You’re gettin downvoted, but you’re right. It’s the metric we’re coming to use for any group. It’s “okay” if your group has some fringe members that need to be distanced from. It becomes “not okay” when the majority silently accepts the horrible behavior of them.
Similarly, very few cops take abusive actions against minorities, but the number of cops who will defend that behavior in the name of “police brotherhood” closes in at 100%.
People who are downvoting you are out-of-touch with the fact that they are “the good cop who does nothing” in their own group.
I think anyone who has lived on or around a farm, or has just come to understand everything involved, would have a problem “admitting” that. Non-Factory farming in a modern country is dramatically benefited from having meat livestock alongside the vegetables, not to mention that there isn’t really any better use for marginal land than to have farm animals like cattle on it. In fact, there are arguments that cattle on marginal land are better for the environment than leaving the land unused because they are better able to sequester carbon than nothing. The environmental discussion that is “clearly pro-vegan” requires bringing in countries that are downright backwards and use their behaviors to overwhelm the many countries where animal ranching provide overall benefit.
And there’s as many Ethical arguments for meat eating as there are for veganism. The “big” argument for veganism here is the classic Utilitarian argument for veganism, but it has easily been beaten by Negative Utilitarian and straight-Utilitarian counters.
And since many of us aren’t Christian or adherents to any Divine Command theory, “morality” is itself unethical and unsustainable to us.
The Argument From Evil, properly stated, concludes that no god exists because it defines God as a necessarily omnipotent/omni-benevolent being. I think it’s weak because it leans on a version of God that most religious people don’t REALLY believe. It then leans on the fact that lines like “God is not good” or “God is not omnipotent” gets religious folks’ back up.
If the only way an atheist argument wins is because the valid logic objections to it are frustrating to Christians, it’s not a great argument.
But stated right, it IS still an argument for the nonexistence of God, not an argument that “God exists but is immoral”.
I’ll be the first to say the new trend of atheists horribly mangle the Problem of Evil, and while they rebut responses like yours, they tend to do so horribly and emotionally. But properly stated, Divine Command theory really doesn’t work.
The LPOE is challenging one of two traits for God: omnipotence or omni-benevolence. And those two concepts are defined in reasonable, quantitative ways. The God in the your example is a direct acceptance of the LPOE by the admission that god isn’t “benevolent” at all by that definition. Which is perfectly fine, but it does create a lot of very valid moral or ethical problems, along the line of Hedonistic salvation.
The rest of my reply doesn’t belong with LPOE, but this is focusing on the rules side instead of the suffering side.
You see it as a parent setting rules for a child, but it can also accurately be seen as (sorry, both of these come from the show Suits, and apparently the showrunners have a problem with moms) “mommy tells the child he’ll get a Playstation if he lies to the judge about daddy hitting her”. OR, “mommy will punish you if you tell daddy what she did with the mailman last night”. Rules are not inherently Good by most standards.
And that’s before you add the uncertainty. We’re 100% definitely not “following rules that our parents gave us”. We’re following rules we found typed up on a piece of paper that some people **insist ** came from our parents, and maybe they did. And some of them seem really weird or even harmful, and seem to contradict what we think mom and dad want for us. And we have to decide whether or not we’re going to follow them before our parents come home. Because daddy will murder us if we’re wrong. And I don’t mean a beating, I mean with his God-glock.
What many atheists do not understand is that human logic does not apply to God(s), just like the feelings of my dog wanting a slice of pizza do not apply to me
This is true, but you can still pass some judgement on a dog who acts out of possessive-aggression. But of course, we are more responsible for our actions than dogs, aren’t we? Why? Because we have more agency than dogs. Guess who has the most agency, assuming there’s a God? That would make him the most accountable. When he does something prima facie evil and the more you analyze his actions the weaker the objections get, then “Good is just what God wants and evil is just what he doesn’t want” simply doesn’t cut it.
Is God evil, probably, what is evil? What is good? Is God just? In application to others if you’re following Christian ideology he theoretically is in the long term, but in application to their self definitely not.
I think there are Christian ideologies that can make sense of it all, but contingent salvation is as filmsy to philosophical attack as wet cardboard. I would encourage you to listen/read Dr. Josh Rasmussen for his in-depth research into the Problem of Evil and Salvation from an open-minded Christian perspective. He, too, concludes that God cannot pass the Problem of Evil if there is contingent salvation. But he stands by the Ontological Argument, so conceding “God isn’t all-good” is not on the table for his POV.
The biggest problem I have with Atheist logic is that if there is a god that it should follow human logic and because there is suffering and issues in the world there must be no god or that God isn’t worth following. If after life beliefs are correct do you think it matters if you took a moral high ground against an unfair god?
