If I wake up feeling well rested and ready to face the day then going to work is the last thing I want to do! I’m used to being tired and miserable at work, if I’m feeling good I want to take the day off to enjoy it lol
I’ve done that before. Woke up with an insane amount of motivation and felt like I could accomplish anything that day. Called out of work as I was driving there and wound up getting a lot of personal stuff done I had been putting off for months. It was glorious.
It sounds odd but there was a Supreme Court about it. Essentially someone claimed they shouldn’t have to pay taxes on the profits of crime and the Court ruled they did. So they had to create a way for people to do that. For what it is worth, the 5th amendment protects you from incriminating yourself, so you are allowed to decline to provide the details of where the money came from, but it’s a bit like paying your parents for something you broke and then just not telling them what it is, and then expecting them not to look around the house.
“it would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. … He could not draw a conjurer’s circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law.” … "It is urged, that, if a return were made, the defendant [Sullivan] would be entitled to deduct illegal expenses, such as bribery. This by no means follows, but it will be time enough to consider the question when a taxpayer has the temerity to raise it.”
I love how the government gets to have it both ways. You gotta report income from illegal activities, but you can’t deduct costs from illegal activities. I’m of the opinion that deductions shouldn’t be a thing at all, but I’d at least like some consistency!
(But like, for real, though.) I certainly don't feel bad for Reddit when the CEO says he intends to use that forum's users to train AIs, and then every comment turns into some "please upvote me" catchphrasey nonsense. Hopefully, whoever buys training data from them receives nothing of value.
A self driving car pulls around … window opens … sign says to just throw the food inside … auto pay through NFC on the door … car drives away … dumps food into a waiting auto trash compactor … car drives away to next town to order food again … AI powering the car generates another $10,000 worth of bitcoin to start the food ordering cycle again.
I understand how you might feel this way. But a key difference to the early 1930s is that there are many large-scale protests against far right extremism in Germany. The elections in the Netherlands did produce a right wing tendency, but there is no government as of yet and the PVV is still pretty far away from fascism. The other three large winners of the election are not even that right wing. At least no more than the party that ruled for the last 15 years.
That said, I do kinda hope that this phase passes quickly and that people will start to finally get along and care about our fellow humans. Even though we never have.
The protests in germany give me hope that the german public finally resists against fascism instead of just letting it happen and then saying “there’s nothing that could have been done” afterwards
The Overton Window is a fairly popular concept on Lemmy, and I haven’t the faintest idea why.
It’s easy to see why the Overton Window holds such appeal. For one thing, it offers a universal theory of change in an age of polarization and fracture. While Trump and the UK Independence Party pull right, and Sanders and Corbyn pull left, Overton’s concept suggests that the mechanism of change is the same. For another thing, it has the virtue of simplicity: Overton did little more than repackage the basic negotiating principle that if you ask for a lot, you will likely get more than if you ask for a little. And although the window offers a theory of change, its central element—the window itself—actually describes the norm from which reality has deviated. Zeynep Tufekci worries in The New York Times that Trump “voices truths outside the Overton Window,” while the British writer Sam Leith speculates that Corbyn may have positioned his party “dangerously far from the centre of the Overton Window.” The window serves as shorthand for the erstwhile consensus. Viewing politics through the Overton Window reinforces liberal notions about the moderate center, even as that center ground erodes.
For conservatives, by contrast, the Overton Window has always been about strategy. Though Overton himself never committed his most influential idea to paper, his Mackinac Center colleague Joe Lehman continued his work after Overton’s death in 2003 at age 43. Lehman not only coined the term “Overton Window,” he weaponized it, setting up training sessions on the concept for other right-leaning think tankers. The term filtered into the conservative blogosphere in 2006, when Josh Trevino enthused about the window as a tool for the right. “Step by step, ideas that were once radical or unthinkable—homeschooling, tuition tax credits, and vouchers—have moved into normal public discourse,” Trevino declared. “The conscious decision to shift the Overton Window is yielding its results.”
