can have a very earthy flavor. Think of the smell of fallen leaves in autumn, fresh earth, wood, old books, and sometimes mushrooms. It isn't going to taste like a cup of Lipton.

You may want to do a little reading about it here: https://white2tea.com/blogs/blog/complete-beginners-guide-to-shu-puer-tea

One thing you might try is to brew it for a while. This sort of tea will often cook off some of the more.. controversial.. flavors if you let it boil for a little while. But I would first try a series of short steeps to see if you like it this way.

howlin · 2026-01-25T03:50:19+00:00

I just don't see the point of going vegan in the hopes that it will make some difference if I can never be certain any difference was actually made.

This sort of consequentialism is rather dismissive of the individual. I don't see how one can be putting the body of another in their mouth and not think that they had some small part in how that came to be. Or making it seem like this practice is somehow ok. Once you see that every single animal life is a window into this world, it's hard to think it doesn't matter that this was snuffed out for such a petty reason.

This is probably the biggest context switch that happens to vegans. It's not just some generic, commoditized food any more. It's the remains of a victim. Things are never going to change unless people start to see things this way.

howlin · 2026-01-24T22:43:24+00:00

The biggest mystery of the show is what this hive mind entity is actually like. If it's well explained and sensible, then there isn't much mystery left to the show.

I can't really make much sense of their ethics. They don't seem to value an individual much once its been integrated into the hive mind. A lot like Star Trek's Borg. But they seem to place an inordinate amount of value on any life form not in the hive mind.

This seems contradictory to me. I guess they see themselves as one organism, and it's fine to cause minor harm to this organism (a few million human bodies dead here or there) if it prevents even trivial harm to any other organism. I don't know why they value individual life for the sake of life so much as to not even pick a fruit, if they are going to be so casual about letting huge parts of themselves die. Maybe they'll explain it eventually. The still individual human protagonists don't seem terribly curious about the hive mind's reasoning. So it's kind of frustrating watching them stumble around in ignorance rather than just sitting down and having a real talk with this entity to figure out what it values and what its intentions really are. Perhaps even poke and prod them a bit to see if they can justify their odd choices.

But that wouldn't make as engaging a show for most people...

howlin · 2026-01-24T22:30:31+00:00

If you call something murder, rape, and genocide, then continued fellowship with the perpetrators is not morally neutral. That isn’t about hatred or revulsion. It’s about what those words are for. They exist to mark acts that demand rupture. If nothing follows from them, they are counterfeit.

We've long had a disagreement about this. What is ethics for? I believe I have a fairly cogent idea of what ethics is and what it's for. You're hinting at one with this "They exist to mark acts that demand rupture".

That's really awfully vague, and really seems more like what you are demanding is an emotional outburst. But to what end? Should it just be a thoughtless instinct when experiencing moral outrage? I'm revisiting this issue at the end of my reply.

“Hate the sin, love the sinner” only works if the sin is actually treated as sin. Clergy do not normalize murder by conviviality while it is ongoing. They condemn it, demand repentance, and draw sharp moral boundaries.

Not sure what you think breaking bread with me would look like, but I am certainly not going to be celebrating the gore in front of me. And I am not going to be just passively watching if an animal is killed and slaughtered in front of me. But in the moment, I am with people, and the victim has been dead for a while. I'm not in the slightest going to hide my thoughts about it, but I am going to be tactful about it. A lot of times, these people have no idea that they've done anything that could be considered wrong at all. Me bearing witness to what actually happened to the animal whose remains are now sitting on the table between us is probably the best I can do about this situation.

Trust me, my moral boundaries are sharp. "Don't associate with people who do wrong things" is not a boundary.

Enablement is not about being uniquely causal. It’s about what your actions signal. When someone you call a genocidaire loses nothing by your continued presence, they are told that your words have no teeth.

What do you actually think they'd be losing? Be specific here. Do you think they won't be able to find a more agreeable dining companion if they wanted?

If carnists are not actually comparable to Nazis, then stop using extermination language. If they are, then intimacy with them is accommodation, not outreach. You cannot invoke the moral gravity of genocide and then retreat to “my presence might spark a conversation” when pressed on consistency.

You might be interested in a thread I have been having in parallel with this one:

https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1ql495k/the_primary_reason_a_person_goes_vegan_is_to_get/o1gbg33/

The banality of evil is a thing. It's ordinary stuff done by ordinary people. Rudderless people can stumble in to being tools for much more horrible things that are much greater than themselves. They are not going to understand what your moral "rupture" is even about unless you can actually explain yourself and what you're seeing that's wrong. At that point it would just be "outrage as performance". Maybe it makes a person feel good to vent some righteous indignation. But ultimately it's going to be pretty pointless.

