Yes, I'm aware of that. But this is the full context of the comment:
> I am opposed to advocating for cold-turkey veganism though. Milk products and eggs are great meat substitutes, and the lack of both makes entire cuisines inaccessible.
The "immediately change" connotation of "cold-turkey" doesn't make much sense here. The commenter seems to imply that eliminating entire cuisines -- i.e. having "entire cuisines inaccessible" -- is a difficult problem for people, regardless of the speed at which you do it. And I agree with that. Which is why I find it weird that he thinks it's weird why people who weren't born on vegetarian cuisines can't just switch to them, when introduced. I would argue that even if that were possible for most people, things like "Impossible Burger" are necessary for a successful transition.
> Which is why I find it weird that he thinks it's weird why people who weren't born on vegetarian cuisines can't just switch to them, when introduced.
I didn't read it like this at all. He's arguing to bring more vegetarian cuisines to the forefront to raise awareness of the possibilities that exist. His critique was against lauding the "impossible" as the solution to getting everyone on veganism immediately.
> it is funny that the meat reduction movement is looking at such impractical and immature products instead of simpler solutions such as bringing veg friendly cuisines to the fore.
I don't disagree that ventures like Impossible Burger are a convoluted way to reduce meat consumption. But I disagree that introducing vegetarian cuisines is a simpler "solution" -- if we mean to actually solve the problem -- for the reason that he states in his next paragraph: it's very difficult to voluntarily give up the cuisines you've lived your life on, and this includes the many meat-centered cuisines found in non-vegetarian cultures. Meat-alternatives may be complicated and difficult, but so is the problem they hope to solve.
