Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)MO
Posts
1
Comments
153
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • We don't need meat to survive but eating meat (in moderation) makes it much easier to ensure you get all nutrients you need. Especially when you have children, it's very dangerous to attempt a vegan diet. Also, killing animals is part of nature and happens all the time. What's not natural, and what's unethical, is making their lives miserable before that happens.

    And speaking of ethics, you just said two comments above that we should spread this disease worldwide, and were fine with people dying from it just for following the diet they've had all their lives. Not very consistent in my view.

  • You're not arguing in good faith - the wiki was the source for the existence of instincts you asked for. Also, Wikipedia is a very good resource actually, what difference would it make to you if I just copied the sources referenced in the article?

    I didn't get your second part.

  • Sigh...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

    There you go, sources and all. It's very illuminating.

    My argument is that there is a basic moral code embedded in our genes via instincts. For example the ability to feel compassion and empathy - these are instinctual.

    https://online.uwa.edu/news/empathy-in-animals/ (just an example)

    Now, what exactly is "good" is a philosophical question without an objective answer. But to assume our entire behavior and everything makes a person "good" is learned is pretty disingenuous, at least under the definitions of good I've most commonly come across.

  • We're not talking about turtles but about instincts, that's why I said "assuming you're correct" because even if you are, you're not disproving the existence of instincts, which is pretty much scientific common knowledge. The specific example is not that important for the argument, which you conveniently avoided.

  • Even assuming you're correct, which I very highly doubt as you have provided no source for your claim that contradicts the overwhelming majority of information you can find online, are you going to tell me flies also communicate with their eggs? Does it continue all the way down to amoebas?

  • We may be speaking of different things. Let me ask you something: do you think the warm feeling you get when you help someone or share a moment of achievement with another person is taught by society?

  • I'm not arguing against that, but there definitely is a moral compass embedded in our genes. We've evolved to work and live in a society. Otherwise we would be extinct. You may be taught things that "feel" wrong.

  • Lmao we already see people are being influenced by social media and targeted marketing, where do you think the source of that is? Do you think you're immune? Think again. And it's not just about selling you things, it's about shaping how and what you think. And what's the agenda I'm trying to drive in your eyes?

    You're right that they for now don't sell personal library streaming information, let's see how long it stays that way.

  • Companies want your money. The more they know about you, the more possibilities they have to get it. You don't know what the political landscape may look like down the road. You may feel safe now, but that can change quickly. Imagine you suddenly need to pay back money to the copyright owners unless you can prove you already did?

  • If you connect to the internet from 2 or 3 different locations, the hashed email will be the same, so they just need to compare the locations to those from another service like Instagram and they know who you are and what you're streaming.