Mrs_deWinter
@Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
- Comment on Het Pijnstillersparadijs: Europese Zelfbeheersing vs. Amerikaanse Pillenfeest 1 week ago:
You know what sucks as well? Taking too many painkillers against headaches actually causes headaches. Horrible ones at that. Glad to read that you’re feeling better, but that’s a real trap many people out there are stuck in.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
What is your goal, and what are your methods to get there?
I wanted to show that your argument is stupid. That’s it, really.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
Because I’ve never actually tried to convince you, or praise veganism, or do any of the things you’d like to argue against to begin with. You are arguing against an army of strawmen.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
Claiming I’m the one who’s confused only makes you seem delusional. You seem desperate to stir the conversation into a direction where you’re getting praised for your diet choices, while I’m still amused about your original comment.
You’re standing on the proud achievement of a claim that is not only wrong, even if it was true, it wouldn’t work as an argument in your favor. Maybe on some intellectually detached level you are in fact aware how stupid of an argument that really is, so now you’re trying to change the topic to vegan goals and systematic issues and convincing people of your unsurpassable approach to a sustainable lifestyle.
I am not a hardliner by any means. And I’m not even talking down your eating habits. I’m talking down dumb arguments.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
Sounds like there is still some room for improvement in terms of “eating as sustainably as they can” then.
I don’t subscribe to the vegan moral system, I find it often inconsistent and confused. Like here… What’s best for the bees? What’s best for the ecosystem? What’s best for the humans?
Do you mean the vegan moral system is confused, or are you confused? Because not many vegans are confused about those things, that much I can tell you.
Right now you’re voting with your wallet to increase an economic demand for the death of billions of innocent blades of grass. Not to mention dead animals - but we’re not talking about them, that would be silly.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
That being said, it’s bold of you to assume someone conscious of the suffering of plants isn’t eating as sustainably as they can with the choices they have available
Oh so you are a vegan?
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
I am not vegan, but simply trying to understand how honey is bad, but as you say “unavoidable collateral damage of agriculture” or not.
Is bad as well, we simply have no good way of avoiding it.
Think about it this way: Beekeeping is bad, agriculture is bad. Can we avoid both? No. But can we avoid at least one of them? Easily so. So let’s do that - half a win is better than nothing.
There are many ways agriculture could be less harm, less pesticides, less monotone growing practices, more spread out growing. We do not have to accept these practices to not starve.
I agree, which is why many (if not all) vegans strive to support those more sustainable forms of agriculture. But economic constraints are a real thing for many people. Not everyone can always decide to buy the higher quality produce. If we can - good, let’s do that. While and if we can’t, same thing with the honey: Can we avoid all the problems at once? No, but at least we can do as best as reasonable possible, so let’s do that. That’s veganism for many people.
I don’t think honey collecting is worse than agriculture (even of direct plants for human consumption), so I don’t think vegans should discount honey.
Even if it’s just 1% worse than agriculture wouldn’t we reduce a bit of suffering by replacing it? And I mean it’s not even like we need honey for anything. We consume too much sugar anyway. Even if honey is exactly as harmful as sugar cane farming (which is debatable), by omitting it we would save not only agricultural resources but animal exploitation as well. Not consuming it is better than consuming it in terms of animal suffering. Since we don’t need to consume it, from a vegan perspective I think it’s understandable why that’s seen as preferable.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
I assume that for many vegans the specifically exploitative element of farming honey does make a difference to the rather unavoidable collateral damage of agriculture in general (since if we don’t want to starve to death; each and everyone of us, vegan or not, will have to accept that those are happening) - but if you assume that honey comes with less suffering than corn syrup you’re very welcome to replace them accordingly. Based on your tone I assume you’re not a vegan and not actually interested in reducing animal suffering, but I could be wrong.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
In a perfect world I think this could be true. Small scale backyard beekeeping with native species, where I only take the surplus the bees themselves don’t use, where queens are left alone and drones are allowed to reproduce in their own pace. The problem is: That’s not how it’s done on the industrial scale at all. So even if you had such a bee utopia in your backyard and could replace all your sugary needs with that, as long as the well being of bees is of interest to you you’d probably still refrain from buying products that have honey in them. In a capitalist society companies will always use the cheaper stuff, and that comes almost exclusively with massive animal exploitation.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
Every aspect of our globalised and industrialised world is causing harm. Veganism is about reducing the harm we’re responsible for as far as possible and reasonable. Renouncing honey is easy. So it’s possible and reasonable. No vegan think’s they’re responsible for zero suffering or even zero dead animals, we’re simply trying to reduce the number as best as we can without starving ourselves.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
But renouncing honey is very easy, while not eating plants would mean starving to death. Since veganism is about reducing harm as far as possible, unavoidable suffering doesn’t make anything non vegan.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
They are, which is why honey isn’t vegan, and you brought a very good argument for that yourself, namely that the industrial process behind it all tends to be quite brutal.
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
Then you should definitely go vegan. A vegan diet needs the least amount of plant deaths and plant suffering, since lifestock is being fed with billions of individual plants.