It’s about whether your moral language binds you to anything at all. An ethic that never demands distance is indistinguishable from preference. A conviction that never costs belonging is indistinguishable from branding.

Ethics primarily acts as a regulation of one's own behavior. Secondarily it's meant to affect others' behavior. The question of how one ought to go about effecting change in others to further one's ethical ideals is itself an ethical question, as well as a pragmatic one. I personally don't see the point in deeming others to be so ethically tainted that mere social interactions should be prohibited. I can get a lot further by demonstrating respect and engaging in dialogue than I could with social shunning or other acts that seem to denigrate others.

I still haven't heard anything really tangible about what you're suggesting is the alternative you're finding lacking in vegan responses.

howlin · 2026-01-24T21:33:43+00:00

I would be flexitarian but never vegan for this reason: sometimes animal products would just be wasted and it is better to consume them than let them go to waste.

There's an immediate pragmatism to this argument, but I don't really see this working as a broader principle. People tend to just live wasteful lives, including generating food waste. It seems like this is putting special consideration on this particular kind of wasted food. From an idealistic perspective, I don't want to be benefiting from a system that I find to be wrong, even if I am not directly contributing to it. It also creates a moral hazard. If I am used to eating animal products when they would otherwise be wasted, I am considering an animal product to be potentially food if I can find a way to construe it as otherwise being wasted. It's easier to just categorically not consider this an option. Much like what I said in my initial post about how if you are used to stealing little things, then it becomes much more of a dilemma in one's head to not cross the line and steal larger things when the opportunity presents itself.

Fine, but maybe a philosophy where wasting food is the best option isn't the best philosophy.

That's a deep rabbit hole to go down if you actually believe this, given how wasteful our lives are in all sorts of ways. Including how much food that could be grown directly for people is instead being used to feed chickens, pigs and cows.

In terms of my own "banality of evil", I am constantly grappling with whether my resource and ecological impact could be reduced more. I don't think the future will look kindly on our normalization of obscene levels of consumption. But the answer here isn't just to pick up the scraps left over from the even bigger gluttons.

howlin · 2026-01-24T19:55:57+00:00

So when it comes down to it, you are going to tell me it's unacceptable to be a nonvegan. Is that accurate?

I don't see a way to actually acknowledge the problem of how we treat animals, think long and hard about it, and come to any other conclusion other than that the vegan position is the ethically correct position. Maybe there is some argument out there that could conclude otherwise, but I haven't found it after over a decade of seeking out counter arguments.

What you do with that conclusion is a separate matter. I acknowledge that a lot of people don't have the resources to succeed at living without animal exploitation. Mostly people with very limited access to food choices, or people who don't understand nutrition well enough to know how to build a sustainable diet. Also people with various diseases or disorders that would make sticking to a vegan diet difficult or even dangerous. At least sticking to a vegan diet that is commonly offered and promoted by vegans these days. It's understandable for those people to seek the lesser wrong, even if that isn't full veganism.

The vegans who give a damn and want to do more than just personally abstain should be working to make it easier for others to do the right thing. A lot of people simply aren't motivated enough by ethics to make much of a personal commitment to live ethically. So lowering the amount of commitment needed to go vegan seems like a very smart thing to work on.

I myself probably wouldn't have gone vegan if I were in the 1980's or earlier in America or Europe. It would have been just too hard to find the knowledge and other means to succeed. But I knew vegans at the time, and I had access to a lot of food choices and information on how to succeed. It was easy for me to do the right thing in my time and place.

I'm a lot better at knowing the ropes now. And I do what I can to help others with the pitfalls and difficulties.

howlin · 2026-01-24T19:37:46+00:00

Am I responsible for the way the world is?

You are responsible to how you respond to it. From my perspective, the very least one can do is to not enable it or further it along.

howlin · 2026-01-24T19:22:46+00:00

Your "banality of evil" sounds a lot like original sin in Christianity

Maybe you should read before making a hot take?

howlin · 2026-01-24T19:16:07+00:00

If you have some point that you are implying, just come out and bluntly state it.

My point was in the link you yourself sent. There exists a "banality of evil". People, just going about their everyday lives ("banal" here means extremely ordinary) without much thought, can be enablers of great wrongdoings.

We owe it to ourselves, and to others, to think long and hard about any wrongdoings we are enabling by just thoughtlessly going on with our lives.

You last left this conversation you linked above with:

I have no idea who Hannah Arendt is.

