Don’t forget that subsidies also swing in the other direction to fossil fuels companies. If we want to eliminate subsidies, then why not for both players so the playing field is even again? Otherwise, giving EVs subsidies might actually level the playing field more than not.
Interesting insight. Thanks for the correction. Perhaps the choice of lexeme “conservatism” would best be swapped for a neologism like “hierarchism” or something to better describe the principles of the school of thought. Otherwise, I made the connection like OC that conservatism = no change, whether good or bad.
Unfortunately for any minority group that seeks change within a group led by the majority, this is true. Perhaps the vitriol against vegans is part of the game of realizing change: there will always be resistance and tendency from some portion of the population to keep things the same as they always were, regardless of whether those things are good for the population itself.
Yeah that was a wrong decision on the vegan’s part. Perhaps this sort of behavior might be acceptable in the public commons, but work is a private space where people join a company for specific purposes. Work and philosophy/politics should not intertwine.
And who knows: if she excluded herself from the breakroom during lunch without notifying others, maybe coworkers would notice and be more willing to hear her out out of a desire to socialize. It probably could have helped her effort to do this actually.
Vegans live and learn. We are part of a minority group, and with being a minority comes all of its benefits and detriments. We just need to learn that in situations like these, we often are the only vegan around people and so we need to carry our entire movement on our shoulders, whether we want to or not. Else, you get general, anecdotal sentiments the likes of which you see in this post.
As a vegan myself, I’ve only met a handful number of other vegans in my lifetime irl, being raised omnivore for 23 years until changing.
Whenever I talk about the reasons why I made the switch to those who are curious, I always keep the militant vegans in mind and try to offer more charity than I otherwise would.
We vegans need to show the world that whether it’s diet or clothing (general use, specific use, etc.) or medicine or society (e.g. slaughterhouse workers contributing to societal psychosis) or climate or species loss or economic transparency, making the change is easy and a socially accepted thing to do.
This absolutely cannot take form as aggression against those that would be considered outside of our “group”. Any means of using coercion or manipulation to change what others do is a violation of their moral capacities. Unfortunately, humans also violate the moral capacities of more than 100 billion animals every year, so the trade-off can seem justified to some.
Every vegan needs to remind themselves that we’re doing this for the animals first and foremost. All behaviors should be guided by that principle: to reduce suffering for them as much as possible. Being militant, aggressive, and shameful to others can result in backlashes where people dig their heels in. A better way of convincing would be to give the science, show moral charity, offer easy alternatives, and illustrate factual evidence of the crimes done against animals. If we respect people to be able to change their minds given the evidence to do so, then they will.
Not all beliefs are good. Veganism seems to minimize suffering for a group of life on this planet that has traditionally been at the whims of humans.
But as another commenter pointed out, people’s egos can’t usually take the claims that they are making bad choices and should change. This kind of pressure shows up in exercise, for example.
Animals dying don’t care about egos though. On the one hand, entire beings seize to exist, while on the other the top predator remains to exist and satiate their taste buds with a steak or pork chop.
If you are concerned about moral behavior in this world, then you can’t not extend that consideration to animals. If you can’t, then you’re morally inconsistent.
This sounds like a chatGPT post ngl
Made the switch to Firefox last year. Love, love, love the freshness and versatility of the browser! Also add-ons for mobile!!!
Now that you mention the apartments bombings, I do remember seeing footage of that. You guys are right
Delamain. Wake up, Samurai
Yep. And if this app turns bad after a while for whatever reason, we can always go back to the FOSS alternatives.
With how shittily Chrome has been running for me lately, I’m feeling like making the switch to Firefox sooner and sooner.
They’re animals.
Since animals cannibalize others of their own species, does that mean humans should?
Artificial insemination is no more or less rape than any other means of production.
Artificial insemination != forceful insemination (rape).
The former requires consent that removes boundaries (as a result of conscious choice made by a couple that is incapable of reproducing - or not); the latter violates consent that destroys boundaries.
We can’t communicate with animals directly so there little to no way we can ever ask for consent to do these things to animals. Any animal insemination is forceful insemination.
Bulls don’t exactly get consent, or give a shit if the cow is actively resisting for that matter.
Cows can communicate between each other, meaning that there is a possibility that consent is given, if said concept is even comprehensible by cows.
Consent as a concept might not even be necessary for bovines, however. I’m no ethologist, but it appears that one of the main ways cows communicate that they’re in heat is by emiting pheromones that bulls then cross-confirm with other signs of estrus like mounting (see Cow Talk namely Chapter 4). Outside of matings seasons, however, the source indicates that wild cows tend to separate themselves according to sex: males with males, and female with females/young. There isn’t a tendency here for wild bulls to seek out heifers unless it’s the right time of year and heifers communicate that they’re looking for sexual interaction. This is a form of consent since some information is communicated indicating a desired behavior from the other party.
Contrast wild cattle with domesticated cattle and it’s been shown that bulls tend to be put in isolation from heifers, and that primary introduction between the sexes results in isolated bulls exhibiting “excessive mounting (buller-steer syndrome)” where “injuries to the bull being ridden, decreased weight gain and even death” happen (see Social Behavior in Farm Animals, namely Chapter 5).
If anything, domestication leads to unnatural social patterns that can allow for even more suffering than in nature. Again, I’m not an ethologist so we would need to review the literature more.
You can make your own plant milk usually by soaking/boiling nuts/seeds in water and then blending that together. Some people use juicers for this, and then some people run the blended liquid through a filter to remove any bits. Cashew milk is lovely if homemade!
Ignorance is bliss, you’re absolutely right.
Exactly. If people reading this don’t see the moral disconnect here, think back to how the US administration handled the southern border and the influx of immigrants a few years ago. Children were taken from families without any regard for keeping said families together. It’s devastating no matter the species it happens to.
I’m not sure there is anything ethical about forcefully impregnating female cows for our gain.
Just think if we thought doing so was ethical for humans. Rape, the sex slave trade, etc. would be morally acceptable.
I sort by TopDay and that seems to get me quite popular content, but Hot is also good for new stuff. Love the options for sorting on Connect for Lemmy
Holy shit, the head on this person must be as hard as Earth’s core got dyam
You’re either a troll or a dipshit. They introduced an example where both interests of removing information from the public forum and having the monopoly of reporting on that information work to undermine archiving. It is important for the truth and for public trust that we support Internet Archive and other archivists/historians.