The concept did not reach a wider audience, however, until Glenn Beck cast Overton’s ideas as the bogeyman in his 2010 best-seller, The Overton Window. The villain of Beck’s tale is Arthur Gardner, an aging PR guru who plots to use the Overton Window to foist his own objectives (“criminalize dissent,” “reinforce dependence and collectivism”) on an unsuspecting and gullible public. In his afterword, Beck urges readers to watch out for manipulation in their own lives and to set their own priorities.
While Beck shared Overton’s libertarian ideology, he was wary of the window as a strategy for change, imagining a totalitarian left that could hijack it. Its elitist overtones also stuck in his craw: An early champion of the Tea Party, Beck preferred to extol the power of the American people, whereas Overton largely sought to influence policy-making from the top down by “educating lawmakers and the public.” At one point in his novel, Beck takes a veiled swipe at the somewhat otherworldly Mackinac Center, which was founded on an island in Lake Huron: Arthur Gardner’s son boasts that his father “stole the concept” of the Overton Window “from a think tank in the Midwest.”
I mean, just do a little due diligence, Jesus. I’ve bought PalWorld, Planet Crafter, Traveler’s Rest, and more in early access and had a blast with all of them. In fact, I’d say it’s some of the best bang for my buck in the last ten years of gaming. I’ve also not bought early access games because the five minutes of due diligence suggested that it was a garbage game.
I particularly think it’s fine with small, indie studios that don’t have a lot of devs or resources. No way in fuck am I buying an early access AAA release.
Games like Valheim or Satisfactory have also been great, despite technically still being in early Access. And, looking back, Risk of Rain 2, Hades and Dead Cells developers have all done excellent job at using early access to develop their games and listen to the community.
Early access, just like any other development model, is a tool. All depends on how it is used.
Same. I love both, but when I purchased craftopia I was funding the development of craftopia, not palworld. They’re a small company so I kinda get it, but it still has me concerned that they’re not going to properly finish craftopia.
I think it unfortunately just comes down to money. Craftopia wasn’t popular enough to pay the bills to finish it.
We’ll see what happens with palworld. If they abandon it too then we’ll know they’re just scumbags. But if they finish it then we’ll know abandoning craftopia was a financial need.
I can’t say I’ve ever played Craftopia, but after hearing about this I went to the steam page to see for myself. They have released consistent large updates in the last 6 months and even since the launch of Palworld.
Most of the reviews from people who’ve played it mention it’s getting review bombed because of this mis-information and is actually quite good.
Seems to me if they can pull off making two games with multiple teams both which continue to have development, I say more power to them. I’m enjoying Palworld and will at some point check out Craftopia now because of it.
Same, I looked at craftopia and thought “palworld is an obvious cash grab”, which it might end up being. I’m glad people are having fun now, but I’m not buying into its future :)
I’ve read they also have a HollowKnight look-alike in the works as well.
Satisfactory I bought for 30 dollars 4 years ago and it’s sitting at 1,600 hours for me. I think sweeping general statements are really the bad guy here
Right? People need to take a little responsibility. If you want early access, expect issues. If you don’t want to see issues, wait. Easy. What’s the point complaining about a company providing early access or other gamers purchasing it? You don’t need to make it your business, just don’t buy the game yet if it bothers you.
Yep. The indie boom that PC gaming experienced would not have been possible without early access funding, full stop.
Not every early access title has gone perfectly and there are some studios that have gamed the system.
Still, the stuff that managed to make it through the process and become successful has been some of the only stuff saving us from a live service hellscape
Eh, I bought Grounded in Early Access. Maye by Obsidian and backed by Microsoft. I think this should count as AAA. Also I think you don’t mean that “small, indie studio” cause those are few and far between. Sons of the Forest? They have a Publisher (literally the opposite of being independent). I think there are lots of games which you have put into that category that are not actually indie devs at all. Anyway, my point is just that it’s not a black and white issue.
It’d be nice, if those AAA games were at least marked as early access instead of just being released and sold as something finished. But yes, you’re correct.
My rule is that it has to be an enjoyable experience in the game’s current state. Factorio was fantastic years before it left early access. I bought Space Engineers practically as soon as it hit, before there was even proper weapons in the game, and I had a blast building space ships.
I’m holding off on Palworld. I’m sure what’s there is enjoyable for many people, but I’d like to see the endgame fleshed out a bit first.
If I were to start my own fast food business, I would make my food cheap as fuck and deliberately target locations that have:
A sixth form or university campus nearby. Students are a big market.
Nearby pubs or nightclubs. Doesn’t have to be a city centre, could be a local high street. The main intent would be to target the late night crowd.
People care about speed, cost and not eating something that will give them food poisoning, not gourmet food. The luxury market is oversaturated and we have anything but the luxury to do that often.
Also, if it’s a sufficiently large eat-in location like a diner, maintaining toilet facilities that don’t look like they’ve been vandalized is important too.
There’s a reason why premium fast food has spread so much.
By the time you’ve paid your business rent, your staff and your own rent, you can’t keep prices cheap and still make money.
And at a price point that covers your expenses, people won’t buy your “cheap and simple” food.
So you make your food “premium” cause a hipster burger doesn’t take more time or skill to prepare than a normal one, the cost of better ingredients doesn’t make a difference compared to your other expenses, and all you need for people to be satisfied with the experience is a couple thousand extra initially for interior design and marketing.
They usually aren’t happy when I take a shit inside our local food trucks. They keep telling me it’s unsanitary but I always insist that a restaurant must allow its patrons fair use of their toilet facilities.
I hate how this society has turned something as deeply emotional as cooking and turned it into a factory farm where people think burgers and hot dogs just magically appear with fairy magic.
Check out how successful Dick’s is in Washington. They have so many locations now. Their first location was Wallingford, Seattle. It’s about a 1 mile walk from the U district, where a lot of the college kids hang out. Now, Dick’s has a location in most major districts of Seattle, mostly around bars, and even outside of Seattle. They are cheap ($2.50 for a cheeseburger) and super fast because they don’t do customizations with a limited menu. Mostly window only walk up pick up, no dine in (except for the one outside the hockey stadium, but it’s standing only).
Nothing wrong with accepting that both sides of anything have good and bad shit going on. I couldn’t imagine just blindly following one side 100% even when they can also do questionable stuff.
Sure, but the problem is that rather than arguing the finer points of how to combat climate change, for example, we have to argue about whether truth is truth.
You know, I think you’re right. I’m so used to the phrase “both sides” meaning a specific thing it didn’t register as anything else. If it had been phrased “both sides of an argument” I would have understood.
Does it normally refer to politics? Maybe for Americans, and they are responsible for a good deal of the English language content online. Right, and the 2 party system…
I’m with you, though, both sides means both sides of an argument. I think the news had something on that a while back- for every climate scientist they interviewed, they had to also interview a climate denier to present a “fair and balanced” view XD
This has happened in Germany, too.
I’m not going to try and educate other people anymore. Too many people now explode without warning at the slightest perceived criticism in public.
Small town crazy is different. Small town crazy everyone knows who the lunatic is and avoids them or they don’t know and one day several people disappear or someone is kidnapped or something. Small town crazy scares the shit out of me.
Nothing in life is free. I guess we should just get rid of the word. Who doesn’t know that “free healthcare” is paid with taxes? I obviously mean no unexpected bills or denied healthcare. Nobody has to chose between food or medication. Obviously…
Do you also comment about the word literally and figuratively being synonyms?
Literally, it’s an important point that seems to be lost on many that believe if we just tax the top 10% (who pay 90% of total tax revenue) even more, we can fix all our problems. Every country with socialized healthcare requires every citizen to pay a significant tax to cover the cost. If people are not willing to pay for it, they shouldn’t be advocating for it. But first they have to be educated on the reality of the cost. So yeah, stop saying free because many have no clue.
I do not get the sexualisation of daddy. It just feels pedo and cringy to me. if I was having sex with someone and they called me daddy I'd probably immediately go soft
Just you wait until you meet people with mommy issues. THOSE you wanna avoid
Mostly because I’m my experience people with mommy issues tend to be male NEETs who are incapable of seeing any woman as just a friend. Usually incels too. I found them to be kind of abusive as people too and turn vindictive when you don’t feed into their fantasies. As a woman, it’s always the same old story when I encounter these men.
Meanwhile people with daddy issues usually have their shit together regardless of gender.
Can we PLEASE differentiate between people who enjoy daddy or mommy kinks in a consensual fantasy setting with partners that are also into it, from people with deep psychological trauma relating to their parents that comes out in the vulnerable setting of sex? (one can be both obviously)
Is this that hard people?!?? facepalm
If you are having sex with someone with “daddy issues” or “mommy issues” and that reflects some weird way through their sexuality in a way that extends beyond fantasy into the realm of problematic behavior that is entirely a different problem and it has nothing to do with someone’s “kink” at that point.
Yeah if partner just throws a kink at you without preparing you or determining if you might be interested in acting it out, that is shitty and honestly approaching the realm of violence, but don’t throw other people who are into the same kink under the bus who would never just launch you into some weird shit without making sure you were onboard through a framework of consent.
Kinks don’t make rational sense, they are the tension between rationality and desire. They are all disgusting, transgressive and shocking. If you don’t like it fine, but wondering why anybody would be into it if you find it disgusting doesn’t really get you anywhere.
They all started as face up to me as well. The one that stood out to me though was the rectangular plate in the top right. That plate looked face down to me which then triggered all the plates to look face down.
It all looked like pills to me until I read the text. Couldn’t even see plates for a while.
Anyway, I noticed that the top right rectangular one doesn’t match the perspective when seen as face down. All the other ones are round, so they don’t insinuate a perspective at all. That’s why that plate is the key.
Shadow says its face up though. There should be a thicker bright line down the side if it was flipped over. The shadow should not have the same depth as all the other dishes.
Sort of. This plate sticks out because in order to create a shadow and light this way when facing down it would have to be angled in a way that doesn’t match with the others when also assuming that they’re all placed on the same surface. It only looks right with the others when seen as face up. The trick here is that we normally assume light to come from the top when given no other clues, but this assumption doesn’t match with our assumption of placement. The text also suggests the wrong way first.
If the picture had been presented upside down, it might have been difficult to even ee it any other way than the correct one.
I have tried some of the “tricks” in the comments and none work for me. Try as I might, I can only see them as face up and nothing else. It doesn’t make sense to me that they could ever appear face down because the lighting wouldn’t make sense.
I got to see them upside down for a moment and it does not look correct. They are actually face up in the picture but it is possible to trick yourself into seeing them as upside down but they don’t look like they would if they really were
I know it’s a meme, but is anyone actually sad for the fish? I thought we were terrified about what was happening to our food. If someone autopsied a downed cow and a bunch of toxic plastic shit spilled from their stomachs, we aren’t thinking “poor cow ate all that plastic and died.” We’re worried about our food supply.
I’m sad for the fish because if they’re gone I can’t eat them, and they can’t eat the tasty little fish, and they miss out on all that lovely tasty phytoplankton…
I’m sad for the fish. Imaging being forced into a massive pile of others just like you while being crushed by the weight of them and suffocating to death. It’s fucked up
The fishing is sadder to me because it’s intentionally causing unnecessary harm. I can see why accidental harm might be sadder though, and it is very sad either way. Systemic injustice and global catastrophe both need to be addressed though obviously
The vast majority of humans can thrive/be healthy on a vegan diet, therefore it’s not consuming for survival. That’s an excuse or ignorance (again, for the vast majority of humans, especially those who are reading this. There are always exceptions tho)
Vegans just casually creating a class system to value one life above others.