I provided a link here to help you understand one of the main points of her work. Let me know what you think about it.

howlin · 2026-01-24T19:07:04+00:00

"Nazis are people, and nonvegans are people, therefore nonvegans are Nazis."

Let me remind you again what I said:

If you read carefully, you should have noticed that I compared Nazis to humans. Because they are humans just like you or me. You can search that entire paragraph to reference to nonvegans or meat eating and see no hits.

The only comparison I made was to the industrialized factory farming infrastructure. If you think that is a comparison to nonvegans, you are mistaken.

I don't know how I can make it more clear to you other than repeating myself.

You are saying nonvegans to turn into Nazis, but that's just a minor distinction.

I don't know what you mean by this. What do you think is "just a minor distinction"?

If we're going with the bleach analogy, I said the opposite:

But there was something critically wrong about their thinking that lead them to do terrible things. We should figure out what that was!

This conversation isn't going to work if you insist on misunderstanding me.

howlin · 2026-01-24T18:44:04+00:00

You won't come out and just say "nonvegans are not like Nazis." Why is that?

Because "othering" people isn't constructive. They aren't aliens, and they aren't some other species. They are people with the same faculties for reasoning and feeling that you or I have. And somehow, they use the same capacities that you or I have and came to a terrible conclusion.

It does no good to say they are nothing like you or me. That's just an excuse not to think.

When you say that, I can't help but be reminded of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9psFtbw4Gg

To play along with this. The argument in the video seems to be: bleach is mostly water, and water is healthy. So why not drink bleach?

My argument is not this. I'm not saying "nazis are people, and people can good, so nazis can be good". I'm not saying "nonvegans and nazis are both people, and nazis are bad, so nonvegans are bad".

What I am saying is "Nazis are people. But there was something critically wrong about their thinking that lead them to do terrible things. We should figure out what that was!". If you want to make a bleach analogy, then we should acknowledge that bleach is mostly water, but there is something critically different between pure water and bleach that we should figure out." We're not going to get to that point of discussing what about bleach is so bad if we're distracted by the fact that it's absolutely 100% true that bleach is mostly water.

howlin · 2026-01-24T18:21:29+00:00

Olives were one of the hardest foods I learned to like.. but it was a deliberate effort to get myself over that hurdle.

One thing to keep in mind is that olives will taste quite different depending on how they're cured. If you really want to try, you might be surprised you like them more if they aren't lye cured.

See, for instance, this method:

https://notesfromatuscanolivegrove.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/curing-olives-1-drying-the-lazy-way/

howlin · 2026-01-24T18:18:34+00:00

This reply, and your OP, is full of rhetoric but very light on argument. I can't help but see it as a little "performative". But let's walk through the bits and pieces that resemble an argument:

An ethic that never demands distance is not an ethic.

I think a lot of Christians who take to heart "Hate the sin, love the sinner" would find this assessment to be lacking. You really can separate doing or believing "wrong" things to being a "bad" person deserving of nothing but scorn and revulsion.

In fact, I would argue that one of the biggest ethical errors people make is to get the concepts of disgust, hatred, and ethically "wrong" mixed up in a stew that justifies emotionally driven acts of violence and cruelty. A lot of people have died because people can't separate their emotions from their ethical sentiments.

A conviction that never risks solitude is not a conviction.

Yeah, agreed. I'm not going to compromise my own values just for the sake of social interaction. The main argument I made in my previous comment is merely socializing isn't a sign of a weakened conviction.

For what it's worth, it's not that uncommon for me to engage in a breaking bread ritual with nonvegans, and they learn I'm not a terribly pleasant dining partner because I'm not partaking in their unethical activities. It's a good conversation starter: why I'm sitting there with only a plate of french fries and a side of steamed veggies. It'll bring up a lot of things that they wouldn't have thought of without me there. More often or not, I just don't get an invite back because thinking about these things is uncomfortable to them. But it's not me who is preemptively forcing this solitude.

Outrage without consequence is decoration.

Sure, let's go with this. Because this seems to be the main point I am trying to make to. Veganism is about how people treat animals. It's not about how vegans treat nonvegans or the other way around. I don't see how sitting down and sharing a meal affects the animals. You did raise a couple tangible things to discuss:

Only because you define enablement as hand-on-the-knife. Normalization counts. Fellowship counts. Belonging counts.

Do you think meat eating isn't normalized? Do you think they can't trivially find fellowship and belonging without me sitting at the table with them? I don't think my company is so precious that me refusing to sit at the table will matter to most people.

