Except PGP is a substring of the ‘technically correct’ term. It’s like someone saying you’re playing on your Nintendo - “Um, actually it’s a Nintendo 64.”
Its not the most sensitive info here, but you shouldn’t censor things using non-opaque markings. It’s pretty trivial to throw the image in an editor, crank up the brightness, and see what’s behind the censor in this case. Just wanna let you know in case you happen to do this to some sensitive info
I made that mistake with AC Unity. Got sent from the 6th section all the way back to the 4th. Nearly a year later and I still haven’t picked it back up to finish it
Agreed. It might not be the best one but I have a real soft spot for revelations, old man Ezio is a very compelling character, the setting, wrapping up arc for characters. We get plenty of Egypt in games but I can recall ever getting the Ottoman Empire.
Also Unity is underrated, if it had been polished at launch I hold it would have been the best game in the original style gameplay series by far.
I think Unity’s main issue was they marketed the multiplayer heavily, but it was only in the game for an extremely limited number of missions.
They managed to annoy single player gamers and multiplayer gamers in one stroke.
They got overambitious with the crowds as well, leading to poor performance on consoles, along with a whole load of weird bugs. I played it on PC years later (maybe when the Notre Dame burned down?) and there were still parts of the game bugged, or chugged down to 20 fps for no reason.
I don’t hate them as games, but the need for gear to be able to actually do assassinations on the bigger guys somewhat makes it not an AC game any more. Still the same slightly tired gameplay, but the one element that made it satisfying is no longer there.
Yeah, I never understood it either. Either have an open relationship with consent, or communicate whatever needs you have that you want to fulfill by cheating properly, and accept that it may not work out if there is truly no way to meet them. I guess I can at least abstractly understand when it happens spur-of-the moment and under the influence of drugs/alcohol, but I still can’t properly put myself in those shoes.
You should try dog if you get the chance, Elwood dog farm has a low impact factory farm where you can buy Labrador cuts and some gamier breeds if they’re in stock.
I mean I could but I have a nearly limitless supply of rabbits in my yard. Their fur makes great gifts. My plants love the compost I get from everything else. As a bonus the blood compost deters rabbits from eating my cabbage.
Funny thing, I can’t seem to find any type of vegan certification that is concerned with the use of animal byproducts or waste in fertilizer. A few specifically say they do not check fertilizer.
Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good. If everyone stopped eating animals, there’d be no surplus of blood and bone for fertilisers, and other plant based by-products would fill the space.
As for the rabbits, I actually have a small Australian shepherd that runs through my lawn chasing the wallabies that meander by, I’ve been meaning to trap it and humanely slaughter it, the blue coat would make a great gift! And if the owner comes by looking for Bella, I could trap him and humanely slaughter him too. He looks a bit simple, so it seems ethical to me? He’d make good compost, that’s for true.
Actually a lot of organic farms rely on blood and bone meal, manure and fish emulsion fertilizers. They’re inexpensive as they’re byproducts of other industries and are very good for plants.
When I worked in an organic greenhouse I often wondered about how vegans would feel about farmers using animal based fertilizers. We definitely told people what we used, as we sold those products, but no one ever said anything about it. I guess vegans can’t control that so maybe it’s a nonissue unless they grow their own food and use seaweed based fertilizer(more expensive) instead?
Does that work long term on a commercial scale without egg shells/ bone meal? Afaik, there needs to be an additional source of calcium, but that could of course also supplement crop rotation/fallowing.
Though tbf, limestone is very soft and I could see supplementing with ground limestone.
I have no intent to deceive. There’s a moral inconsistency amongst meat eaters. Pigs are okay, dogs are not. Why? “Oh, because we like dogs” Does that mean I can eat any sentient thing I dislike? “Well, no, dogs are intelligent!” Pigs are smarter than most breeds of dog, and have equal capabilities for emotion.
There is no logical argument against veganism in western society. Literally none. Meat eaters collectively breed and kill literally billions of animals per year, destroying the planet, because it’s yummy. Meat eaters have essentially caused swine flu, bird flu, ebola, corona virus, just for the taste of meat. Meat eaters are causing treatment resistant bacteria by abusing antibiotics on high intensity farming, all for meat. That’s crazy.
No it’s not. It being a “gotcha” does not mean it’s wrong. In fact, it is still right, you’re just wrong and think the person you reply to is wrong because they disagree with you.
You aren’t the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
If you mean that “gotchas” (your words, not mine) cannot ever be logically sound, you’ll have to make a demonstration. Until you’ve done the work, enjoy being wrong.