We have a name for the class of animals that eat grass, stay in packs for safety, and lack the individual skills necessary for individal survival. And even they are smart enough to be opportunistic omnivores.
The only species of animal stupid enough to consume against their needs and instincts are humans.
What? That’s what you took from vegans saying “stop killing others unnecessarily”?
Carnists are literally putting out an idea that values someones sensory pleasure over the lives of others and then acting accordingly and killing by the billions each year.
To the best of my knowledge plants are not sentient. If they were I would take much better care of houseplants and still be vegan because eating other animals still kills way more plants (google trophic levels)
Disingenuous, ignorant, mentally deficient from years of choline deficiency. You’re right. If the shoe fits.
Eating keeps things alive, only a vegan would think taking something out of its natural environment and subjecting it to worse living conditions and a shortened lifespan without the purpose of benefitting another lifeforms ability to survive as being less harmful.
We kill for survival, you kill for pleasure and ego.
Classist vegans only care for sentience, not life.
We kill for survival, you kill for pleasure and ego.
Why do non-vegans always have the stupidest takes wrapped up in some pseudo-intellectual bullshit. You obviously don’t believe that someone killing your houseplant or lawn is as bad as someone killing your dog, so why say something so blatantly untruthful and dumb?
And how are vegans killing for pleasure when they have a more restricted diet than you?
Go out and continue the circle of life in your local Publix, you ferocious lion you!
Nice to know that you don’t have any arguments. Vegans are the dumb ones for sure! Continue trolling and pretending to be an idiot, that really shows how you have a point and they don’t lol
Saying killing plants is morally equivalent to killing animals is not only dumb, it’s also an argument for veganism. It takes more plants to sustain an omnivore diet than a vegan one. All the animals you eat had to eat as well, and it’s not an efficient transfer of calories. Look up trophic levels if you’re actually arguing in good faith.
So I agree! Killing plants is murder! So you should go vegan and stop killing excessive plants for your selfish taste buds.
Sentience is what I base my ethics on (i’m a sentientist or sentiocentrist), which has implications on diet when considering whether to exploit and/or kill sentient beings for food. I don’t think it’s arbitrary, if someone is sentient, they are morally relevant because they can experience positive and negative valence (pleasure/pain, to put it more plainly but lose some nuance). If something is not sentient, I don’t see how it can be ethically relevant except in cases where the nonsentient thing matters to a sentient being
if you’re looking for arbitrary, the anthropocentrists are that way
Also I agree we can’t prove that plants aren’t sentient, that’s why I said “to the best of my knowledge”
I explained why it’s not arbitrary, then pointed to a group that does draw arbitrary distinctions. That’s not tu quoque because I’m not saying “you also”
you’re saying it’s not arbitrary. “no, you” is still a form of tu quoque. you haven’t actually made a case that sentience isnt an arbitrary standard, and there isn’t a case to be made: sentience isn’t a natural phenomenon outside of human subjective classification. without people, there would be no concept of green or warm or sentient, and any of those attributes is an arbitrary standard to use to judge the ethics of a diet.
Are you saying everything we can talk about is arbitrary because everything we can talk about is with words and concepts?
Are you talking about meriological nihilism? (thanks alex oconnor for teaching me that term lol)
I know sentience is real based on the fact that I’m experiencing things right this moment. Based on my understanding of the brain and nervous system, and the strong evidence that those things give rise to my sentience, I think that it’s reasonable to extrapolate that other, similar nervous systems/brains are also sentient and their experience is worth consideration in a similar way to how I consider my own experience (among the many other reasons to have a basic level of empathy)
Based on my understanding of the brain and nervous system, and the strong evidence that those things give rise to my sentience, I think that it’s reasonable to extrapolate that other, similar nervous systems/brains are also sentient and their experience is worth consideration in a similar way to how I consider my own experience (among the many other reasons to have a basic level of empathy)
the same can be said of DNA. this is a completely arbitrary standard, and you would be better served to embrace that than pretending it’s somehow objective.