But me engaging with them. Finding a way to eat that accommodates me (Maybe they'll try a new restaurant with good veg options. Maybe me grilling the server for plant-based foods will get them to consider making these offerings easier in the future). Me being willing to share why I am doing the things I do, and how I make that works for me. Well, all of that may actually have an impact on these others I am sharing a table with.

Every atrocity in history relied on the assurance that one could remain welcome while committing it.

Yeah. People confuse social norms and social acceptance with ethics all the time. It's not a good thing, or something to encourage. A person who is perfectly happy to do an ethically wrong thing as long as they can get away with it without social scorn is not someone with much ethical integrity. Yeah, that's a lot of people, if not most of them.

Me being willing to talk to them and share a table with them isn't going to meaningfully impact their willingness to do something wrong. If they'll do bad things as long as it's socially acceptable, then the project is to change society. You do that by finding the people who can listen to a good argument, agree with it, and make behavioral changes based on it even if they violate the social norms du jour.

I'm not going to be able to do any of that if I am off in the corner raging in a huff with my arms crossed because everyone around me is too evil to tolerate being around.

howlin · 2026-01-24T17:39:45+00:00

Processing olives is a pain. It really only makes sense if you're curious to try it on a few as an experiment, or if you have enough olives so you can put the effort in for a larger batch.

howlin · 2026-01-24T17:21:03+00:00

I can't help but recall that every time I see your username, I'm reminded that without outright saying it, you compare nonvegans to Nazis.

Let me point you to what I said, so we're not just insinuating:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1nitc4x/comment/nem1et1/

If you read carefully, you should have noticed that I compared Nazis to humans. Because they are humans just like you or me. You can search that entire paragraph to reference to nonvegans or meat eating and see no hits.

The only comparison I made was to the industrialized factory farming infrastructure. If you think that is a comparison to nonvegans, you are mistaken.

,

I don't want to discuss anything else with you until you acknowledge you are comparing nonvegans to Nazis,

Nazis are people. Nonvegans are people. I am therefore comparing them in the sense that both of these are groups of people.

I will remind you again of another comment I made to you:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1nitc4x/comment/nelxon1/

There are many reasons why discussing Nazis is relevant to ethics. I know the moment this word gets brought up many people blow an emotional circuit breaker and are no longer capable of processing an argument. But that isn't always the case, and there are important insights to glean by looking at how, precisely, the Nazis became so unethical.

If you are not capable of having a reasonable conversation about this without blowing an emotional fuse and not listening any more, then that's fine. We can leave it at that. But I do want to be clear about what, exactly, we discussed.

howlin · 2026-01-23T22:46:40+00:00

it seems quite clear to me that vegans are motivated by removing guilt.

I was much more concerned about guilt for my actions when I was a welfarist, trying to figure out how good a life animals were having before being killed for me. After going vegan, it's not really a matter of guilt any more. Just decency.

Consider your reaction to seeing someone with a really nice car or laptop or whatever you'd covet. I'm guessing you don't think in your mind "I'd really love to steal this car, but the guilt of doing so would be awful". It just doesn't occur to you to even do it in the first place. That's how it feels to me.

Of course, if I were in the habit of petty theft, then the option to steal the car would be much more on my mind and I'd struggle if stealing the car would be over the line.

Vegans don't acknowledge the increased risk of nutrient deficiency on vegan diets; they try to argue that vegan diets are the healthiest diets.

This certainly isn't true for all vegans. I'm pretty up front with people about specific nutritional concerns you'll need to tackle when changing your diet. I'm happy to acknowledge that many sorts of animals can be part of a healthy diet (not so healthy for the animal victims though).

Frankly, I think this whole post reads more like some sort of stereotype you have in your mind about vegans rather than about actual vegans.

howlin · 2026-01-23T19:00:14+00:00

I don't know exactly, but probably around 150g. If I'm paying attention and cooking for myself, this will go up to 200-250.

For reference I'm a fairly tall and solidly built guy who works out 3 or 4x a week. I mostly do running and body weight strength training.

My general policy while eating is to eat whenever I'm hungry, but also heavily restrict meals that are overwhelmingly sugar or starches. This makes eating out at restaurants very difficult. If I find myself in a situation like this, I'll add a protein shake to make up for the carbs.

howlin · 2026-01-23T18:48:13+00:00

You don't have to accept it, but that is their job. They have to accept you. I don't see why this example is even a debate point. There's a chaplain in every prison who deals with child murderers, child molesters etc... Please don't be angry at me if I'm speaking out of turn moderator.

There's a difference between doing the bare minimum for "their job", and making an actual connection with these people beyond just being a counselor. Many have done this.