Ironically, I would hope a Christian would be the first person to say YES IT MATTERS because they stand behind martyrdom as a legitimate virtue. Let me put it this way. If Christianity were true with one exception, that the Devil ultimately wins instead of God, would you kneel to him because your eternity is more important than actually being a good person? Would you be able to respect a person who does unspeakable evils, knowing they are unspeakable evils, because they get to selfishly be immortal?
If so, I think you’ve just given atheists the win. If not, then at least you can understand (if not agree) rejecting a God you think is evil.
The same goes for religious people, you have to accept that God let’s bad things happen to you.
Yeah, I’m fine with that. I think the true god is neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent. God can be a jerk sometimes, but so can I, and I don’t have to debase myself or put him far above me, so I can forgive god. If that gets me a good afterlife, I got there in a way I’ll never regret. If that gets me eternal damnation, at least I know I didn’t selfishly throw away my morals for personal gain.
Fair point. That is free. I guess it would boil down to what the mail categorization would look like in this guy’s service. I will say I thought it was odd that it isn’t just mail middleware with the guy struggling with having to build his IMAP in node.js.
Last I saw, Google charges for this. More than this guy’s service.
Also, it seems like his service is about automatically having username-category email addresses. Definitely not hard to replicate, but it circumvents the common blocking of plus-signs in email addresses you see nowadays. And while not hard, it’s a bit less trivial to catch any old email with a dash in it and “magically” convert it to a category in the main inbox.
Yeah, IMO it’s definitely a step down from the growl voices I like, ex. Peter Steele or Raymond Rohonyi (but had to look him up, which shows how much more I respect Liv Kristine than him)
As for vocals. I’m so attached to vocals it’s hard for me to relate. Most music I listen to are the type of person you can immediately recognize if they sing a totally random song acapella. Everything from Enya to Celine Dion, Maynard to Trent Reznor to Peter Steele. Even bands I “kind of like” have that in common.
“Oh my god, that sounds like…” <–if I can’t say that if they do a cover or new release and I didn’t know, then I probably don’t like it.
If you like that at all, their Aegis album features her much more heavily, if with somewhat less “growl”. She also has had a few bands since that did “okay” in Norway. Leaves’ Eyes does gothic twist on some traditional celtic.
Also, “Beauty and the Beast” death/doom are hard to find, but Cradle of Filth had a few phenomenal songs of that genre. Nymphetamine Fix is my favorite of theirs. It’s so hard to find good death or doom that fit my tastes.
I watched a little LP of ashe 2063. FPS’s don’t work well with me, but it seemed interesting. Me with gaming seems like you with music :) I don’t like “vocals” (action reflex games)
Mostly THAT was EPs. Some of the best albums are EPs, but they’re short.
Rose for the Dead EP, was my favorite one. 6 songs.
NIN Broken was 8 songs.
A lot of punk albums have plenty of songs, but they’re so short some of them have terrible play times. OpIvy Energy (the first bootleg I ever had) is only about 35 minutes long and the whole thing mostly fit on one side of a (small) cassette tape.
I could probably find more, but that’s just off the top of my head.
The sad truth. I threw out my CD binders at least 10 years ago. I still have some of that uploaded to the cloud, but I’ve swapped provider a few times and probably lost some.
And more often, I Just listen on spotify or youtube music.
“Fuck that shit. We’ll fire the singer that put us on the map because she was only supposed to be a back-up, and then we’ll go full techno”.
(as you may guess, I never got over it. Also, I know this full-techno song was still w/ Liv Kristine, but they stayed techno-ey and I picked a song I don’t actually hate)
I don’t ask people I’m debating vegan adjacent topics with if they eat meat
I didn’t ask if you were a vegan. I was asking why you’re repeating arguments I’ve rebutted a dozen times in lemmy. We’re deep enough that no random person is going to read this, so if you’re just arguing for veganism, it can stop now. I need to know if the environmental argument is foundational to you before I waste time repeating stuff I’ve said plenty of times elsewhere, knowing you’ll be the only person to read it.
To be honest, I’ve dealt with the classic 3-leg gishgallop of this topic (environment, health, ethics) enough that I’m learning to disengage fast. I just need to be sure there’s value in the conversation before it just turns into that. That’s not about voir dire. It’s about Street Epistemology. If we’re discussing something non-foundational to you, the conversation is frankly meaningless.
And frankly, I had to ask the question because you are bringing up infamous objections (like “land use” in full ignorance or negligence of marginal land) that are as much a staple of the vegan-missionary movement as… well, anything I hear out of pro-life arguments.