Hahaha just answer the question. You’re like that meme that goes “APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, STRAWMAN FALLACY” in the middle of a normal conversation. Likr, if you’re in a debate and someone pushes your argument into a corner, you can’t go “no, judged the opposing team is using gotcha arguments that make mine look foolish, I object”.
Hey it’s only a trap if your argument falls for it. When have I lied? Stop arguing weird imagined semantics and actually reply like a human. Why do you think it’s okay to kill and consume sentient life?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You literally can’t reply, this is honestly my favourite anti-vegan argument I’ve ever had.
Alright alright, I’m all done. You clearly have no ability to argue, but it was a fun journey for me finding that out. With no capacity for understanding, I’ll block you now to ensure I don’t waste any more of our time.
Save your health, the life of animals and the life of the planet and eat plant-based.
The question “would you eat dog meat?” and your outrage at the question, while a gotcha, is a very solid way to point out your inconsistency. It’s by no means dishonest because it outlines your inconsistency without false pretense. You’re being asked a direct question, and you got got.
You don’t get a free get-out-of-jail card because you don’t like how this rhetorical device proved your position weak.
sophistry is shitty. they had no interest in a genuine discussion or learning anything: they’re just trying to show how right they are, regardless of the facts
The facts are there: the consumption of animal products the way it is done across the vast majority of the planet is not something you can rationalize: it’s bad for the consumers, bad for the environnement and, most of all, bad for the animals that are being slaughtered on a massive scale.
Don’t fool yourself: I’m not talking about the act of ingesting the flesh of dead animals, which could theoretically be done in a way that doesn’t have such a strong negative impact on everyone involved. I’m talking about what’s happening in the real world, which is very far from idealized “what if” theories that is pretty unattainable, and an artificial debate construction carnivores use in debates with vegans.
You and I consume animal products. The difference between the two of us is I find the moral objections to the consumption of dog meat to be rationally indefensible, and pretty ridiculous.
Do consume animal products if you like. I’m not a vegan, and I would be hypocritical to judge you based on that. Whatever you do though, just don’t make the mistake of assuming your moral system is universal because it’s pretty illogical.
There’s a lot of awful things in culture. It was culturally acceptable to slap a women on the bottom for a good job.
Your argument is “ah well”.
That’s not a reasonable defense for your objectively immoral actions. You are causing the suffering of sentient life for taste, that makes you immoral. Not to mention the horrible effect your diet has on the planet.
Okay, I believe it is morally reprehensible to kill a sentient being - one that feels fear and does not want to die, solely for pleasure. Eating meat is immoral and in a just world, would be punishable.
Sentience means “the capacity to have feelings”, and it is widely understood by the scientific community that the vast majority of the animal kingdom has sentience.
Do you believe cows can experience pain? Because we’re right up close against rejecting scientific consensus just to justify immoral actions. And that typically is frowned upon historically.
Subjecting something that feels pain to experience pain for your pleasure is immoral.
honestly i got sentience and sapience confused English isnt my first language, anyways point is it really doesnt matter that they feel pain that in no way affects this, and u know that it doesnt because if farm animals were first sedated before being killed it would not make u ok with it so stop being disingenuous.
You’re right. If farm animals were sedated before being killed, it would certainly be preferable, but wouldn’t make it right.
We have no right to cause pain, fear or death to sentient beings, purely for ~15 minutes or pleasure. Doing so is immoral. There is no valid argument against this. Trust me, I did NOT want to be a vegan. I argued against it for four years trying not to become one. But there was and is no argument against it. Eating meat is immoral, bad for the planet, bad for the animals, bad for modern medicine, and in a typical western diet, bad for your health.
I repeat, there is no argument against veganism, and being vegan is objectively he correct moral choice.
u keep saying there is no argument against veganism but reality is that there doesnt need to be one because there is also no argument FOR veganism, there is nothing immoral about eating meat, and u have not at any point presented an argument that would even suggest it is wrong, u just keep saying it is.
It doesn’t help that the vegans are right. The meat industry is a nightmare, terrible for the environment, and pretty bad for our health.
It’s insane that most Americans eat meat every day.
If I could put 100% tax on meat tomorrow I would, but that’s political suicide, so it’ll never happen. It’d be easier to adjust than you think. There are plenty of delicious vegetarian options, and it’d be a lot easier to choose those if they were more common.
I eat meat because it’s culturally acceptable, delicious, ubiquitous, and I don’t believe I can make a noticeable difference. But that doesn’t mean I think it’s right.
I don’t believe I can make a noticeable difference.
Not eating meat won’t change the systemic problems but it will mean fewer animals will be subject to the industry. Over the course of a lifetime, the number of animals you can save adds up.
