commie

@commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com

i am more than willing to engage on any positive claim you want to make (i probably agree with a lot of them). what i’m not willing to do is tolerate personal attacks and dogpiling.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

commie,

cattle farming is in and of itself the single largest driver of Amazon deforestation.

what does this have to do with what we are discussing, or how many mice were killed for that bun?

commie,

If you had bothered to go to the link

like I don’t know who earthling ed is

commie,

this is a thought-terminating cliche

commie,

the vast majority of soy production is being used to raise animals for food, because that’s how the economics works.

the vast majority of soy (85%) is pressed for oil.

commie,

orgzly+syncthing

emacs org-mode on desktop

I admit, it is not terribly easy to get started. I think the emacs tutorial alone takes half an hour then you need to learn org-mode.

but it’s pretty badass

commie,

I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

this can’t be true. it’s self-contradictory.

commie,

the same can be said of DNA. this is a completely arbitrary standard, and you would be better served to embrace that than pretending it’s somehow objective.

commie,

name the trait is a fallacious line of argument because it falls prey to the linedrawing fallacy.

commie,

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

commie,

it’s too broad because it includes mosquitoes and mice and dogs and cats and fish and livestock. most people don’t treat them the same way. most ethical systems don’t treat them the same way. My ethical system doesn’t treat them the same way. so I do not agree that it’s okay to write an axiom about how you’re supposed to treat sentient beings. treating people better than animals is a good thing.

commie,

you think gross things are immoral?

commie,

we are going to, once again, disagree on the relevant definition of “anyone”.

commie,

not everyone is in this Lemmy thread.

commie,

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.

commie,

why sentience and not DNA? or literally any other characteristic? your standard is absolutely arbitrary.

commie,

I’m not presenting an argument. I’m questioning yours.

commie,

calling me names doesn’t make what I said untrue

commie,

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

commie,

but to go back to utilitarianism, I think there’s a strong argument that most ethical frameworks can be defined in terms of a sufficiently creative definition of utility.

this is a good reason to doubt the validity of the theory: it is constructed in a way that it is not disprovable.

commie,

I mean there is no objective reason to set the standard at sentience any more than any other standard.

commie,

I don’t really feel like getting into the weeds of that discussion though, and I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to the conversation anyways

it is. your ethical position is highly relevant to any ethical argument you present.

commie,

all subjective opinions, like ethics or aesthetics, are.

commie, (edited )

yes, I do: sentience is too broad a category, and not actually relevant to most people. if we are talking about people, then all of your statements are fine. but I don’t agree that these axioms are or should be applicable to, say, mosquitos . or mice. or dogs or cats. or fish. or livestock.

commie,

I’m not anti vegan

commie,

right…

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #