I did interview with a company in the Twin Towers ~1999. Didn’t take it, wasn’t that interested in continuing to sysadmin. Assuming I’d still have been there a couple years later, that could’ve been the worst day ever.
Somehow I missed a flight while I was at the gate. Mind you it was a small plane. I still don't understand it to this day. I was sitting at the gate waiting for them to announce boarding or watch the sign change. Nothing the whole time I was there.
Finally about 20 minutes after we were supposed to leave I get up and ask the desk staff and they tell me the plane left.
I didn't understand how this had happened and apparently neither did they. I didn't see anyone board the plane, there were no announcements or notifications.
I have had this happen to me.
Super early flight. Maybe 6am or something. And I even arrived quite early. too early, it would seem. I sit down in front of the gate and just wait. Now, you might be thinking, he fell asleep! No, I was awake. But I wear Noise-Canceling Headphones when flying. And I missed the announcement about a last minute gate change. By the time I got suspicious about why the gate staff hadn’t arrived yet it was too late. The new gate was quite far away. Despite an early morning sprint through the airport I was too late.
Another amazingly stupid mishap I have experienced while traveling is that I mixed up the return date by a month. If I remember correctly I was booking a return flight at the end of February. The UI of the little calendar that pops up while picking your flights somehow automatically move to the next month of March. I was going to stay a week (or maybe 5 days or whatever). So, in my mind I was only looking at the day. Let’s say the outbound flight was on the 23rd of February. I was going to stay a week. The calendar for the return leg automatically moved to March. So I click on “next month” and pick the 2nd. But not of March, of April now.
You probably explained the unexplained. A gate change would explain why even the staff were confused, as they were just there for whatever other flight was assigned to that gate.
There's this app called cranky uncle and it goes through things like this and then helps to you learn how to identify them. It was developed by a university researchers in Australia with the aim of improving people's ability to recognise misinformation
Fun fact. Saudi Aramco got hit with malware that took down basically their entire computer system. The hackers then demanded $50m in ransom.
The virus was used for cyberwarfare[4] against national oil companies including Saudi Arabia’s Saudi Aramco and Qatar’s RasGas.[5][2][6] A group named “Cutting Sword of Justice” claimed responsibility for an attack on 30,000 Saudi Aramco workstations, causing the company to spend more than a week restoring their services.[7]
Not an interesting story but: American Airlines doesn’t know how much time it should book for a connection at Dallas between their own flights. Avoid both, the airline and the airport
...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
Cherish the richness of the experience. Don’t try to get over it. Hold every little detail tightly in your heart. The pain, the love, the loss, the ecstasy. All of it. Soon enough we’ll all be nothing at all.
It only hurts because it was worth it. Don’t let yourself forget a single thing.
(and the tighter you hold on, the faster the sharp edges will wear away because nothing at all is ever even slightly fair.)
Logical fallacies don’t necessarily disagree with facts. While the most common examples are simply unsupported statements that sound supported, very often we don’t have the luxury of working with clearly factual statements as a basis.
All rhetoric is at the end of the day a fallacy, as the truth of the matter is independent on how it is argued. Yet we don’t consider all rhetoric invalid, because we can’t just chain factual statements in real debates. Leaps of logic are universally accepted, common knowledge is shared without any proof, and reasonable assumptions made left and right.
In fact one persons valid rhetoric is another persons fallacy. If the common knowledge was infact not shared, or an assumption not accepted, the leap in logic is a fallacy.
I would try to focus less on lists of fallacies or cognitive biases and more on natural logic. Learn how to make idealised proofs, and through that learn to identify what is constantly assumed in everyday discussions. The fallacies itself don’t matter, what matters is spotting leaps in logic and why it feels like a leap in logic to you.
After all, very often authoritive figures do tell the truth, and both sides of the debate agree on general values without stating them. If someone starts questioning NASA or declares they actually want more people to live in poverty, they did infact spot very real logical fallacies in the debate, but at the same time those fallacies only exist from their point of view, and others might not care to argue without such unstated common ground.
Agreed. OP should be working on critical thinking skills in general and not specifically focusing on logical fallacies.
Logical fallacies and argumentation theory in general certainly have their place. But unless you’re taking part in a debate club or otherwise getting really really deep into these topics, they may do you more harm than good in thinking critically and having productive discussions.
The reddit (and, previously, slashdot) obsession with logical fallacies has been almost entirely as a way to prevent critical thinking and end discussion rather than promoting either.
