5 ms·

Before even getting there, how about putting an end to all human slaughter? Call me old fashioned but I like humans. American government and presidency (by both

Before even getting there, how about putting an end to all human slaughter? Call me old fashioned but I like humans. American government and presidency (by both parties) have been pro war and pro weapon sale for the last 5 or 6 decades by now.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago
And pro abortion.
Timon3 3y ago
I'll do you one better: let's do both, instead of arbitrarily doing one after the other!
- chillbill 3y ago
  It's not arbitrary. Human > Other Animals, no sane way to discuss anything else really. So start with the more important one then move to the other. Don't try to hold two watermelons in on hand.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    Why is one dependent on the other? Why must we start with one, instead of tackling both at the same time? Why not use both my hands to hold the two watermelons at the same time?
    - chillbill 3y ago
      It's not, but I find it distasteful when people are feeling sad for the crab being boiled, while children are dying of hunger in Yemen because of politicians and their enablers. If we can't figure out the first it'll be impossible to figure out the second. Similar to how you can't neglect your own kids and take care of the neighbor's at the same time.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        You know what's distateful? Acting like we can only ever do one thing, and we must necessarily do that one thing to the end before we start another. I'm capable feeling sad for both dying children as well as for animal cruelty - both at once! Who will it help if I do not feel sad for crabs being boiled? How many children do I save?
        chillbill 3y ago
        I think you're missing the point and slightly arguing outside of the main point I initially made, which I think you understand already: It's more about how attention rather than ability of feeling sad or compassion towards animals.
        Timon3 3y ago
        Well, I was just replying to your point: > It's not, but I find it distasteful when people are feeling sad for the crab being boiled, while children are dying of hunger in Yemen because of politicians and their enablers. The issue why I'm "missing the point" is pretty simple: you say we can only pay attention to one of the two things, but you haven't shown that to be the case. You're just saying that's how it is. I know you believe that attempting these things sequentially will save more human lives. But until you've shown me that we really can only pay attention to one of the two, sequential attempts will only prolong animal suffering, not shorten human suffering!
        LinXitoW 3y ago
        I'd bet money that most people that vegan or vegetarian are also far more active about human suffering. It makes sense that someone that believes we should (and can) act to reduce/end suffering would apply that concept universally, rather than selectively. But just so you realize, your argument sounds EXACTLY like all the right wingers that suddenly care about all the poor americans once immigrants enter the discussion. Most people that make these arguments care about neither, all they care about is not having to actually do anything and still feel moral.
masswerk 3y ago
Anecdotally, there's a certain armed conflict in Europe, where peace movements of any kind are in the absolute minority – on either side. (Oh, progress, I guess…) It's not just the US.
- chillbill 3y ago
  Exactly. People generally have not yet moved passed fucking genghis khan way of thinking yet, and some people want to seriously discuss options for a more "humane" way to kill and eat some animal, all to satisfy their own ill-defined feeling of doing "better".
- Timon3 3y ago
  It's funny you're phrasing it this way, because none of the "peace movements" can answer the most simple question: How do you ensure peace after whatever treaty you're putting in to "bring peace"? If Russia wins literally anything, even a single square meter, why would they not start the next war in a couple of years? Or will you then stop "calling for peace" yourself?
  - masswerk 3y ago
    And the only way to sort this out is by fighting to the bitter end, until either of the two biggest countries in Europe runs out of men? (This, BTW, may take some time, while we're maximizing casualties.)
    - Timon3 3y ago
      The only way to sort this out is for the aggressor to stop invading the other country - to actually restore peace. Seems pretty simple, no?
      - masswerk 3y ago
        Force an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This could have been over for more than 400 days. Seems pretty simple.
localplume 3y ago
[dead]

NotYourLawyer 3y ago

And pro abortion.

Timon3 3y ago

I'll do you one better: let's do both, instead of arbitrarily doing one after the other!

chillbill 3y ago
It's not arbitrary. Human > Other Animals, no sane way to discuss anything else really. So start with the more important one then move to the other. Don't try to hold two watermelons in on hand.
- Timon3 3y ago
  Why is one dependent on the other? Why must we start with one, instead of tackling both at the same time? Why not use both my hands to hold the two watermelons at the same time?
  - chillbill 3y ago
    It's not, but I find it distasteful when people are feeling sad for the crab being boiled, while children are dying of hunger in Yemen because of politicians and their enablers. If we can't figure out the first it'll be impossible to figure out the second. Similar to how you can't neglect your own kids and take care of the neighbor's at the same time.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      You know what's distateful? Acting like we can only ever do one thing, and we must necessarily do that one thing to the end before we start another. I'm capable feeling sad for both dying children as well as for animal cruelty - both at once! Who will it help if I do not feel sad for crabs being boiled? How many children do I save?
      - chillbill 3y ago
        I think you're missing the point and slightly arguing outside of the main point I initially made, which I think you understand already: It's more about how attention rather than ability of feeling sad or compassion towards animals.
        Timon3 3y ago
        Well, I was just replying to your point: > It's not, but I find it distasteful when people are feeling sad for the crab being boiled, while children are dying of hunger in Yemen because of politicians and their enablers. The issue why I'm "missing the point" is pretty simple: you say we can only pay attention to one of the two things, but you haven't shown that to be the case. You're just saying that's how it is. I know you believe that attempting these things sequentially will save more human lives. But until you've shown me that we really can only pay attention to one of the two, sequential attempts will only prolong animal suffering, not shorten human suffering!
        LinXitoW 3y ago
        I'd bet money that most people that vegan or vegetarian are also far more active about human suffering. It makes sense that someone that believes we should (and can) act to reduce/end suffering would apply that concept universally, rather than selectively. But just so you realize, your argument sounds EXACTLY like all the right wingers that suddenly care about all the poor americans once immigrants enter the discussion. Most people that make these arguments care about neither, all they care about is not having to actually do anything and still feel moral.

masswerk 3y ago

Anecdotally, there's a certain armed conflict in Europe, where peace movements of any kind are in the absolute minority – on either side. (Oh, progress, I guess…) It's not just the US.

chillbill 3y ago
Exactly. People generally have not yet moved passed fucking genghis khan way of thinking yet, and some people want to seriously discuss options for a more "humane" way to kill and eat some animal, all to satisfy their own ill-defined feeling of doing "better".
Timon3 3y ago
It's funny you're phrasing it this way, because none of the "peace movements" can answer the most simple question: How do you ensure peace after whatever treaty you're putting in to "bring peace"? If Russia wins literally anything, even a single square meter, why would they not start the next war in a couple of years? Or will you then stop "calling for peace" yourself?
- masswerk 3y ago
  And the only way to sort this out is by fighting to the bitter end, until either of the two biggest countries in Europe runs out of men? (This, BTW, may take some time, while we're maximizing casualties.)
  - Timon3 3y ago
    The only way to sort this out is for the aggressor to stop invading the other country - to actually restore peace. Seems pretty simple, no?
    - masswerk 3y ago
      Force an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This could have been over for more than 400 days. Seems pretty simple.

localplume 3y ago

[dead]