Tighten English prose: strip AI-tell cadences

CLAUDE.md

@@ -78,12 +78,11 @@ Why individual change matters despite systemic focus. Practical guidance without
 5. **Avoid graphic content**: No slaughterhouse footage or guilt tactics
 
 ## Key Phrases/Concepts to Remember
-- "You probably shouldn't eat animals" (not "don't" or "can't")
+- "You probably shouldn't eat animals" (the calibration matters: "probably" not "definitely," "shouldn't" not "can't") — but express this in flowing prose, not stacked sentence fragments like "Not definitely. Not can't."
 - "Three meals a day" / "three choices a day"
 - Precautionary principle as core framework
 - "Potential significant harm + unnecessary action = probably should stop"
 - Individual choices create constituencies for systemic change
-- "Not definitely. Not can't. Probably shouldn't."
 - "Moral testimony" rather than personal preference
 
 ## What Makes This Book Different

translations/en/0-introduction.adoc

@@ -6,23 +6,23 @@ Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
 Notice how the meaning shifts with each emphasis? "*So*, you think you can dance?" sounds surprised, maybe skeptical. "So, *you* think you can dance?" implies others might disagree. "So, you *think* you can dance?" suggests you're not so sure. "So, you think *you* can dance?" questions your abilities specifically. "So, you think you *can* dance?" casts doubt on the basic possibility. And "So, you think you can *dance*?" might be questioning whether what you're doing even counts as dancing.
 
-The title of this book works the same way. "You Probably Shouldn't Eat Animals" is really five different statements wrapped in a single sentence, each revealed by shifting the emphasis from word to word. And unlike the dance question above, this isn't just a linguistic party trick. Each emphasis captures a distinct and important dimension of one of the most consequential choices we make every day: what we put on our plates.
+The title of this book works the same way. "You Probably Shouldn't Eat Animals" is five different statements wrapped in a single sentence, each revealed by shifting the emphasis from word to word. And unlike the dance question above, each emphasis here captures a distinct dimension of one of the most consequential choices we make every day: what we put on our plates.
 
-This isn't a book that will tell you you're a bad person for eating that turkey sandwich. I'm not here to share graphic slaughterhouse footage or make you feel guilty about your grandmother's pot roast recipe. What I am here to do is make a case—one that I've come to find overwhelmingly convincing—that most of us, most of the time, probably shouldn't eat animals. Not definitely. Not can't. Probably shouldn't.
+I'm not going to tell you you're a bad person for eating that turkey sandwich, or share graphic slaughterhouse footage, or guilt you about your grandmother's pot roast recipe. Instead, I want to make a case (one that I've come to find overwhelmingly convincing) that most of us, most of the time, probably shouldn't eat animals.
 
-That "probably" is doing real work here, and it's not false modesty. It reflects both intellectual honesty about the genuine uncertainties involved and a practical recognition that absolute positions rarely change minds. If you're like most people, you already know many of the arguments for plant-based diets. You might even find them somewhat persuasive. But knowledge and action often live in different neighborhoods, and this book is about building a bridge between them.
+That "probably" is doing real work here. It reflects intellectual honesty about the uncertainties involved, and a practical recognition that absolute positions rarely change minds. If you're like most people, you already know many of the arguments for plant-based diets. You might even find them somewhat persuasive. But knowledge and action often live in different neighborhoods, and this book is about building a bridge between them.
 
-Here's how we'll build that bridge, one word at a time:
+One word at a time, here's the bridge:
 
-We'll start with **Animals** themselves. Before we can meaningfully discuss whether it's okay to eat them, we need to establish whether there's even a "them" there: whether animals have subjective experiences that matter morally. We'll look at the science of animal consciousness, from the presence of pain receptors to complex emotional behaviors, and confront the philosophical puzzles of other minds. Spoiler alert: while we can never be absolutely certain what it's like to be a pig or a chicken, the evidence strongly suggests there's someone home.
+**Animals** comes first. Before we can meaningfully discuss whether it's okay to eat them, we need to establish whether there's even a "them" there: whether animals have subjective experiences that matter morally. The science of animal consciousness, from pain receptors to complex emotional behaviors, confronts us with the philosophical puzzles of other minds. We can never be absolutely certain what it's like to be a pig or a chicken, but the evidence strongly suggests there's someone home.
 
-Then we'll explore what happens when we **Eat** these conscious creatures. This goes beyond the obvious fact of killing, since death comes for everyone eventually. Instead, we'll examine the specific harms of animal agriculture: the environmental destruction, the public health risks, the staggering inefficiency of feeding plants to animals to feed humans. We'll see why eating animals isn't just one harm among many, but a practice that sits at the nexus of multiple moral catastrophes.
+Then comes **Eat**, and what happens when we consume these conscious creatures. This goes beyond the obvious fact of killing, since death comes for everyone eventually. The specific harms of animal agriculture matter here: the environmental destruction, the public health risks, the staggering inefficiency of feeding plants to animals to feed humans. Eating animals sits at the intersection of multiple moral catastrophes.
 
-The third chapter makes the leap from "is" to "ought": why these facts **Shouldn't** just inform our choices but also motivate them. We'll look at historical examples of principled refusal across the political spectrum, from religiously motivated temperance movements to secular boycotts against apartheid. We'll explore why choosing what we eat isn't just a personal preference, like choosing between chocolate and vanilla, but a form of moral testimony that helps shape the world we share.
+The third chapter makes the leap from "is" to "ought": why these facts **Shouldn't** merely inform our choices but motivate them. Historical examples of principled refusal span the political spectrum, from religiously motivated temperance movements to secular boycotts against apartheid. Choosing what we eat isn't a personal preference, like choosing between chocolate and vanilla. It's a form of moral testimony that helps shape the world we share.
 
-This brings us to that crucial **Probably**. This chapter takes seriously some of the best arguments against veganism: What if animals don't really suffer? What about indigenous hunting practices? Could farm animals have lives worth living? Rather than dismissing these challenges, we'll see why uncertainty doesn't substantially weaken the case for plant-based diets. When there's reasonable suspicion of serious harm and readily available alternatives, the burden of proof shifts to those who would continue potentially harmful practices.
+This brings us to **Probably**. This chapter takes seriously some of the best arguments against veganism: What if animals don't really suffer? What about indigenous hunting practices? Could farm animals have lives worth living? Rather than dismissing these challenges, we'll see why uncertainty doesn't weaken the case for plant-based diets. When there's reasonable suspicion of serious harm and readily available alternatives, the burden of proof shifts to those who would continue potentially harmful practices.
 
-Finally, we arrive at **You**. Yes, you personally. Not humanity in the abstract, not society as a whole, but the specific person holding this book (or listening to it, or reading it on a screen). In an age that often correctly emphasizes systemic change, we'll explore why individual choices still matter: not as a substitute for collective action, but as its necessary foundation. We'll get practical about implementation, honest about challenges, and realistic about impact.
+Finally, **You**. Yes, you personally: the specific person holding this book (or listening to it, or reading it on a screen), not humanity in the abstract or society as a whole. Even as our culture rightly emphasizes systemic change, individual choices still matter, not as a substitute for collective action but as its necessary foundation. This chapter gets practical about what that looks like and honest about the challenges.
 
 The meal in front of you three times a day is a choice. It's a choice informed by habit, culture, convenience, and pleasure, but it remains a choice. This book exists because I believe that for most of us, in most circumstances, it's probably a choice we should make differently.