The old Slashdot obsession of calling out logical fallacies lead to the hyper normalisation of climate change denial. We had a whole load of really smart people who were very quick to call out any appeal to authority (of, you know, actual climate scientists), but a bit too lazy to read the source material themselves.
Rather than not encouraging focusing and learning fallacies, maybe we are simply saying that they need to also learn to use them appropriately? Fallacies are not just the informal ones that everyone is referencing here in this thread, but also the formal ones which are very much required for logical argument structure. So even in learning about fallacies, there will be opportunities to understand the difference between informal and formal, why they are different, and how that applies to discourse. Knowledge is power; it just needs to be balanced with understanding on how to use and I think a deep dive into fallacies could actually assist in that regard.
"Truth" is a matter of conclusions and meaning, not of facts. Factual information would be something like--and this is an intentionally racist argument--53% of the murder arrests in the US come from a racial group that makes up 14% of the population. This is a fact, and it can be clearly seen in FBI statistics. But your conclusions from that fact--what that fact means--that's the point of rhetoric and logic. Faulty logic would make multiple leaps and say, well, obvs. this means that black people are more prone to commit murder. A more logically sound approach would look at things like whether there where different patterns in law enforcement based on racial groups, what factors were leading to murder rates in racial groups and whether those factors were present across all demographics, and so on.
I’m genuinely curious here, why is learning to identify logical fallacy at the point of conversation that important to you? Just research yourself afterwards, otherwise how would you know what is wrong unless you have already decided or learnt it is wrong to begin with. In my opinion, it is not that important unless you are engaged in professional persuasion or your opinion at the very moment holds a lot of weight. You could maybe identify inconsistency or twist their words until they contradict themselves? Otherwise, the best approach if you are not sure is to find out later. At the end of the day what matters to me most is my opinion, I do not care if I disagree with the person I am interacting with, or if the person disagrees with me. Maybe cause I’m not a politician. ;-)
That seems like a dangerous approach to not care if you disagree with people. Shouldn't you know if your disagreement with them is based on sound reasoning?
Oh, what I meant is that I wouldn’t care to argue for long if I disagree with the person I am interacting with. I did not mean being stubborn and sticking with the same opinion. I just take into consideration what the person has said, and think or research about it afterwards. Apologies for my unnatural English.
I’m from eastern europe too, I feel like I almost died from the august 2020 heat, this year I couldn’t belive my eyes seeing 37°C on the weather app last week(and continues to rise). The hail mary was fans for me, but air conditioning is something that will get harder to live without as years roll by and the temperature increases. I know I’m not the intended audience, but what worked for me was spending more time in rooms where the sun doesn’t hit as much(for me it’s the bathroom), standing near walls(I noticed they don’t catch a lot of heat and they are not too cold to lean on), every few hours try to splash some water on your face and neck and maybe(I don’t know if this works, didn’t try it) towels that are wet and were left a bit in the fridge(I’d avise much caution with temperature change to avoid termic shock, for the towel too not be too cold and the body too warm). Hydrate and avoid going outside mid day as much as possible. Summer gets easier when you work in an air conditioned office, but until then, good luck and drink water.
I guess it didn’t necessarily save my life, but I decided not to go to a party where the host was shot in the head by some random gang bangers who showed up. Victim was a friend of mine and invited me. I didn’t feel like going out tho. He didn’t even die. But he wasn’t really the same person after that.
A similar situation myself, I was supposed to go see a concert at the Alrosa Villa in Columbus, Ohio in 2004, but backed out because I was a senior in high school and my parents refused to let me skip school on a Thursday to go to a concert 2hrs away on a Wednesday night.
There was a shooting that night that killed Dimebag Darrell.
I’m from central Italy, in my city temperatures regularly reach 40 degrees in August. With the recent heatwave we reached it in mid July, I cope by being indoors and locking myself in with AC on and drinking ice cold water, and when I can (and I fortunately can afford so) going on vacation in colder, still close, places, something like Abruzzo or Molise if you know central Italy.
When I lived in a top floor apartment in Melbourne, where it regularly hit 40°C without any air-conditioning (still unsure how that was and is legal to rent out), I would use a spray bottle of water and a fan to evaporatively cool myself, cold showers to lower my body heat and trips to an air-conditioned space like the cinema or shopping centre during the worst of it.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.