I am a vegan but I had been arguing against livestock use from an environmental perspective for many years before becoming a vegan or even a reductionist
Interesting. Are you of the position that there is no world where even a single livestock animal being consumed is *ever environmentally better than that same animal NOT being consumed? Do you have well-conceived answers to the symbiosis problem and animal population problem? I mean, is it a goal for the Western World’s carbon impact to dip below pre-industrial levels, and do you genuinely think fossil fuel climate change can be circumvented by terraforming our methane footprint artificially? Is there a meaningful view here that might change, or will it remain secondary to your vegan ethical position?
Though after learning some ideas from utilitarianism related to statistics and commutative events as well as ideas from virtue ethics about modeling behavior and living heterodoxy my stance on boycotts or at least reduction in other areas has changed as well.
Peter Singer, I presume? This is actually a separate topic I have some experience discussing. I, too, am largely Utilitarian in my ethical foundation. But I do strongly reject his argument on many grounds. A rejection I don’t want to intermingle with an environmental discussion, if you get my point above about how easily these discussions can turn into a 3-legged stool of constantly rotating complex discussions.
I’ll avoid responding to your arguments on the main subject because it would pressure you to respond when you’ve made it clear that you don’t want to continue having the discussion based on who I am
Sorry to steal your decision to use court terminology, but I object. I simply don’t want to respond if you aren’t arguing for the environment because it matters to you. I need to understand whether you being convinced that consuming some animals is good for the environment would CYV on anything at all, or if you’d just lean on “but I think it’s wrong to consume animals”.
Nuclear medicine? Are you talking about meat grown in fermentation chambers?
Yeah. The topic is efficiency. I was covering all the bases.
Do you think that’s the only alternative to animal flesh?
No. There are no alternatives to animal flesh.
Those things don’t even exist on a mass production scale yet and plenty of people avoid animal products somehow
And I know people who commute grandfathered trucks that get single-digit miles per gallon. I didn’t say it was strictly impossible, just inefficient.
You’re also conveniently leaving out additional land, water, and energy use as inputs, as well as negative outputs (though tbf I only mentioned inputs).
No I’m not. Go check out all my past debates or cited references on this topic because I’m not rehashing that shit again on a work day.
It’s also a myth that we feed animals only things that are inedible to us, edible soy and grain is very pervasive in animal agriculture
I didn’t actually argue that here. The strict statistic is 86% of cattle feed is human inedible (and much of what’s human edible is provided at the end to “fatten the cow up” so we get the maximum number of people fed by that one cow having to die). A large percent of chicken and turkey feed is technically human edible (it’s low-grade millet) but not particularly nutritious.
I’m also curious about your 90-10 ratio, I’d be incredibly surprised if in reality 90% of net energy in animal feed came from inedible crop, especially when you include pasture feeding and silage in the mix
Do me a favor and reread my comment when you calm down. That’s not what I said. I said that 90% of crops like corn are human inedible. And that they go to feed. Not that 90% of what animals eat is crops like corn. You’re absolutely right that much of it absolutely comes from cover crops in pasture and silage. Thanks for defending my side.
I thought experts agreed that we could free up a significant amount of land by removing animals from our food system while still feeding the same amount of people
No. Some experts say that. Experts agree that we could free up significant amounts of land by reducing meat intake, but every expert I’ve read does not think it’s some linear thing where zero meat is the ideal. The largest part and problem is the symbiotic relationship between agriculture and horticulture. 67% of TOTAL agricultural land use is in what’s called “marginal land”, land that cannot be used to grow crops or forested. It can ONLY be used for livestock or nothing.
The problem only starts when livestock need more land than the marginal land that’s being used. Until that point, from a land point of view, livestock like cattle are overall increasing the efficiency of the land by producing food where it couldn’t be produced otherwise, largely consuming calories that could not be used otherwise.
this wouldn’t be true if animals made our existing croplands more efficient or were at the very least neutral.
That’s because it’s not true. A lot of local farmers only survive because they have livestock. Let me ask you a question . Why would a farmer have a milk cow if the milk sold for less than the cost to feed the cow? Because that’s the situation right now in my local farms, and nobody’s selling their cows.
And in case you don’t know the answer, because they’re saving cow manure instead of buying chemical fertilizers. And they’re saving some money on feed by using their crop waste. Ultimately, they’re able to reduce their cost so the milk price is a breakeven, and then the fertilizer is a slight profit. If they got rid of that cow (ok, cows plural. Often 3 or 4 at the farms I’m thinking of), they would go out of business.^___^
important question
Let me ask you a question. What matters to you? Do you really care about what’s good for the environment, or do you just care about people not eating animals? Because if you’re arguing about the environment because you ethically oppose the eating of animals, that’s a tainted argument even if it has facts smattered in, and you have to admit it to yourself.
It’s only worth us having this discussion if you can tell me to my face that the only reason you’re arguing for veganism is environmental. That you don’t have an ethical problem with eating meat and you’re not convinced that meat is unhealthy.