Rekorse @ Rekorse @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

173

Joined

1 yr. ago

Why would you choose the killing civilians option rather than just saying they each need their own country? Israel needs to hold new elections, and Hamas will not be permitted to rule Palestine.

I understand the vitriol towards Hamas but I dont understand why all Palestinians are grouped in with Hamas.

If I were to follow that perspective, wouldnt I have to condemn all Israelis for the actions of their political leaders?

I agree, and I'm most interested in what innovations we can come up with in as people start to care more and more about their health and diet, and learn that animals and humans deserve respect no matter how far away they are.

I think the only disagreement I have is that I think we do need to condemn it as a whole, and set the ultimate goal of abolishing the practice. We can still compromise on the way there. I think this is a problem we could solve if we could agree on the goal, although its most important we are heading in the right direction regardless of the end goal.

I think what is going on here is that this person would have to admit america has committed awful and repeated war crimes over the years, just like Israel is now.

You can tell because they use Americas past wars/incidents as a standard to compare against.

Their position is so unpopular here because most people here would never hold up America as a standard for international relations, unless to illustrate what NOT to do.

So, in your opinion, this is all okay because the alternative is war with Iran?

Why are you so sure that will happen if Palestine and Hamas survive? Are you concerned that it might be bias giving you so much confidence?

I have to say that it appears like you are just imagining a worse outcome (whether likely or not) and using it to justify a slightly less bad outcome.

Seems like shaky ground, no?

I never argued each could try should be self-sufficient. Globalism has made it so most people are capable of eating vegan diets, should they choose to. Countries depending on each other to trade food is fine by me, most western countries do this already.

We also dont need to keep growing the human population globally the way we have been, its alright to slow down and figure out how to take care of the people (and animals) that already exist.

You are the one acting like its black and white, saying its either a ban or not at all. Exceptions will need to be made for many reasons were this to be implemented today: for those who can't grow or ship their food in, for those that have to deal with the environmental considerations you mentioned, or those with any number of medical conditions that affect nutrition and diet.

If the self-sufficiency thing is so important to you, can you tell me which countries currently meet that label? Is it most countries? How are the self sufficient countries doing overall?

Well you'd have to make exceptions for those that can't have their food shipped from better climates and also can't grow their own food. I'd imagine those peoples lives wouldn't change much from now were the rest of the world to stop eating meat.

Everyone who has the ability to avoid eating meat, should. Bringing up exceptions doesnt negate that position, its built in.

Your defense of keto boils down to: people need to lose weight fast or they will give up, so its useful? Its an incredibly damaging diet if you were to stay on it for life.

And if you are only meant to use it to lose weight, what exactly do people transition to when done?

People vary in their adherence to their own morals. Some change their morals more often than they change their actions.

I choose to be someone who puts my morals above my wants, at least as often as I can, and I try to learn all the time if there are other ways I am inadvertently going against my own morals.

Edit to add: I also used to agree with veganism and not take part, mainly out of fear it would be too hard and I'd fail or hurt myself. And then one day I just did it. I dont regret it one bit.

Well since they were trying to stoke conversation, and you are conversating now, seems like it worked just fine.

We are always working at solving problems. Right now the world is trying to figure out how to have its meat and eat it too, and spending all of our energy and money on that.

If we decided the problem was figuring out how to grow plants in those conditions, I bet you'd find we would improve that too.

Why are you bringing up historical facts? Noones planning to go back in time to make people vegan earlier.

We are talking about now, and right now, could those Scandinavian countries get by with substantially less meat? I'm not sure but quite a few of them are trying limited promotions like a vegan day of the week to promote health.

Meat is not good for us in large amounts, people need to understand that. They seem to with fish, just apply that to the other meat too, just it kills you slower than mercury poisoning would.

They didnt say everyone needed to be vegan, just that being vegan become the norm. There will always be edge cases, and people can do whatever they want in the wild of course.

We can push forward and try to figure out how to slaughter even more despite all the problems that are coming with increased line speeds, or we can choose a different direction and tackle those problems.

Noone said the solution was perfect, just better. Are you afraid of improving yourself?

What do pesticides have to do with veganism?

Sounds like the problem is with pesticides.

Doesn't gambling for a living by definition mean you have to play with stakes that matter?

Honestly if people could only gamble with their own money, I might feel different about it.

Everything in your post seems to give reasons for recreational gambling, and I do agree that the stakes are part of the game, and one with no stakes is markedly different. It does seem though that this is all in service of fair play, and to reward those for requiring they pay to prove they are in good faith.

To me I dont think the potential reward is the point with recreational gambling. You might even give your winnings back in a friendly game were you to find out that the stakes bled out into real life.

However I dont see how all of this applies to gambling as a profession and as a part of society in larger ways such as stock markets and Crypto currency. What's the supposed benefits of that?

I would argue that the professional setting is not recreational at all, and in many cases is abusive, with there seeming to be some intent to disguise how abusive it is to the victim.

I'm going to address work from home first because I think its already settled. Whether companies want to admit it or not, the general public now sees work from home as a benefit that converts to actual money. What this means, is its become an expected benefit in certain industries and its never going back. Companies that force large groups to come onsite arbitrarily are finding the negatives far outweigh the positives, as they now need to hire massively. The one caveat is companies that just use return to office as a way to fire people.

Essentially, its a right we benefit from now, although shitty companies will continue to do shitty things.

For the rest, ive yet to see a single person explain exactly how a city built for cars with very limited public transport, can effectively be changed into a public transportation/biking/walking city.

I'm not an architect or anything, but dont we need to move buildings? Destroy massive portions of cities? I dont know the answer but my feeling is its not talked about much because there aren't any good plans.

Maybe we need to essentially create new big cities so that we have the opportunity to plan their building without cars.

Maybe we could wait for people to abandon cities to the point they are vacant enough we can shuffle people around until renovations complete?

Edit: is it wrong for me to think the government should be negating the negatives of these transitions? For example with the shuffling idea, the government could cover the costs of forcing people to move, even if it still is relatively close by. Maybe even make it fun, can choose groups of temporary housing near friends and family or coworkers if you like them. Cash infusions?

Honestly, for me, young me had no fucking clue how bad tech could be for the world just physically. The massive power draw, the massive water consumption, I'm sure there are nestle level employee and child abuse situations to boot.

Noone ever talked about the cost of fucking anything. Just blinders all the way until it crashes and we tally the victims and how much money was lost or it cost to fix it.

The one thing the Crypto bros did was show everyone how absurd this all really could be, and all for less than nothing.

Would you advise others that learning through increasingly higher stakes is a good way to practice these skills and apply them to make a living?

I admit I dont have much issue with gambling as recreation/sport, but I dont know its a benefit to society to treat gambling as a profession.

Stock brokers gambling with others money is a whole other thing.

In my opinion, people should change as quickly as possible, I think thats going to be extremely important for humans across the board moving forward.

That said, I dont know how to apply that thought societally, everyone has different tolerances. And also, most people I meet resist change without thought, so my guess is it would be incredibly slow as everyone would be mostly concerned with making sure its not an inconvenient solution.

Just giving it a few minutes thought here, I want to say this is a problem that should be solved by local government, as that would be the largest scale where you could vary the approach by specific population needs.

Maybe some farm heavy states are going to essentially need most of their vehicles, who knows.

Probably first we need to all agree on the problem though...

Edit: idea! Maybe use federal government to set the goals and direction we should be heading in, and let local governments handle the how and how much and how fast.