they both have there pros and cons, but i prefer desktop becasue you can set up your own liitle computer area and desktops can be custimized more than a laptopbut laptops ar eportable and often cheaper and some things about a laptop can be anoying.
Laptop - it does everything a computer needs to do in one compact, easy to handle package. Even the cheapest of laptops is faster and more powerful than what the vast majority of people need these days, and since virtually everything is web based, I don't even own a computer. I use my phone/tablet for everything. Work supplies the laptop.
Generally a good approach is to try learning the rules of logic. Logic is all about proving things to be true using only facts. It can also be helpful to try some logic puzzles or riddles which can only be solved using hard logic. Note that this won’t automatically make you a better critical thinker, but it will help you exercise that muscle.
Also, it’s helpful to play devil’s advocate. If you hear someone making an argument, try to imagine how you would dispute that argument if you disagreed with it. It doesn’t matter if you actually agree or not, just imagine you did and think about what your counter argument would be. This is what high school debate teams have to do; they are given a topic and a position and have to defend their position.
It always helps to be aware of the facts, or at least of how to find facts. If you see a debate happening where you can’t tell who is right, do your own research on a site like Wikipedia and try to see what the truth is for yourself. Not every argument has a correct answer, but you will at least be able to see where each side is coming from.
Logic is all about pricing things to be true using only facts.
I know it’s nit-picky but logic can be (and often is) decoupled from facts and truth. An argument can be logically valid and still untrue. For example:
all dogs are cats
this animal is a dog
therefore, this animal is a cat
An argument can be said to be sound when truth is factored in. Only both a valid and true argument is considered to be sound.
An argument can be logically valid and still untrue.
Only if at least one premise is untrue. If however the premises are true and the argument is logically valid, the conclusion is also true.
Interesting to note that the opposite is not necessarily true - flawed premises and/or a flawed argument do not imply an untrue conclusion. Easy to show with an example:
P1 - whales are fish (wrong - they’re mammals)
P2 - fish live only in the sea (wrong - freshwater fish exist)
C - whales live only in the sea (true conclusion from bullshit premises)
…which leads to the “fallacy of fallacy” - "the proposition is backed up by a fallacious argument, thus it is false is on itself fallacious.
PC for most of my work, laptop for when I just need to access things from elsewhere. Although, I would never touch a Chromebook. Tried it, was very underwhelmed. IMO chromebooks defeat the purpose of a laptop. What’s the point of portability if you need wifi to use it?
Conceptually I mean some structure large enough to do something with respect to a star. Yes, it is different literally, but not in the sense I was trying to refer.
...And how exactly do you think people are going to be able to eat meat otherwise? Or have dairy, eggs, wool, etc.? Do you think that people should e.g., raise chickens in the city?
And that's ignoring the small obligate carnivores that make up most of the pets in the world.
Hey, I'd rather hunt my own food too, but we no longer live in tribal or feudal societies where you can reasonably expect to engage in animal husbandry yourself.
We shouldn't be eating meat or any other animal products.
Animals are living and feeling beings who experience the world much like humans do, we shouldn't be exploiting, abusing or killing them for profit/taste when we can easily avoid it.
Genuinely curious: How do you feel about the lab-grown meat technology? Would you consider being an omnivore if no animals suffered or died to provide the meat?
Currently to produce lab grown meat they still need a fair amount of biological material for input into the process. So while it does appear to be the lesser of the two evils, especially from an environmental perspective, it's not a purely ethical process. So I'm not sure how many vegetarians/vegans would be convinced to incorporate lab grown meat into their diet at this time.
I do enjoy how you went straight to insults to deflect your lack of knowledge. Then followed by implying I'm missing the same knowledge.
Just because we have yet to understand how plants experience life, does not mean that they do not. We know that plants respond to pain. We know plants respond to music.
Wife and I have been following the vegan eating habits for about 2 years now. We just don't feel the need to proselytize about it. Yes, proselytize is the correct word. You're trying to "save the animals because they feel pain", we're just trying to get in better shape in our 40s. We are not the same.