I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.
If my dna was isolated in a test tube and it could experience things then I would also care about what it experiences. There isn’t any evidence I’m aware of that that’s the case. Dna is the instructions and tool to build the sentient being, not the sentient being itself. So no, the same couldn’t be said of dna. Extrapolating from how much I care about what I experience, I think it’s reasonable to care about what things that experience things experience
Once you go to a deep enough layer I think you’re right. But, the one subjective thing my argument rests on is that you care about your own experience. Anyone who flinches away from touching a hot stove because it hurts cares about their experience at least a little. The next step is recognizing that from an objective view, there’s no reason to think your subjective experience is any more important than anyone elses (subjectively there is).
That seems to bother you. Let’s taboo the word. When I say “someone”, “anyone”, “person”, etc, I’m referring to a sentient being, a subject of experience, an experiencer, one who is experiencing. Now you can interpret what I’m saying better, do you disagree with the actual points I’m making?
yes, I do: sentience is too broad a category, and not actually relevant to most people. if we are talking about people, then all of your statements are fine. but I don’t agree that these axioms are or should be applicable to, say, mosquitos . or mice. or dogs or cats. or fish. or livestock.
it’s too broad because it includes mosquitoes and mice and dogs and cats and fish and livestock. most people don’t treat them the same way. most ethical systems don’t treat them the same way. My ethical system doesn’t treat them the same way. so I do not agree that it’s okay to write an axiom about how you’re supposed to treat sentient beings. treating people better than animals is a good thing.
Hell even to get past solipsism you have to subjectively assume to that your mind and senses accurately reflect the world at least a little bit, otherwise gathering any accurate data or reasoning about that data productively would not be possible
there are other approaches to sentientism that aren’t based on valence. I don’t feel like writing a book on the different ones, but to give an example of a rights based one that I think is strong is that every sentient being has, at the very least, a right to their body, since that’s the one thing they’re born with and that is (almost certainly) what gives rise to their sentience in the first place. And to violate another sentient beings bodily autonomy is to forfeit your own (a sort of low level social contract), which allows for self defense and defending others
but to go back to utilitarianism, I think there’s a strong argument that most ethical frameworks can be defined in terms of a sufficiently creative definition of utility. I don’t really feel like getting into the weeds of that discussion though, and I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to the conversation anyways
but to go back to utilitarianism, I think there’s a strong argument that most ethical frameworks can be defined in terms of a sufficiently creative definition of utility.
this is a good reason to doubt the validity of the theory: it is constructed in a way that it is not disprovable.
Sentientism answers the question of “who/what matters?”, not “what ethical framework should be used to care about who/what matters?”. It can underly many ethical frameworks, personally I don’t care that much what ethical framework you use as long as we can agree on who’s included in the moral scope (although there are some utilitarians who I think have bad definitions of utility and/or do a bad job weighing the utility)
I have to admit, I skipped the rest of this sentence on I don’t foresee myself attempting to read it: I don’t believe in rights as an objective phenomenon, either.
the scientific consensus is that a well planned vegan diet can be healthy for all stages of human life. Plant staple foods are some of the cheapest foods around (rice, beans, grains)
none of those mean that the vast majority of humans can thrive or even be healthy on a vegan diet. and while the food itself may be cheap, it may lack convenience or cultural appropriateness, and therefore come with costs that are hidden at the checkout counter.
sure, there are a lot of factors that would make it difficult. If most people can’t afford to be vegan (for monetary or other cost reasons especially) that reflects a failure of our food system. Our food system hasn’t even gotten to the point of ensuring nobody goes hungry, we should be using our cropland to feed humans not other animals (look up how much of our crops go to livestock)
we should end the biggest problems first, and start with ending factory farms, but we should also remember that culture is not a good reason to hurt others
Our food system hasn’t even gotten to the point of ensuring nobody goes hungry, we should be using our cropland to feed humans not other animals
do you have a plan to accomplish that? until such a plan is implemented, there is not even a question whether it’s moral to eat meat, seafood, dairy, or eggs: most people have no volition in the matter and no one can actually change that.
