dx1
@dx1@lemmy.world
- Comment on Edward Said and Palestine (1988) 1 year ago:
Startling quote from the beginning of the documentary:
Aug 11, 1919 - Lord Balfour (author of the Balfour Declaration, the original British declaration of intent to create Israel) to his successor, George Curzon:
In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are […]
The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.
- Submitted 1 year ago to videos@lemmy.world | 2 comments
- Comment on Stop using Fandom 1 year ago:
I got special Stylish CSS blocking half the shit on Fandom. IDK about any politics about them but the site is borderline unusable.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
Yeah, you have time for acting like a 10 year old and “I know you are but what am I” but reading 4 whopping paragraphs about how you’re wrongfully antagonizing other people is too much for you.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
Not impressed.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
Then don’t attack people and then launch into bullshit back and forths about how they’re wrong for defending themselves.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
He equated it to “shitting on someone because they don’t like pink sauce”. I pointed out there is an ethical consideration.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
I am not “going out of my way to play the persecuted martyr”, I opened the Lemmy home page and “post trashing vegans” was post #3. I thought I left this shit behind when I left reddit, but now it’s here too.
Not using animal products is not exhausting. I’ve done it for a decade and it’s a remarkably easy change where 99% of the difficulty comes from the wider society being hostile to it.
It is an ethical position based on an actual reality of animal agriculture causing vast suffering that we have chosen to opt out of supporting. It is absolutely reasonable and selfless to advocate for the rights of others at a minor, negligible personal sacrifice. It is not a sign of a need to shame others, a need to be a martyr, or any other personality defect that you’re going to project on vegans based on a stereotype despite knowing NOTHING about any of us as individuals. Nobody is trying to make you “feel ashamed”, we are pointing out objective facts about how the animal ag industry causes harm to animals and people like you, like you’re doing in this comment right here, launch into this whole frigging diatribe about how vegans are shaming you and judging you and have a god complex and should just shut up and go back into their corners, because god forbid anyone should ever suggest that anything you’re doing is less than perfectly ethical.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
Because vegans ever speaking their minds is automatically interpreted as “preachy”.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
In absolutely no way is that “preaching”.
- Comment on Time to grow up. 1 year ago:
It’s not that either.
- Comment on Time to grow up. 1 year ago:
It’s not that.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
Yeah, says the guy who posted the frigging thing to begin with.
- Comment on Time to grow up. 1 year ago:
Yep, calling it here.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
You’re literally lumping people into the stereotype that they’re obnoxious and preachy based on them defending themselves against public accusations that they’re obnoxious and preachy. That’s an irrational, circular stance.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
It’s not about just food preferences, it’s about right and wrong.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
Yes, this is the typical reaction people have to vegans saying ANYTHING. It is not fun for us to live our entire lives prohibited from ever being able to say what WE THINK.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
I have a pretty good sense you posted something inflammatory and obnoxious in a vegan community, and frankly that doesn’t excuse you being hostile to vegans elsewhere.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
The trivialization of animal wellbeing, of all opposition to animal agriculture.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
He replied to me acting like I was at fault for defending myself. IDK why you’re going on this tangent of all the perceived slights vegans have done against you by speaking their minds.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
I reckon, in the Bible alone, for example, you could find instances of humans doing all these things to each other. At least 4/5.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
Yeah, this is complete trash.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
I draw the line when the position being taken is wrong.
- Comment on Time to grow up. 1 year ago:
Agriculture refers to both animal and non-animal ag. Hence the prefix “animal” for “animal agriculture”.
“Huge negatives for animals involved” is the reality of industrial agriculture, which provides the vast majority of meat (animal products in general) for human consumption today. To your later point, “free range” is typically what’s referred to as “greenwashing”, where a company has to meet some bare-minimum criteria to get a stamp on their product. E.g., the USDA criteria for “free range” re: eggs:
Eggs packed in USDA grademarked consumer packages labeled as free range must be produced by hens that are able to roam vertically and horizontally in indoor houses, and have access to fresh food and water, and continuous access to the outdoors during their laying cycle.