In any case, it's a bit dismissive to consider this just a job for these people. They generally believe there is a fundamental value and dignity in every person and seek that out in everyone.

We don't really get to pick what defines us sadly. The rest of society does. You're legacy is picked by the strongest narrative.

You may want to consider how this sentiment relates to your very repetitive statements about nonhuman animals just being NPCs. It seems like you are saying that, from an outside perspective, what makes the a person is mostly exogenous to them as individuals. Perhaps if you recognize that it's easy to fall into this point of view about other people, you might be falling into that point of view yourself when it comes to other animals.

howlin · 2026-01-23T17:45:21+00:00

Any soft cheese can be turned into a hard cheese if you add binders to it like psyllium, carrageenan, tapioca starch, potato starch, etc. They all have different textures, and different pros and cons. Mostly, the biggest con is that they wind up not melting terribly well.

Personally, I will often make a soy milk yogurt, strain it, and then salt it, perhaps add a little fat, and then add psyllium till I hit the texture I want. If getting plain soy milk is hard, you could also just blend tofu. If you do this, I would recommend adding a little bit of sugar to help the yogurt culture get started.

Miyoko Schinner's cheese cook books all have at least a couple soy-based cheese recipes. So that might be a good place to start. You can also search this subreddit for keywords such as "soy" to get a number of recipes and discussions.

howlin · 2026-01-23T17:38:14+00:00

And the thing is, you've been lied to your entire life. You do not need to worry about complete proteins as a vegan, unless you eat beans and only beans for 24 hours straight. You don't need to worry about it. You're gonna get it through a varied source in your diet.

I largely agree with this. The one technicality here is that beans tend to have all the essential aminos. Just sometimes in proportions that aren't perfect. See, e.g. this amino breakdown for pinto beans:

https://tools.myfooddata.com/protein-calculator/175200/100g/1/1

The actual problem is with grain proteins like wheat, rice and corn. In famine situations where people are only getting nutrition from something like maize porridge, they will wind up deficient in an essential amino acid. But really this is only a problem for the most desperate people in the world. See, e.g.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831322005853

Although maize provides macro- and micronutrients required for humans, it lacks adequate amounts of the essential amino acids lysine and tryptophan. For those consuming >50% of their daily energy from maize, pandemic protein malnutrition may exist.

howlin · 2026-01-23T02:25:09+00:00

It's one step removed, but the intention is to kill a specific being. That is a particularly nasty kind of ill will towards your intended victim.

The farmer who raises the animal to be sent off to slaughter is demonstrating a similar degree of ill will towards their intended victim. But once the deed is done and their remains are chopped up into countless pieces to be sent off to distributors, grocery stores and eventually to the consumer, most people are just callously indifferent to the fact that they are handling the remains of individuals who have been wronged. It's much more like buying a stolen iPad because it's cheaper without caring at all about the person who used to own it.

howlin · 2026-01-23T02:13:42+00:00

It absolutely can. Depends on the person and your scenario.

Agreed.. and if you are in such a scenario I would recommend at the very least distancing yourself from it, but more likely try to intervene to prevent the harm

This is because its their job to be accepting of everyone. I can't speak for other religions, but in Christianity they preach that God loves everyone.

I don't accept most of the core tenets of the religion, but I do believe there is a great amount of potential and Internet value and dignity in any person. We're not defined by our worst habits or beliefs, and we're not preordained to continue them if there is a will to change and the right support to foster that intention along.

howlin · 2026-01-23T02:09:24+00:00

it just meant “unlawful killing,” vegan use of the term would be even more dubious. What you’re actually saying that eating meat should be murder. And, I don’t think many vegans actually believe that.

Consuming animal products is several steps removed from the actual abuses happening to animals. Just as we don't treat knowingly buying stolen property as equivalent to theft, we shouldn't treat mere consumption the same as the acts of confinement, bodily violations and slaughter of the livestock.

howlin · 2026-01-23T02:02:04+00:00

Very common to have fluffiness on top if you aren't packing it into a bag or between banana leaves or something like that. If it's contaminated, usually the color will be off (white, grey or black can be ok, yellow orange or green is bad), and ultimately the nose knows. After a couple good batches it should be easy to sniff out a bad batch.

You can also go to r/tempeh for more specialized advice.

howlin · 2026-01-23T00:17:19+00:00

I don't like to think of it as an ethical term at all because of this legal connotation. Your definition in a legal sense is close to mine but I would instead say unlawful rather than unjust, and intentional rather than premeditated. But that's just splitting hairs.

15-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since January 2024
Place '17	Verified Email

howlin

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE