this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
77649 readers
2806 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i didnt suggest they did. i'm saying that buying food is disanalagous to rape.
edit
to be clear, rape is wrong. buying food is not. you don't not-rape in order to reduce rape. you don't-rape because rape is wrong. by contrast, the goal of not-buying meat is to reduce the environmental impact of the meat industry. if that doesn't work, then not-buying meat is not a moral duty (at least, not for that reason. it's possible there is some other reason, but that's not the topic being discussed).
What if you buy food from someone you know murdered children to get it? It's so obviously wrong that buying food is never an immoral act. If you are interested in having philosophical conversations, then you really need to go back to the basics. At this point, you're trying to join an archery competition with a nurf toy. There are undeniably immoral ways to get food. Destroying the planet and torturing animals for slightly cheaper food that you do not absolutely need to survive is absolutely immoral. The reason it is so hard for you to see this is because you are an addict making excuses. Not because you are starving and need the cheapest, most despicable food.
no one is torturing animals
Guess again. Almost certainly, you are contributing a significant portion of your energy and money to billionaires who torture animals in ways that you would be unable to even watch.
https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko
I've been wrong plenty before, but I would be astonished if you are capable of even viewing the atrocities that you commit. That's how disgusting the things people hire billionaires to do in the name of cheap meat it.
you should give it trigger warning before you link gore
This is what most people are paying to have happen every day.
no, they're not. this YouTube video does not show standard practices even in mid 2010s in Australia where it was filmed
Try and find out the standard practices of the factory farm where the meat from your local area comes from. They don't make it easy to find out, and if you do find out, it is currently much worse than what was happening 15 years ago. There is a good reason for this, too. In most regards, the rule is that they can't be too much worse than the average behavior. This is causing a horrific drift to worse and worse practices.
There is almost no push back on this because the average person is so reluctant to admit that they may be supporting something so vile that they stand behind whatever it is these farms do without having any actual idea of what's going on. Nobody is checking in on these places and coming out saying alls good other than the people making a ton of money off them.
If you don't know for sure that you get animal products from good places, then it is almost guaranteed that you don't. If you don't care to even find out, then you are the normal consumer, and you have accepted that your pleasure matters more than the treatment of the animals in them. You are not the minority. You are the merciless masses with no morality in this regard.
you have no idea what my morality is
You are right, but I can make a very educated guess based on the deprivety that you insist on trying to defend. If you have been pretending this whole time and you actually have concern for the planet and for the well-being of others, then great. It's a strange thing to troll about, but that would be much better than if you actually hold the opinions you are pretending to.
I haven't defended any depravity. I'm demanding evidence for the efficacy of you plan to address environmental concerns.
I did, you said it was bad, and then praised yourself. This is exactly what happens when you point out to a crackhead that they are down to 4 teeth, they just say "whatever bro, not related, you so dumb" and then go on thinking they're so clever for always outsmarting everyone with their lightning fast logic skills.
your evidence did not support your claim. your continued personal attacks are inappropriate
You being unable to look at the evidence because it is too disturbing doesn't invalidate the evidence. It has become clear that there are lots of fundamentals of debate and reasoning that you are lacking. If this is really something that interests you, then it would be best for you to familiarize yourself with some basics of formal logic and reasoning completely outside of this subject matter, and after that come back and revist this with a more open mind and more equipped to consider the implications of your actions.
your evidence does not support your claim that buying beans helps the environment no matter how much gore you pack into it.
There is no need to be intellectually dishonest about the point of view of the person you are arguing with. This is what is called a "strawman" argument. If you look back through the thread, you will find that I never even discussed bean purchasing. It is very telling that in order to feel like you have "won" the argument, you must make up things to "be" my point of view. What this means is that the argument that you see yourself as winning is actually against yourself! If you actually had a strong argument, then you wouldn't have to create the thing that it is able to beat. It would actually be able to beat the argument of someone else.
we are so far removed from any actual argument that my characterization can't be considered a strawman so much as "The way most people are able to interact online".
but i'm happy to state this formally enough that i'd pass a student in my logic class:
the claim is that abstaining from factory farmed meat has a benefit for the environment. the supposed mechanism is that by refusing to buy a product, the producers will prorduce less, and therefore have lower emissions.we have evidence people abstain. we have evidence that the production increases. there is no evidence that abstaining from buying meat has ever reduced emissions.
With you helping, x is increasing by 101 every day, without you, it is increasing by 100. This is the crux of what you are misunderstanding. The difference you make does not pull it from the negative to the positive.
how can we test your theory? can you point on this graph to when you stopped eating factory farmed meat?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-meat-production?facet=none
It still isn't quite clicking for you. An individual person starting or stopping to give money to an entire industry does not change the industry from being profitable or not. I never said it did. It is you who has consistently claimed that it should, despite a lack of evidence. It is a very solipsistic view to think that one person's purchases change an entire industry from being profitable or not. I don't really know how to get you to internalize the logic behind this, you really just need to try hard to work it out for yourself if this is really the point that you are struggling with.
talk about a straw man.