When you make bad faith arguments you can't expect well worded replies lol.
Even if this argument made any kind of sense(which let's be clear, it does not) then going vegan would still be the answer.
A plant based diet uses way less plants than a meat filled one because you get to skip the inefficient middleman of animals.
Ah yes, asking people to not needlessly abuse animals is the same as trying to force people to join your religion, totally!
You're right, we're not the same, I'm standing up for beings who are getting abused and killed by the trillions because of profit and taste, you're just not eating animals so you don't die quicker.
Not sure why you brought that up.
Just because you do not understand it does not mean it does not exist.
Pain is a human defined "experience" to specific stimuli.
You cannot state definitively that plants cannot experience something equivalent.
"Plants respond to herbivore attack through an intricate and dynamic defense system that includes structural barriers, toxic chemicals, and attraction of natural enemies of the target pests. " -- Nih.gov
Even if this argument made any kind of sense then going vegan would still be the answer.
A plant based diet uses way less plants than a meat filled one because you get to skip the inefficient middleman of animals.
https://owlcation.com/stem/Are-Plants-Alive -- Here's some more reading material while you brush up on your retort to my claim that "Plants Feel Pain". You know, the one you never addressed.
Not the OP. I’m not a vegan, and not even a vegetarian - however, I have hugely cut down on meat consumption because our western diet expectation of having meat in every single meal is absurdly excessive, and in my case resulting in increased cholesterol and other health risks. So I’ve cut back massively on meat such that it’s once a week, and something very lean.
Lab grown meat has all the problems that farmed meat has, by and large, in terms of health impacts and energy intensiveness.
The other thing is that since going to a mostly plant based diet, is I’ve found I simply do not miss meat, in particular I don’t miss red meat at all. So even if lab grown red meat could be less unhealthy, I’ll still give it a miss because plant based food is to be honest perfectly enjoyable. I would imagine many vegetarians and vegans won’t eat lab grown meat because they just don’t need it to enjoy food. I think it’s such a shame that so many eat lots of meat “politically” that they won’t even try reducing their meat consumption and finding other foods that are just as pleasurable, and a lot less damaging to their long term health.
First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don't. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)
Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?
Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren't causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?
Fourth: "Exploiting" is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?
Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?
First:
Yes, animals kill in the wild - to survive. We humans are, as opposed to predators, omnivores. We know how to grow crops, vegetables, etc. and cultivate fields. We have a choice, a conscience and have morals.
Are you identifying with the intelligence and life situation of that of a lion? Do you also commonly ask yourself "What would a lion do in my place right now"? Are lions that kill newborns of other lions, for example, really good role models?
I can add to this regarding your question about more intelligent animals. So because some animals choose to kill, does that justify you doing so when you know it causes suffering? That does not make sense.
Second:
There are no nutrients that stem exclusively from animals. Originally derived from bacteria and microorganisms, they are accumulated in the food chain via plants and animals. You can leave out the middleman, which is the animal. Accordingly, a balanced vegan diet can meet needs at any stage of life. For certain chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, some cancers and heart disease), positive effects are even to be expected. Admittedly, it requires an initial conversion effort, since you have to get your nutrients via other foods and sometimes supplements. But don't worry - it's not rocket science and it's for a good cause.
Third:
I actually didn't find this one on the bingo board, so kudos. And this is sort of a grey area argument that isn't really the core of the vegan proposition. But anyway my personal opinion is that it is ethical to kill for self defense (depending on the situation), even for an animal of "higher intelligence". The same way as killing a person in self defense can be ethical in certain situations. But at the same time I don't think we have an obligation to "step in" and save animals that are subject to predation etc in the wild, see the argument under "first". This argument is quite close to the common one about killing for conservation, which is quite hillarious when you think about it. We have killed off all the natural predators, so the prey animals become overpopulated so we have to step in to kill them off for their own good.