Also it’s a good habit to transfer thoughts and beliefs into actions.
What bizarre logic, what thorough lack of object permanence.
Just because meat eating outpaces veganism doesn’t mean vegans haven’t reduced the consumption of meat?
I don’t even think you know what you’re saying now. If the whole world went vegan today, there’d be no meat animal slaughter. YOU are the cause of this problem.
“Oh world hunger is getting worse, I better stop my charity donations!”
“Oh greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, might as well go back to oil and gas!”
Like, you realise how foolish that argument is, right?
When you buy something, it tells the person who sold it to you to stock more of it, which tells the people making it to make more of it. Since meat production involves killing animals, it means that when you buy meat, it causes more animals to be killed. If you go vegan and stop buying meat, it causes there to be less demand, which reduces the number of animals killed compared to if you didn’t.
“Your honor, it’s true I purchased a hitman’s services, but I didn’t cause his actions. He made his own decision, it just happened to be the one I paid him to do.”
Why not? You’re saying that market signals don’t matter, it’s individual choice all the way down. You’re paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn’t have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn’t make you complicit?
You don’t seem to understand how analogies work. You don’t get to just say “Nuh uh” when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That’s just a basic form of logical argumentation.
Since you seem incredibly confused about both how to argue and basic facts about reality, let me walk you through this.
You claimed that purchasing meat has no effect on whether more meat gets produced, because “they make their own decisions.” This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do. If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic “they make their own decisions” regardless of who’s paying them to do what.
If you want to dispute that, you have to actually find a fault in that chain of reasoning, not just say, “Nuh uh” over and over again.
An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do.
If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic “they make their own decisions” regardless of who’s paying them to do what.
again, this is completely disanalagous with buying meat on a shelf.
Again, you don’t get to just say, “No it isn’t” over and over again without actually explaining why it’s not analogous. That’s how basic reason works.
Also, you can put multiple things in one comment so you don’t spam the thread.
i’m not making an argument. i’m contradicting yours.
Yes, you’re literally just disagreeing with anything I (or anyone else on my side) says, with zero supporting evidence or reason. It’s not an argument, just contradiction. It’s obvious that’s what you’re doing, but still hilarious that you would come out and admit it.
wrong. i said it is not causal.
Can you please explain what the difference is between an action being causal of another action vs an action… causing another action to happen?
“Your honor, it’s true that the deceased died of blood loss after I stabbed them, however, the idea that they would’ve survived had I not stabbed them is a counterfactual and therefore cannot be proven at all.”
You can try some in Switzerland. While you can’t sell the meat, slaughtering and eating it is legal. There is farms where you can “make a donation” and they’ll invite you to dinner.
Gamey unless reared correctly. Better to eat pet dogs as the meat generally tastes juicier. It can sometimes be unpleasant bolting them before slitting their throats after they’ve lived inside for so long, but knowing they lived a happy life free of predators, and didn’t die of old age (try to kill before they become yearlings) makes it feel right.
What? Try harder to what? Don’t defend yourself in court hahahaha. “Does the defense have any closing statements?” “Uh yes your honour. Ahem. leans into mic t-try harder”
Apologies but this is just assumptions. Pet meat isn’t good quality. Your average commercial pet food uses hydrogenated oils for shelf longevity and that causes a very bitter flavor.
farm raised dog is usually fed on grain and suet or tallow, and avoids this problem.
Great, so we agree no animals are ethically off limits to kill and consume. How about… Some of the more simple minded human populace? Like, if through IQ testing we find the bottom 5% of humans, and (without eating brain and spine, avoiding prion diseases) feed them to the masses? They’re probably not terribly much smarter than dogs, and they could help curb food shortages. Or are humans off limits?
Only if you eat the brain or spinal column, which I was careful to add. Otherwise the risks are as manageable as with cow meat, i.e., parasites and bacteria. Given that you’re okay with eating cats and dogs, and now simple-minded humans, what’s to stop me from killing and eating you? I mean, all anyone needs to assert is that they’re mentally superior to their food, what’s off the table for you?
I’m sure mass scale cannibalism might actually be as good for the environment as a plant based diet. Maybe you’re on to something. We’d be so morally consistent!
go ahead a good third of my country thinks i shouldn’t exist anyway and im sick of fighting it, im sure i taste good too
you keep trying to push people into corners about this when most ppl who eat meat do it simply because it tastes good, has good nutritional value, and is easily accessible. for my two cents in w serious manor, the meat industry is fucked up and should be regulated, since you didn’t take my initial comment as the shitpost it is
there are moral concerns but for most people (majority will never even know what lemmy is) simply don’t care and will never care, because meat tastes good
Pushing people into corners is what good debate is about. If people find their refutations are weak enough to have them back into a corner, then they should abandon that argument.