Re: cigarettes - it should be clear I’m referring to net negative “utility”.
Just look at relative average stress levels of farm animals compared to humans.
Don’t know what your methodology is for determining this. Separation trauma at birth, confined spaces and health hazards from living in waste are not a formula for stress-free living.
Ecology is not a distinct topic from ethics. Ecological outcomes have pronounced effects on human and animal experience. I alluded to this already.
Care to provide that magic bullet that dairy and meat will destroy humanity and individuals cutting out dairy/meat will save humanity?
Estimates on greenhouse gas emissions seem to converge at roughly 20-25% for animal agriculture, with roughly a 10x increase over more efficient plant agriculture. A comparable increase holds for water usage, fertilizer usage, etc., due to the caloric loss intrinsic to producing feed for animals versus consuming plant agriculture products directly. Part of the problem with this interpretation is that, even if you’re only consuming actual “free range”, chickens-walking-around-outdoors-pecking-bugs, cows-roaming-grasslands-nondestructively animal agriculture, the actual vast majority of animal agriculture does not fit this profile. (Side note, it is remarkable how almost everyone you talk to about this only eats the “free range” “humanely produced” animal products, when the vast majority of the products are not). The negative effects of animal ag on animals are less pronounced in non-confined spaces, but still fit the profile of exploitation for human use at negative benefit for humans relative to plant consumption.
Your central point seems to be that the benefit derived from eating animals for humans outweighs negligible negative effects on animals in an isolated best-world case of free range, “humane slaughter” scenarios. I would dispute that it’s a net positive for humans in the first place, and you’re basically putting the actual vast majority of animal agriculture in a special category you get to ignore because, supposedly, there are negligible or no negative effects on the animals that you consume. Which, first off, I doubt, but second, hits the ethical question of killing, which bears mentioning the ethics we apply to humans on these grounds. We do not consider it ethically acceptable to kill a random human walking down the street, of your own volition. Why? Something like, the trauma that their family/friends/acquaintances would endure, and the cost of denying them the rest of their life. For some reason these same points are not held true of animals? You may deny that they experience such trauma, but that would be incorrect. And the cost of denying them the rest of their life is undeniable.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
You’re literally posting anti-vegan shit, then vegans come into the replies and “oh no I’m being attacked”. GTFO of here with that bullshit.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
GTFO with the “soyboys” shit. This isn’t truth.social.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
Yes, start with the Wikipedia one that, that actually begins to examine it critically and points out that the campaign was spearheaded by an animal industry lobbying group…
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
Awesome. Thanks for helping make Lemmy a negative place inhospitable to differing viewpoints!
- Comment on Time to grow up. 1 year ago:
Agriculture in general creates net positive utility for humans but there’s a rough equivalency for that benefit between animal and non-animal ag (actually worse for our health to eat the animal products) while it creates huge negatives for the animals involved. The equation of people consuming animal ag products to proof that it “creates utility” strikes me as the same fallacy as saying smoking cigarettes has “utility” - I’d argue it’s an irrational behavior (in terms of selfish benefit alone) that prioritizes very short-term enjoyment over long-term enjoyment.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea animals are living “better than humans”, this is divorced from reality. Industrial animal agriculture is just that, an industrial process, animals in miserable conditions for their short lives to promote the bottom line of the company in question. Propagandized takes depict cows roaming around lush green hills and such, but essentially anything appearing in a supermarket had absolutely nothing to do with this.
On top of that there’s the actual reality of the incredible resource (read: water, fossil fuels) usage associated with animal agriculture because it’s inherently wasteful at scale, which is a contributing factor to our destruction of the environment sustaining our existence.
- Comment on So wholsum 🙏🙏🙏 1 year ago:
No, look up individual claims, look up the inverse of the claim, weigh the presented evidence against each other.
I.e., look up the mitigating factors here - was this an isolated case? Was it isolated to one state? Were animals from no-kill shelters dumped on the PETA-run shelter? What’s the actual funding of this shelter compared to PETA’s general operations? You know, ACTUAL THOROUGH ANALYSIS.