Fourth:
Not directly on the board, but anyway. We don't need a honey bee industry for crop production. There are alternatives. And it makes more sense to use native pollinators anyways (see also here https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0626 ).
And bee farming is exploitative. We cut off the wings of the queen to force her to stay. Forcibly impregnate her, and steal the honey. See more here https://youtu.be/clMNw_VO1xo
And as for your last point, ofc we cause environmental harm, that is unavoidable. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Should we just give up and torture and kill sentient beings because we can't avoid causing some harm to the environment? How does that make any sense?
I’m not a vegan, not even a vegetarian - but your message is so full of logical fallacies and whataboutisms, it’s enough to drive someone to veganism. Is that really the best you can do?
The first sentence is like when a child has done something wrong, and their mother tells them off, so the child says “Well, <friend> did it too”, to which the mother responds, “Well, if <friend> jumped off a cliff, would you also jump off a cliff?”
No offence fam but thats just straight up generational wealth. I live in an extremely farmer filled area and there’s not a chance me in my 1.4 k monthly apartment could ever dream of owning even a small farm - much less have the time to and still pay bills.
I know a couple people who produce 70% of their own consumption, and are only able to do so cause theyre loaded as tits.
Im glad you’re able to be shielded from the economy, but not everyone has that privilege (and ngl im even well off in my area)
Lmao no I said I manage I don't own it but, even when I owned my own house (all wealth I have is self gotten my parents are broke too) we still grew most of our food and raised a flock of birds.
I bought my first house with money I saved when I was in the Army. Then when I got my job at the farm they provided housing. Lived in my truck for almost 6 months after getting out of the Army before buying my house. Which was a POS and I slowly rebuilt it. Sorry you live in a apartment
If you don’t mind me asking what year did most of this happen? Its all pretty important even in the past like 5 years things have changed insanely. To have enough land to grow your own food is insane, and definetly not broke lol
A couple of years ago, I was a Canadian travelling in Silicon Valley. I hadn’t yet acquired any USD but was hungry and went to a mall food court. I was surprised when they wouldn’t accept Apple Pay. This place was not far from Cupertino (Apple headquarters). They didn’t even use chip-and-pin, which is ubiquitous in Canada and even everywhere I’ve been in Mexico. Instead, they swiped the magnetic strip and made my sign a screen with a stylus.
Well, next thing you know, I’m getting fraudulent charges on my card from Las Vegas. I immediately called the bank and they locked it down. Fortunately, I had another card on me but was super paranoid to use it after that.
I like my thinkpad. the keyboard is okay. i don’t use the touchpad. i can carry it everywhere, take it to the livingroom or kitchen or watch a movie in bed. Downside is: i’d like to have more storage and RAM.
Cats and dogs are surprisingly some of the least labor intensive pets. Things like rabbits, reptiles, birds, etc are all effectively exotic pets. Not all veterinaries can or will treat them. They have highly specialized diets, and social structures. They tend to have pens or cages that need regular deep cleaning. So on and so forth.
There’s also a personal preference at play. Personally, I’m a cat person. Dogs are adorable, when they are someone else’s.
Obviously, if you’re allergic to dogs/cats, that probably rules them out (I’m allergic to cats and have 2 but my allergy is relatively mild).
Based on the 4 sentences you provided a fish might be your best bet.
The other thing with rabbits (and prey animals in general) is they don’t always form a good bond with a human; it can take a long time if they are fussy. Even if they do take to liking you, prey animals tend to only show subtle signs of illness until they are critically unwell by which point it might be too late. That’s before we get to whether there’s a vet nearby who has a special interest in “exotic pets” and who knows how to help.
Edit to add: the signs of illness are subtle because they actively hide it - key to survival is to avoid looking like easy prey.
Iirc their diets are highly specialized too. It’s not what everyone thinks. You can just give them lettuce and the occasional fruit.
I’d say most animals mask their illness/injuries well, unfortunately. Pet owners really need to know their pet well and see the very subtle changes most of the time.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.