I grew up on a farm in the south of New Zealand. My brothers were dairy farmers, my front yard was cattle, I was a staunch anti-vegan who swore he’d never eat vegetarian as long as he lived.
I will never care because meat tastes good. Except now I do.
There is no level of regulation that permits - in good moral conscience - the subjugation and slaughter of animals for our pleasure.
Meat is only easily accessible because it is heavily subsidized by the government. A vegan diet is nearly always cheaper - consider that most developing nations eat vegan/vegetarian because of this.
There’s a short book I read that absolutely convinced me of veganism called “This is Vegan Propaganda and Other Lies The Meat Industry Tells You”. I’ve had 5 people read it, and ALL FIVE have gone vegan. It’s straight up insane how brutal a grip the meat industry has on people, through lobbying, ad campaigns, purposeful obfuscation of the industry. Bananas!
i shouldve known i was getting into this before i decided to make that witty comment that came to my mind on a whim
i agree that the meat industry is a disaster, and i wish there was a proper compromise that could suit everyone. many people in the us simply dont care or have this moral consciousness in the first place because, again, meat tastes good
the solution in reality is to somehow get people eating less meats as we tackle the major issues we face today. making a burger that tastes identical to a traditional burger is not easy and it is as it stands now much more expensive anywhere you go, which isnt changing without baby steps
going out to eat in rural ny with a budget, my options that i can afford dont include vegan anything barring a side salad. im not giving up what nice things i can go out and enjoy until theres more options. call me selfish idrc, i have enough to deal with as it stands. not going to give up something that does make me happy like going out to eat with family to prove a point to an industry that doesnt even know i exist
not proofreading this or anything so if i come to reword anything i said thats womp womp for me ig. thats where i stand muting this thread now
“Meat tastes good” as an argument for immoral actions is not valid logic. “Sex feels good” is not valid justification for sexual assault. “Men taste good” is not justification for Jeffrey Dahmer.
“Let’s eat less meat”. Again, there is no valid moral argument for “just a little bit of sexual assault”. “Only a wee bit of animal abuse”, “only occasional racism”. A moral wrong is a moral wrong. But hey at least it isn’t “I’d go vegan, but I just love cheese!”. Well then go vegan but eat cheese.
As for rural NY, I’d use Happycow.net to find places. I’ve eaten vegan in rural Bali, rural NZ, rural Australia, rural England, and never paid more than my meat eating counterparts. But if that’s still a concern, then eat vegan at home, meat when going out.
Although I’d still argue that “it’s more convenient for me commit sexual assault than to hire a sex worker” isn’t a valid justification.
Seriously if you get the option, read that book I recommended, even just the first chapter. I can buy you a copy of you like, DM me an email address and I’ll gift a copy. If you read it, I will genuinely send you PayPal money for a vegan dinner in rural NY. I’ve taken everyone else who read the book out to dinner, it’s only fair you get a free one!
tip if you want to be an activist for something, don’t compare something the opposing party is doing to sexual assault. you and i both know that isn’t a valid comparison
Cows are forcibly impregnated in perpetuity by humans, separated from their children and then had their milk taken so we can drink it. As soon as the cow can longer be impregnated and becomes unprofitable, it is killed for meat.
If a man sticks his fist in the vagina of a cow for fun, it is sexual animal abuse. If a man sticks his fist in the vagina of a cow, hoping to later kill and eat it’s flesh, it’s lunch.
I think a comparison is valid. Just because you are a willing participant and enabler in this animal sexual exploitation does not invalidate or soften the facts.
do you trust the processing facilities for the underground dogmeat industry to even come close to choosing safety over profit in shaving that meat down as close to cartilage as possible?
Oh we’re talking about eating humans now, we’re well past dogs as it seems like a fair few people here would be okay with factory farming them.
Personally, my ethics are simple and easily define - if it displays sentience, I won’t eat it. It’s unethical to kill and eat something that feels pain. I’m more interested in your more nebulous ethics, where some species are okay to eat, some not
It sounds like you’re okay with eating dogs, which id argue is demonstrably disgusting, but in your opinion, is it okay to rear, kill and then eat humans?
Honestly in that case I think the risk of disease is so much greater than any moral question. There’s very few things more likely to open a vector for prion or parasite attack than eating your own kind. Plus as mentioned earlier we taste horrible.
And at least you could have gone the creative way of saying ‘What about farming bodies without brains for organ harvesting’ because at least that has some gray areas we can play with.
But NoooOOoo you had to come in with the pseudointellectual dick punch. I’m sure that was clever back on 9gag but we are on lemmy now so act like it.