All of Lemmy be up in arms here. Just vote with your wallet when you can. Buy the eggs at the farmers market, or the veggies if you won’t eat eggs. If you don’t have the funds, buy what you need to survive. I want my animals treated well before butchering, and I’ll mix the vegetarian meal into my diet regularly because it’s health for me to not eat meat every meal. I’m still going to eat animals, and most people have already decided what they are ethically ok with. Vegetarianism isn’t the biggest ethical concern for me at this time.
I don’t. I try to get people’s goals to align and recognize that these are important issues, and I’m working to grow more of my own food and get in a position where I’m able to have more of an impact, but no I don’t have an answer for everything and I don’t need one to be able call out injustice when I see it. And like most people I’m a hypocrite in some ways, I see these massive injustices and I still buy avocados and contribute to capitalism and waste time watching tv and arguing with people online instead of using that mental energy to actually do something in the world. I’m working on being better tho
Almost certainly we do. But, do you think if there was a culture that ran dog fights, that would be ok just because it’s part of their culture?
I would not find that ok, because all sentient beings are worth moral consideration, and culture is not a good reason to hurt sentient beings. I might not focus on it especially if that culture was already marginalized and discriminated against and there were bigger problems to solve, but I’d still have the understanding that it’s bad
this is an impossible standard, and I don’t believe it’s one you actually ascribe to: for instance, pretty much everyone is ok with sterilizing stray dogs and cats, and there is never a question of consent.
I don’t claim to 100% live in an ideal way. I try to keep improving but I don’t think I’ll ever be perfect
i think in cases where consent is difficult or impossible to achieve, we should act in the best interest of the experiencer in question. But I think that example is a tough one, at first glance I think we shouldn’t sterilize them, but then when I consider what will almost certainly happen if they’re not sterilized I think it’s probably worth doing the one bad thing to prevent worse things from happening. It’s an example where I think a utilitarian approach makes the most sense, since the variables are relatively clear
and a bible believing Christian has a clear answer: it doesn’t matter, you have dominion, do what you want. I imagine you don’t like that reasoning, but it, to, gives clear guidance on the morality.
I’m not talking about whether you live your values, I’m suggesting you don’t understand the implications of your own values, and under scrutiny you would find them internally inconsistent.
which is fine, as long as you’re not going out and telling others the right thing to do.
i think I do understand them, I’ve thought about that problem before. Can you go into more detail on what you mean by internally inconsistent? By my understanding, situations in the world can come about where values need to be weighed, or there are only bad choices available, but that doesn’t mean those values should be discarded or replaced or that they shouldn’t be shared/spread.
either it’s true that you can write an axiom that says “sentient beings should always consent to anything that is done to them” or you can write an axiom that says “you should always do what will bring about the most happiness or at least distress”
those axioms are in conflict with one another. it’s not that there’s only bad choices. it’s that you’ve given yourself conflicting standards.
Neither of those are axioms I hold. The axiom “all sentient beings are morally relevant” does not specify how to go from there, and I am not convinced that any one ethical framework is “the one”. There are some things that all the ones I’m aware of converge on with a sentientist perspective, but there are weird cases as well like whether to euthanize stray animals where they don’t converge
lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz/comment/2243561 I haven’t put my views in those terms before but even here I say my views are based on sentience. I give an example, and I should have been more clear that I’m not strictly looking at the issue from a utilitarian lense although I get why it would come across that way. At base I’m a sentientist, I think there are many reasonable ways to go from there
Conveniently forgetting that the only reason a healthy nutritionally balanced vegan or vegetarian diet is even remotely possible is due to globalised trade and access to internationally produced and shipped vegetables.
To maintain a nutritionally complete vegan diet for an individual year round actually requires far more use of fossil fuels and directly released carbon emissions due to limited seasonality and local accessibility than a cow produces for the same nutrient density and complexity locally.
