Peacepath

May those who are not rich, white and (straight) males should go live somewhere else, just the needed time so we can see how great america becomes…

If those who disagree with you are paid to be part of a conspiracy rather than genuinely discussing points, it means you reserve your arguments for those who agree with you and do not need them?

I don’t understand neither your reaction nor your point of view. Or is veganism something you live as a religion? Something you want to believe by faith regardless of how rational it is?

If your only arguments for your cause are attacks such as “not human”, “paid by industry” and such, you probably harm it more than I do by attacking it.

If you check other comments you will find some vegans who argument and stand their position. I would really advice you to take inspiration from them…

Is it really the best argument to defend your position?

Cartoonishly dumb arguments should be easily demonstrated false. I may be the evil and corrupted by industries, but demonstrating them false would be useful if some people read us and do not know. Claiming them dumb isn’t an argument.

I do not see how vegans try to make the world less cruel ; as far as I know, welfarist are those who try to reduce crualty. Vegan stand on a moral position of purety which claim to use the good means regardless of the consequences.

I evilishly defend that consequences matter, and that we would better get our hands dirty if it allows better consequences.

Are all those who disagree with you paid by someone to be part of a great conspiracy?

I have no problem with eating animals. Some do, and I do not claim they are wrong.

Yet veganism isn’t about eating. The eating part is a vegetalian diet. Veganism add to refuse animal’s prduction such as wool, and all kind of human control over animals. And this is the part I can’t see morality in.

Your simple “number will normalize” claim is so scary when given without any thing to back it. Is it to mean you do not care? You want your hands clean and do not care about consequences?

I don’t ask you to eat them. I just ask you to allow them to survive, even when it needs our help. Because that is something we owe them.

That I want, is to step out of capitalism and consumerism in favor of a society that would be organized to support an healthy and happy life to all humans (even those who live far away). For this, I think we (westerners, but not only) need to learn to live with nature instead of against it. Yet since human made self a master of nature, it is their duty to preserve it.

I am sorry, I think I did not understand your argument nor on what it was based. Could you please reformulate it?

Your fallace comes from claiming there are only two ways, the hard industrial process or the vegan way (which requires hard industry too).

There are other ways, efficient enough, if we step out of consumerism and capitalism. Yet, if we don’t step out of that, your plan to let natural places to wild animals is an unrealistic dream, so I guess we agree to step out of that (tell me if I am wrong).

Accepting manual labor question me a lot, since one of the base argument of veganism is that human is an ordinary animal and so have no right over other animals. But so, I don’t get how you finally accept productions of humans but not those of other animals. Even when the human workers have no choice but are exploited by a system torturing them.

In my view, it is not a question of right humans would have over other animals. We inherit of a situation. Our ancestors have forced many animals into an unfair contract where we protect them of other predators and take care of their needs, in exchange of their production and meat. It was unfair from start. We have built our civilizations thanks to that unfair contract. Now that we reached a technological level which allow us to do without them, we would just fire them and let them try to survive on their own in the lands we accept to let them?

Wouldn’t it be more moral to have more consideration for those we have forced to be our allies? The contract was already not fair, cancelling it just because it is not at our benefice enough anymore is not something I see as a superior morality.

Going vegan is wrong. Going vegetalian may be right, but comes with extra needs.

Going vegan is wrong because it leeds you to choose clothes made out of petrol rather than wool, while wool would last longer and need less ressources on the long run. It leeds you to choose your food from fields using petrol engines to be farmed and reject those using animal traction.

Yes, there are not much field cultivated with animal traction. And this has caused a near extinction of the animals used for traction. Those saved are risen by humans, so non-vegan friendly. Going vegan is willing the extinction of all animals risen by human unless they can still handle themselves in nature.

Vegetalians may agree at measure to let animals survive thanks to human interactions, and could accept some domestication of animals. They may use wool, they may accept vegetables arrived to the market carried by a donkey (and prefer them for that reason to the ones bringed by a truck).

Yet, to be vegetalian, you need a good access to medicine, in order to check you remain healthy, and to correct the mistakes you may make. This access isn’t easy everywhere in the world.

Veganism means we don’t give a space to farm animals anymore. We (humans) have modified them in such way they can’t survive in nature ; especially in the few nature we would let them. How can it have an other result than the genocide of all that species?

Industrial exploitation of animals count as torture and should be stoped for that, yes. But it is not a genocide: it makes sure the species remain alife. The genocide is vegan.

Welfarism seems to me the research of the best compromise: keep that species alife and in better conditions.

Excuse my curiosity, put as a non-american I don’t understand one thing: since you have only two candidates at elections, you do not vote for a candidate but against their opponent, right?

It has been a time, not that long ago, when becoming american was wished by many. At that time, being resident of a territory absorbed by the USA would have been regarded as a chance by a large part of those living it, and jealoused by many near by territories.

The negative reactions to Trump’s dreams of expension are the clear mark of the failure of his politics.

Thanks, it makes it more clear…

Excuse me to be naive, but since democrats voted against slavery abrogation, how can it be seen as anything else than a far-right party?

Republican are clearly far-rightists too, ok… but still…

I would love to find good ideas for protecting digital freedom, and freedom in general. May we can assume that those who do not care about privacy aren’t using Lemmy… But I don’t know how to protect ours except by defending it as a principle that should be universal.

And so a rule to restrict freedom except for us is not a good news to me. It is not as bad as if we were concerned directly, but it is still a step backward. Isn’t it?

At some point they may need a new target, and we could be one. We are known by the general public while we are neither too much nor too powerful. And nobody would defend us beside those already targeted.

I know it is not the aim, I am concerned by how it may be used against free softwares… once more, I hope I am wrong.

Also, I am concerned by the loss of freedom involved by this policy. And I don’t think it is made to protect any one, just to restrict and control.

USA murdered anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti far before they became a significant threat to the system. What ever tries to bring freedom is so scared by american authorities… But once more, hopefully you are right and I am just overly pessimistic.

I hope you are right.

Yet do you know if the thing implemented by California would allow criminals to make sure that a kid is really a kid before they attack? Because if that is the case, and even if it needs a hack to do so, it may do the opposit of its aim.

So if you want to protect your kids from adult rated content, and you live in California, you need to buy a propietary system. Which make sure data collectors get to know all about them, and therefore doesn’t protect them… But am I the only one to see the commercial argument about to be used by MS, Apple, and others?