Right, so the only thing stopping you from factory farming and consuming humans is risk of prion disease and taste? By which it could be understood that if those two issues were solved - no risk of disease, and the flavour enhanced, you would happily factory farm humans.
And vegans are the weird ones? Your priorities are cooked buddy.
I’m not suggesting that animal eating leads to cannibalism, which WOULD be a slippery slope.
I’m suggesting that if meat eaters are okay with killing and eating animals, why not the human animal? I probe because the line drawn in the sand is unclear with meat eaters.
Also, humans are animals. This is primary school stuff here.
What separates eating animals from eating people for you?
Right, but what’s inherently wrong with eating your own species? I mean, I know, I think any sentient life shouldn’t be killed for my pleasure. But with your logic that some species are okay to kill and eat, and others aren’t, I’m wanting to know why those others aren’t.
Ignoring “societal norms”, as they’ve been used to commit genocide, slavery, and all manner of atrocities - why is cannibalism logically, in your opinion, bad?
Because regardless of what species does it, cannibalism inevitably causes problems due to prions, diseases, and such. Even if the most dangerous parts (Central nervous system) are avoided, there are still problems (just more slowly).
Well, it doesn’t cause prion diseases, it just spreads them. It’s only transmissible by consumption of conspecifics (or often, as in mad cow disease, by eating similar species - when farmers were feeding cows dead chickens and cows).
So you’re saying the only thing stopping you from eating factory farmed human meat is the risk to your own safety?
So… If there were no risk of disease, you would consider cannibalism and “normal meat eating” to be basically equitable, and equally justifiable? If not, why not?
Sorry I’m just having a hard time getting some solid admissions here, nobody wants to just straight up answer.
As a human, yes I consider a human life to be more valuable than the life of a member of another species. Is that biased? Probably, but if that biased didn’t exist, neither would humans.
My concern with eating dogs and cats (which I have) is how they were fed. There isn’t a lot of health safety concern with those kinds of underground meat sources can sometimes feed dead livestock back to the populace and that can cause all numbers of prion and parasitic concerns.
I mean, people hardly ever eat carnivores. Even pigs, which are omnivores, are 90% of the time herbivores. I don’t even eat meat, but this argument never made sense to me. Yes, there are countries where people eat dogs, but that doesn’t mean dogs and cats are equivalent to cattle. You can make an argument for horses though.
The argument works for a Western audience that are okay with killing and eat some animals, but find it abhorrent to eat others. Most people don’t like the idea of dogs in pain, and if we did rear dogs like we do pigs, there would be huge public outcry.
And sure, you get Redditors and Lemmy-ites who go “Oh ho i’d eat dog!”, but they mean they’d try the meat once at a market, to maintain moral consistency. The truth is they’d be just as horrified if they saw dogs yelping in factory farmed cages, like we treat chickens.
But there’s no reason to treat some animals one way, some another. They all feel pain, they all feel misery, they all call for their children once they’ve been culled. It’s objectively immoral to eat meat when not for necessity.
Edit: sorry that was a bit snarky. I don’t think you’re completely off the mark but I would think an animal needs at least a nervous system to experience pain, so there are categories to consider and it may be morally virtuous to abstain from eating some animals but not necessarily immoral, and we should be careful to anthropomorphize other animal emotional states.
So fish have nociceptors, and a brain that connects to them, and they avoid painful stimuli. They have analgesic response systems in their brain to dull painful stimuli. Even the most cautious interpetation of misery would include pain, so I would not kill and eat it. Fish display sentience, therefore it is immoral to kill them for pleasure.
Maybe I’m off on this but suffering/misery would include pain + the emotional state of unhappiness or we would just use pain for both? Avoiding painful stimuli doesn’t tell me about their emotional state or cognitive awareness of the pain, just an awareness of the stimuli.
No serious study suggests plants feel pain. They do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli.
Many more plants “die” for animal feeding than with a vegan diet.
If you’re worried about grass pain, you should focus more on the animals that DO have nociceptors, central nervous systems and brains, and the ability to feel fear that you subject them too, purely for taste preference.
I’ve read some studies that talk about how cabbages in a patch release a warning scent when one of them is being harvested. The scent actually propagates, and even non harvested cabbages release the scent further down the patch to warn other cabbages.
I need to start by saying that wife and I realize we are fiscally privileged relative status quo and ethically act upon that truth.
We’ve have been much happier since we sold the vast majority of our material possessions. There’s far less for us to worry about and slave to pay for. We’ve far more freedom to act morally and ethically in our choices.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. … A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. … But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
lemmy.world
Active