Here’s a “fun” fact, first world demand for fruit and grain variety has out priced primary sources of food for local populations in third world countries including things like lentils, quinoa, and avocados.
Or that nutritional deficiencies caused by incorrectly managed vegan diets are why doctors in Italy and Belgium are pushing for it to become illegal to feed children vegan diets, because the number of malnourished and dead children of vegan parents are rising in those nations.
independent.co.uk/…/veganism-environment-veganuar… the main thrust of the article is buy more locally grown food, grow your own food? I agree with that lol. To go a step further, community gardens are good!
Those things are failures of our food system, and problems we could and should solve. The cool thing about eating plants is it doesn’t inherently require exploiting other sentient beings, but it does still happen unfortunately. That goes for animal ag too tho, and animal agriculture inherently depends on the exploitation
To maintain a nutritionally complete vegan diet for an individual year round actually requires far more use of fossil fuels and directly released carbon emissions due to limited seasonality and local accessibility than a cow produces for the same nutrient density and complexity locally
while this doesn’t go super in depth, it’s a counterpoint to the idea that veganism (And definitely vegetarianism) is only possible with global trade. www.iamgoingvegan.com/vegan-cultures/
but, one thing we could do is divert the massive subsidies and bailouts the US gives to animal agriculture (and a lot of the subsidies to plant ag too! It leads to a tremendous waste, iirc the reason corn syrup is so common is we grow too much corn cause it’s overly subsidized. People need good food, not corn syrup) and spend that on actually feeding those people
While we’re redirecting funds, the military budget could use some massive cuts that could also be used to provide food, shelter, and healthcare to people
They didn’t say anything unusual. Smoked kippers are delicious. We have some of the most amazing meat and fish on this planet and that’s something to protect. Our food matters.
I do have some level of sympathy for the fish but also recognize I’m a little more sympathetic to non-human life than most people. I can’t bring myself to kill insects without a good reason (except ticks and mosquito) not even ants. Whenever my parents would cut down a tree on their property I grieve for the life of the trees lost just because my dad fell off one as a kid and has a subconscious hatred for them now (yes he even admitted to me this was the case) I even feel some guilt about cutting grass and mulching the occasional bee.
I’ve worked a seasonal job giving medical care to dairy cows, once you see just how poorly farmers treat them and how horrific their short lives are its hard not to feel bad for them. Farmers make standard animal cruelty cases look like mild neglect by comparison. The only blessing is that modern cows have been selectively bread to become so docile as to be almost braindead.
I’m cool with eating animals, the cycle of life and all that, but in trade we can at least try to give them decent lives that aren’t so fucking awful from birth to death. Like it or not even fish have some level of intelligence and most likely emotional capacity. same with farm animals, trees, mushrooms, insects, and probably even the microorganisms to some degree. To think we are special and the only feeling lifeforms on the planet out o billions just cause the thinky thinky parts of our brain are a little bit bigger than most is just stupid and a very human-centric idea that strokes our own collective ego in a manifest destiny kind of way.
Yes I know I’m wierd but maybe the world needs a few people like me who care a little too much about non-human suffering.
That might just be the weirdest turnaround. You can’t hurt a fly, but you’re okay with a cow being bolted through the brain because they’re a bit tastier than mock meets?
Like, you can’t be “sympathetic to animals” if you’re paying an industry that mass slaughters them. Especially when you’re only paying that out of simple preference. I sure hope you don’t find humans tasty, because it sounds like you’ll set aside all of your morals for a yummy lunch?
You don’t have to feel bad for cutting grass. That’s grass its entire evolutionary skitch, albeit naturally with being grazed instead of mechanically cut.
Grass survives cuts extremely well. Most of its mass is below ground. By thriving in areas that are frequently grazed / cut, it outcompetes other plants. Natural meadows without grazers quickly turn into forests. But tree saplings don’t survive being eaten, so whenever there are grazers (or human cuts), grass outcompetes trees.
lemmy.world
Top