No, this is precisely the claim you made. Go ahead and go back and read it.
the only claim i've made is that your claim can't be evidenced.
It is very understandable why you would now try to back down off of your claim that a single person should be able to change an entire industry from being profitable or not. It is fine to admit you were wrong though, it does you no favors to try to act like that was never your stance. The comments are all still there.
that isn't the claim i made. in fact, its remarkably similar to the one you are making.
And yet here you are claiming that if people abstaining don't result in their profit going down, then abstaining does nothing.
It is obvious that you really don't want to be responsible for your actions. That is the heart of this issue. No amount of going back and forth with me will do that for you. It is you who needs to look at what you do. If you think funding other people to do terrible things that hurt the environment doesn't actually make you responsible for those horrible things, then no amount of explanation will change this for you. Even if you get me to say "you are right, you can pay anyone to do any terrible thing that brings you pleasure, and you have no moral responsibility for this", it still won't make it true. This isn't hard to see. It just takes you to be willing to analyze it honestly.
another strawman
It's I possible to have a conversation with someone who constantly pretends like they didn't say what they did. I've given you all the information you need to take your next steps, now it's on you.
real pot and kettle situation you've made here
I absolutely get that you don't want to be thinking these things next time you are trying to enjoy your cheap cheeseburger and ice cream, or whatever else your personal guilty pleasure is. I am well aware that I have, at least temporarily, greatly tarnished your ability to selfishly enjoy these things. I hope this conversation will help you, or anyone reading this, be a bit more loving. You have not at all succeeded in convincing me that I should be more selfish, more hateful, or less compassionate. I highly doubt that your best version of yourself would really want what you are so sadly trying to desperately defend.
look, normally i think that it's shitty to dig through a user's history and drag it into the current discussion, but i do encourage you to sort my comments by old.
i have been objecting to your feckless method of protecting teh environment for years. this account alone is almost solely focused on pushing people to find effective methods.
you literally have no idea who you are talking to or what you are talking about.
It is incredibly ironic that you see yourself as a moral force for good while vehemently defending some of the most atrocious practices in the world today. I hope you are able to cast aside your addiction so you can see clearly enough to actually do some good. It is clear that you find your behavior deplorable, it is just that you can't fathom giving up on your precious factory farms.
i never did that.
I'm against factory farms. You are for factory farms. It would be incredible if you now try to switch this as well. It would be such progress if you now start trying to attack factory farms for their vile practices.
no, i'm not
more posturing and rhetoric, but no evidence that abstaining from factory farmed meat has ever reduced emissions.
this is just a series of personal attacks and self-aggrandizing statements.
The reason they feel like personal attacks is because your ego is so twisted around your emotional dependence on a deplorable addiction. If you were able to separate your ideas from yourself, then me questioning your ideas wouldn't be so deeply offensive to you. The trouble is that you can't fathom a life without paying people to destroy the environment and treat animals horribly. This is because you think living without cheap animal products simply isn't an option. I assure you it is, and after your withdrawal, you will actually feel better. It may not take nearly as long or be nearly as unbearable as you are fearing. Really, truly. Most people who have put their morals above their pleasure have gone through this very thing, and I'm confident you can as well.
this isn't about questioning my ideas. it's about developing evidence to support your position. you still haven't don that.
Someone who advocates for taking care of the planet, and treating others compationately disagrees with you. You try to defend massive corporations that are well known for destroying the planet and abusing animals in ways so horrific that simply being shown what they are doing took you to a place not far from suicidal ideas. If that is really what you think you should be defending deep down, there is nothing I can tell you to change your mind. Just consider if you would rather be on the side defending compassion or on the side fighting against it.
this is all posturing and rhetoric. you have not shown that being vegan reduces industry emissions.
The emissions happen because people financially support them. It isn't hard to grasp. You just don't want to feel responsible. I know I'm not responsible for it, and I don't have to try to pretend that my money doesn't help continue what they do. You have to pretend or admit guilt, and at this point you can't bring yourself to admit to what you are doing.
more posturing and rhetoric. no evidence that your purchases have ever helped the environment at all.
Not at all a hard search:
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/countries-urged-curb-factory-farming-meet-climate-goals-2023-11-29/#:~:text=Factory%20farming%20alone%20is%20responsible,Wednesday%20by%20World%20Animal%20Protection.
The issue isn't a lack of evidence. The issue is your denial of anything that questions your behavior. The problem you are facing is looking at yourself, not at being unable to use a search engine.
so when did agriculture emissions drop?
i never did that.
I know it's embarrassing, but you can go back and read what you've written. No stretch of the imagination puts you on any side other than trying to excuse your funding those monsters.
anyone can read whats been said and see that i've not defended any corporations