221–230 of 427 posts
I wonder where anti-abortion people come down on this. In their view, isn’t destroying the male egg the same as culling the male chick?
If you're already eating meat, you're already demonstrably OK with the killing of an animal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need people on the extremes After 2020, I'd like to see more in the middle. I think extremes are overrepresented.
Human nature is very hard to change. What we really need is a societal mechanism that somehow forces (or persuades) those on the extremes to compromise. The U.S. Constitution was designed to be such a mechanism, but it doesn't seem to be standing up well to new technologies.
This isn't how social change happens. The extremes stay planted. They define the Overton window. The centre is the bulk that moves. It's the part that decides. The extremes effect change by persuading the centre, not by talking to other extremists.
This is the problem with partisan-fueled premature dichotomization. It creates lots of immovable people. The only solution to that system is to punt the problem for a generation in the hope that more people drift to the centre.
I wonder where anti-abortion people come down on this. In their view, isn’t destroying the male egg the same as culling the male chick?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I value ethics and empathy deeply but, I don't understand vegans and vegetarians. Their biggest line of defense is "animals are alive and they have feelings and senses, we abuse them for food". That's sadly right. And they implicitly say that "eating plants are OK because, plants are not animals and they're just happen to grow. They don't feel, they don't understand". On the contrary, there's a growing mountain of re…
As a real vegan (not a meme about vegans that you saw from meat eaters) I can confidently tell you that "animals are alive and they have feelings and senses, we abuse them for food" is not my biggest line of defense. My biggest lines of defense are: * Dr. Kim Williams, former president of the American College of Cardiology, said "there are two kinds of cardiologists, vegans, and those who haven't read the data" * Ani…
But what percentage of our protein?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
6,000,000,000 (chicks) * 0.03 (weight of a chick in kg at birth) = 180,000,000 kg 180,000,000 kg / 10 (average meat consumption in North and Central Africa) = 18,000,000 people that could eat for a year.
18,000,000 people =/= 18,000,000 million people (by the way, 30g of chicken at hatching are not 30g of meat)
Yes, of course!
(Facepalm)
> by the way, 30g of chicken at hatching are not 30g of meat)
And of course again, it's just to prove how much actual good food it's wasted by simply not considering the alternatives
30gr of chicken at hatching become 1.5 kg of poultry in 3 months
not killing them as soon as they hatch it's good, selling them to someone who's gonna eat them is even better
I wonder where anti-abortion people come down on this. In their view, isn’t destroying the male egg the same as culling the male chick?
They generally don't care because it's not humans being killed. You'd need to ask an anti-abortion vegan.
I’d go so far as to say it’s also because it is not heavily politicized either. The political right already has (human) abortion to win the emotional vote, they have no reason to go any further as those people will never change their minds on average (which is good enough to win elections)
For the record I don’t at all think abortion should be politicized, and seeing such clear pandering to emotion to win votes is so fucking tiring to see happen now, it’s tiring to read about it throughout history, and it’s tiring to know it’s going nowhere for the future.
Every time I see how animals on factory farms are treated I want to take up hunting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human nature is very hard to change. What we really need is a societal mechanism that somehow forces (or persuades) those on the extremes to compromise. The U.S. Constitution was designed to be such a mechanism, but it doesn't seem to be standing up well to new technologies.
> What we really need is a societal mechanism that somehow forces (or persuades) those on the extremes to compromise This isn't how social change happens. The extremes stay planted. They define the Overton window. The centre is the bulk that moves. It's the part that decides. The extremes effect change by persuading the centre, not by talking to other extremists. This is the problem with partisan-fueled premature dic…
No, it isn't. That's exactly the problem. Trump found a bug in the system, a security hole, in the form of leveraging the non-linearity built in to the current system. The Constitution was designed to produce minority rule, on the assumption that if the minority abused that power too much the majority would rise up and force them out of power. The problem is that this bias is amplified by modern communications technologies, which allow a determined person to leverage a fairly small minority into effective dictatorial power. The Constitutional bias towards minority rule is amplified by party politics, gerrymandering, echo chambers, etc. to the point where you only need a few million motivated followers to effectively control the agenda. All you need is enough voters following you that you can pose a credible threat to unseat any politician in your party at the next primary. Those few million motivated followers are much more likely to be found at the extremes than in the center, and they are much more likely to be found in rural areas and hence be conservative. Given enough time, this influence can be leveraged into enough disenfranchisement through legitimate-seeming voter suppression efforts that unseating the minority becomes effectively impossible through any legal means. At that point, the minority no longer needs to compromise. And since it is the most radical members of the minority who are the foundation of this strategy, the result is extreme radicalization. And all this can happen without moving the center. That's the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I value ethics and empathy deeply but, I don't understand vegans and vegetarians. Their biggest line of defense is "animals are alive and they have feelings and senses, we abuse them for food". That's sadly right. And they implicitly say that "eating plants are OK because, plants are not animals and they're just happen to grow. They don't feel, they don't understand". On the contrary, there's a growing mountain of re…
As a real vegan (not a meme about vegans that you saw from meat eaters) I can confidently tell you that "animals are alive and they have feelings and senses, we abuse them for food" is not my biggest line of defense. My biggest lines of defense are: * Dr. Kim Williams, former president of the American College of Cardiology, said "there are two kinds of cardiologists, vegans, and those who haven't read the data" * Ani…
Eventually, humanity will have to accept that going vegan is the only sustainable method.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But that doesn't keep me from recognizing the ethical issues with killing and controlling other beings to survive. We don't undergo photosynthesis, so fundamentally we have to kill and eat other beings to survive. Plants are other living beings too. And a revolution is underway in learning about plant intelligence -- while not a nervous system, trees communicate with each other and share resources. [1] My primary r…
Plants are not beings under any standard usage of the word. While plants certainly communicate and show some level of computational processing, there is no evidence they have subjective experiences. There is a very clearly line to be drawn between plants and animals. And if that's not a compelling enough counterargument, there are two additional issues with trying to conflate plants and animals in this context. First…