this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
232 points (72.2% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

33733 readers
4427 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
232
hypocrite. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by psy32nd@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (79 children)

Consuming for survival is not unneccesary harm. All complex life takes life to continue living.

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz -4 points 2 years ago (78 children)

The vast majority of humans can thrive/be healthy on a vegan diet, therefore it's not consuming for survival. That's an excuse or ignorance (again, for the vast majority of humans, especially those who are reading this. There are always exceptions tho)

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (31 children)

The vast majority of humans can thrive/be healthy on a vegan diet

I don't think so

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

the scientific consensus is that a well planned vegan diet can be healthy for all stages of human life. Plant staple foods are some of the cheapest foods around (rice, beans, grains)

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Conveniently forgetting that the only reason a healthy nutritionally balanced vegan or vegetarian diet is even remotely possible is due to globalised trade and access to internationally produced and shipped vegetables.

To maintain a nutritionally complete vegan diet for an individual year round actually requires far more use of fossil fuels and directly released carbon emissions due to limited seasonality and local accessibility than a cow produces for the same nutrient density and complexity locally.

Here’s a “fun” fact, first world demand for fruit and grain variety has out priced primary sources of food for local populations in third world countries including things like lentils, quinoa, and avocados.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-there-s-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-a8177541.html https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa

Or that nutritional deficiencies caused by incorrectly managed vegan diets are why doctors in Italy and Belgium are pushing for it to become illegal to feed children vegan diets, because the number of malnourished and dead children of vegan parents are rising in those nations.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37034619 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/16/parents-raise-children-vegans-should-prosecuted-say-belgian/

Capacity is not the same as actuality.

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-there-s-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands did you read the editors note at the bottom?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-a8177541.html the main thrust of the article is buy more locally grown food, grow your own food? I agree with that lol. To go a step further, community gardens are good!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa yeah I agree eat less quinoa and asparagus. See also the footnote

Those things are failures of our food system, and problems we could and should solve. The cool thing about eating plants is it doesn't inherently require exploiting other sentient beings, but it does still happen unfortunately. That goes for animal ag too tho, and animal agriculture inherently depends on the exploitation

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37034619 last two paragraphs

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/16/parents-raise-children-vegans-should-prosecuted-say-belgian/ the vegans in that post make good points. Obviously negligent parents are a problem, vegan or no

To maintain a nutritionally complete vegan diet for an individual year round actually requires far more use of fossil fuels and directly released carbon emissions due to limited seasonality and local accessibility than a cow produces for the same nutrient density and complexity locally

did I miss the source on this?

Here's a source for you to read, I read the ones you linked https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w

while this doesn't go super in depth, it's a counterpoint to the idea that veganism (And definitely vegetarianism) is only possible with global trade. https://www.iamgoingvegan.com/vegan-cultures/

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Tell which thing? I wrote a lot

but, one thing we could do is divert the massive subsidies and bailouts the US gives to animal agriculture (and a lot of the subsidies to plant ag too! It leads to a tremendous waste, iirc the reason corn syrup is so common is we grow too much corn cause it's overly subsidized. People need good food, not corn syrup) and spend that on actually feeding those people

While we're redirecting funds, the military budget could use some massive cuts that could also be used to provide food, shelter, and healthcare to people

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

none of those mean that the vast majority of humans can thrive or even be healthy on a vegan diet. and while the food itself may be cheap, it may lack convenience or cultural appropriateness, and therefore come with costs that are hidden at the checkout counter.

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

sure, there are a lot of factors that would make it difficult. If most people can't afford to be vegan (for monetary or other cost reasons especially) that reflects a failure of our food system. Our food system hasn't even gotten to the point of ensuring nobody goes hungry, we should be using our cropland to feed humans not other animals (look up how much of our crops go to livestock)

we should end the biggest problems first, and start with ending factory farms, but we should also remember that culture is not a good reason to hurt others

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

we should also remember that culture is not a good reason to hurt others

I suspect we disagree about the relevant definition of "others"

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Almost certainly we do. But, do you think if there was a culture that ran dog fights, that would be ok just because it's part of their culture?