- Comment on Today you like it 4 weeks ago:
Your mind is far superior to the rest of us
- Submitted 4 weeks ago to aneurysmposting@sopuli.xyz | 13 comments
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
You’re missing the point here entirely.
Is Fahrenheit intuitive? No, proven by the fact that it can’t be used without prior understanding, as shown in my example.
The rest is sealioning.
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
ok, so you genuinely think, that people who use celsius cannot experience the sensation of “hot” and “cold” without a number referencing the temperature directly in front of them? Specifically that of the celsius system?
No and that’s not what I claimed. What I’m saying is that if you tell someone accustomed to Celcius “it’s 42F° outside, oh by the way fahrenheit goes from 0=really cold to 100=really hot”, they have no idea about the actual weather. The points of 0 and 100 Fahrenheit are way to arbitrary to be understood without having experienced them.
“Really cold” and “really hot” are completely subjective. They depend on the climate you’re used to and come down to personal preference even. Your “really cold” might be my “pleasantly chilly”. And even if I knew what 0F° and 100F° were in C° I’d have no idea how that relates to the (probably much more common) values between them. Percentages of subjective temperature tell me nothing. 20F° would basically have to be 20% warmer than “really cold”, right? Intuitively I would have guessed somewhere around 7°C (nice autumn morning), turns out 20F° is still way below the freezing point. The idea of 0F° and 100F° does not, in fact, help me interpret these values “without further explanation”.
It’s simply not an intuitive frame of reference - except if you have at one point learned what the numbers mean. And at this point it’s exactly as useful als Celcius.
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
and this is generally the case. I’m sure if you were to sample the opinion of people randomly, this is roughly what you would get back.
Only if you asked people accustomed to Fahrenheit. People who aren’t used to it cannot use it without prior understanding at all. To think otherwise just proves your confirmation bias again.
I may have said that it was an intuitive feature of fahrenheit, and it is, and so is the 0-100 scale of water freezing/boiling in celsius, but that’s irrelevant aside from the fact that it’s intuitive
Then what should “intuitive” even mean if not “intuitive to use”? Because it certainly isn’t that.
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
Originally you replied to me, replying to someone else claiming fahrenheit was “a 0-100 scale of how hot it is outside” and required “no prior understanding to use it as such”. This was never about Celsius being intuitive or not, it was about Fahrenheit. If you didn’t disagree with me there, your replies to me were pointless. Since then you seem to be arguing against a straw man.
I never claimed Celcius to be intuitive, in fact I claimed the opposite - neither scale is intuitive. Therefore Fahrenheit and Celcius are equally useful in measuring the weather and the idea of Fahrenheit being especially suitable is incorrect, based on the confirmation bias of those who are already used to it. That’s the only argument I’m making here.
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
i mean, fundamentally that’s what that statement would have to mean, unless you’re referring to a rock being more intuitive or something.
ultimately yeah, neither system is more intuitive than the other.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
“Fahrenheit isn’t more intuitive” doesn’t not mean “Celcius is more intuitive”. You’re mistaken if you think that’s what’s being argued here.
Neither one is intuitive. Intuition isn’t a useful metric here anyway. After all we could ask: Which one is more intuitive - kilometers or miles? Kilograms or pounds? Do we have to change how me measure time (base 12) to a base 10 as well, would that be more intuitive?
Answer is no. All those units have to be learned and filled with experience anyway. Nobody can interpret temperature scales intuitively, neither Fahrenheit nor Celsius.
Fahrenheit simply has no advantage over Celcius. And it doesn’t have to. Some people are used to it, so keep using it by all means. Don’t argue that it’s superior and we’re all good.
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
arguing that celsius is “more intuitive”
Nobody is arguing that though.
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
Yeah, which is why most people here in favor of Celcius argue that Fahrenheit isn’t, in fact, more intuitive and therefore more suited to describe the weather. Both are arbitrary, both can be learned and used very easily, the only difference is what you’re used to.
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
If your example cannot be proven on any existing person I’d argue it’s hardly relevant to our reality.
°F most definitely isn’t intuitive enough for people who aren’t accustomed to it to use. If it is more intuitive at all, it’s not to any meaningful degree.
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
If you somehow knew nothing about each temperature unit, but you did know base 10, I feel like Fahrenheit would be more intuitive.
Would it though? Because it’s not like people who didn’t grew up with Fahrenheit can just intuitively use and interpret it. Maybe base ten is “more intuitive”, but I’d argue not to any meaningful degree. Both scales have to be explained, experienced, and tied to personal reference points.
- Comment on Burning Up 2 months ago:
If that was true outsiders should be able to use Fahrenheit without much explanation. I’ve never got a clue what the °F values mean, I always have to use a converter. It’s really not as intuitive as people who grew up with it seem to believe.
- Comment on Pi Day 3 months ago:
You’re right, but the same must be said for July 23rd. Both are abbreviating “day in the month of july” to a simple mention of the month.
At the end of the day both work, both are equally efficient, and simply come down to habit.
- Comment on Pi Day 3 months ago:
Coming from somewhere with the format the other way around, we do indeed say “23rd July” without all that extra fluff. So exactly the same efficiency wise. We simply count days like we’d count other stuff. For example I definitely didn’t had my coffee fourth just now.