I would not find that ok, because all sentient beings are worth moral consideration, and culture is not a good reason to hurt sentient beings. I might not focus on it especially if that culture was already marginalized and discriminated against and there were bigger problems to solve, but I'd still have the understanding that it's bad

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think dog fighting is a moral issue: at worst, it's aesthetic.

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Really? What about bestiality?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

yea. that, too, is an aesthetic issue. it can be gross without being immoral.

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

you think gross things are immoral?

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think that having sex with sentient beings without their consent is extremely immoral

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

sentience and consent have nothing to do with one another.

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

someone experiencing it should have a say in whether or not they experience it

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

once again, we are going to be disagreeing on the relevant definitions of "someone".

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

the experiencers should have a say in whether or not they experience it

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

this is an impossible standard, and I don't believe it's one you actually ascribe to: for instance, pretty much everyone is ok with sterilizing stray dogs and cats, and there is never a question of consent.

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't claim to 100% live in an ideal way. I try to keep improving but I don't think I'll ever be perfect

i think in cases where consent is difficult or impossible to achieve, we should act in the best interest of the experiencer in question. But I think that example is a tough one, at first glance I think we shouldn't sterilize them, but then when I consider what will almost certainly happen if they're not sterilized I think it's probably worth doing the one bad thing to prevent worse things from happening. It's an example where I think a utilitarian approach makes the most sense, since the variables are relatively clear

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

and a bible believing Christian has a clear answer: it doesn't matter, you have dominion, do what you want. I imagine you don't like that reasoning, but it, to, gives clear guidance on the morality.

I'm not talking about whether you live your values, I'm suggesting you don't understand the implications of your own values, and under scrutiny you would find them internally inconsistent.

which is fine, as long as you're not going out and telling others the right thing to do.

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

i think I do understand them, I've thought about that problem before. Can you go into more detail on what you mean by internally inconsistent? By my understanding, situations in the world can come about where values need to be weighed, or there are only bad choices available, but that doesn't mean those values should be discarded or replaced or that they shouldn't be shared/spread.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

either it's true that you can write an axiom that says "sentient beings should always consent to anything that is done to them" or you can write an axiom that says "you should always do what will bring about the most happiness or at least distress"

those axioms are in conflict with one another. it's not that there's only bad choices. it's that you've given yourself conflicting standards.

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Neither of those are axioms I hold. The axiom "all sentient beings are morally relevant" does not specify how to go from there, and I am not convinced that any one ethical framework is "the one". There are some things that all the ones I'm aware of converge on with a sentientist perspective, but there are weird cases as well like whether to euthanize stray animals where they don't converge

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

https://lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz/comment/2243561 I haven't put my views in those terms before but even here I say my views are based on sentience. I give an example, and I should have been more clear that I'm not strictly looking at the issue from a utilitarian lense although I get why it would come across that way. At base I'm a sentientist, I think there are many reasonable ways to go from there

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Our food system hasn’t even gotten to the point of ensuring nobody goes hungry, we should be using our cropland to feed humans not other animals

do you have a plan to accomplish that? until such a plan is implemented, there is not even a question whether it's moral to eat meat, seafood, dairy, or eggs: most people have no volition in the matter and no one can actually change that.

I don't. I try to get people's goals to align and recognize that these are important issues, and I'm working to grow more of my own food and get in a position where I'm able to have more of an impact, but no I don't have an answer for everything and I don't need one to be able call out injustice when I see it. And like most people I'm a hypocrite in some ways, I see these massive injustices and I still buy avocados and contribute to capitalism and waste time watching tv and arguing with people online instead of using that mental energy to actually do something in the world. I'm working on being better tho

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 years ago

we should end the biggest problems first, and start with ending factory farms

it's not clear either that this is "the biggest problem" or, if it is, that the best method of solving our ecological woes is to attack it first.

load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (74 replies)
load more comments (74 replies)