starman2112 @ starman2112 @sh.itjust.works

He/Him

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

2,785

Joined

2 yr. ago

As an American, I will join the war on Canada's side if my country decides to invade.

Well you know, we have Trump to think for that ceasefire that Israel has already violated

With absolutely no respect, quit whining about Democrats. The are not the ones doing tariffs. They are not the ones revoking trans people's passports. They are not the ones tossing all mention of gender down the memory hole. They are not the ones trying to amend the Constitution illegally via executive order. They're not the ones allowing unconfirmed, unelected, unvetted, private citizens to take total control of the Treasury.

Apparently, the Democratic party's biggest sin was not being evil enough, since that's apparently what Trump elected.

times 3.12.23 reporting bb dayorder doubleplussungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling

In Oldspeak, this might be rendered:

CDC orders mass retraction and revision of submitted research across all science and medicine journals. Banned terms must be scrubbed. (Including gender, transgender, pregnant person, LGBT, and more)

Is linking to Anna's Archive allowed here? Guess I'll find out.

https://annas-archive.org/torrents

If I had the space and a VPN, I would help maintain it. The least I can do is point others towards the path

Yeah the rest of them can function but the ffffoooorrrrkkkk is straight up unusable

Slaughtering protestors was also an act of political violence, but for some reason the moderators on this instance only like it when you talk about the US doing that

Authoritarian communist, essentially

Wikipedia has a good article about the term

Woman: "I and every woman I know have had some really bad experiences with men"

This dude: "Actually, you've had bad experiences with a small minority of men. Why do you hate all men?"

I keep coming back to slavery because you keep making arguments in defense of it. I could use rape or murder or robbery or neglect or physical abuse or genocide or any number of obviously evil things as examples instead, because your logic allows for all of those to be acceptable. It's not a false equivalence, because I've never once equated any of these subjects. All I've talked about is what your underlying logic leads to.

"You're not the one being harmed" is not a justification for harming something, it's an attempt to shut someone up when they're pointing out that you're harming something.

I've already gone over this with you. Someone eating meat doesn't harm me just like my government banning gay marriage doesn't harm me just like my government legalizing slavery doesn't harm me. I don't care if it doesn't harm me, it harms someone and we don't need to do it. The Nazis weren't harming Americans. Do you think we were wrong to step in and tell them to stop killing Jews in Europe?

There is no reason you have to tell others how they should live their lives if they don’t ask you for your opinion.

You continue to make arguments that slavers would have made against abolitionists

Nope. I'm against meat production because it harms things and we don't need to do it. Being gay doesn't harm anything. My underlying logic does not support bigotry. My underlying logic does support things like fighting for LGBT rights and abolitionism.

You need to try harder.

You say the cow cares? I say the cow never asked for your advocacy. And we both know you cannot prove it has.

I can prove pretty easily that cows can suffer. I can't prove that any individual cow wanted to live any more than I can prove that any murder victim wanted to live, but it's a safe fucking assumption that they did.

And it’s also safe to assume they are entirely clueless about the concept of meat consumption

And a child doesn't know what sex is, but it turns out that the victim not being able to comprehend the crime being committed against them is not a justification for committing that crime. I know, you don't think your logic can be expanded to cover things outside of dietary decisions, but it can whether you like it or not.

What someone wants to eat, provided it is legal- is only considered to be your business to you and you alone- not to them. So your opinions of their consumption of cheeseburgers is every bit as important to an omnivore as the opinions of Christian fundamentalists are to the LGBTQ.

Something being legal does not mean it's okay, and my opinion of me consumption is a bit more meaningful than the opinions of Christian fundamentalists to the lgbt, on account that your perfectly legal dietary decisions actively cause harm in a way that being gay doesn't.

Someone eating cheeseburgers has absolutely no impact on your life and doesn’t hurt you in the least bit. Just like who someone decides to love has no impact on anyone else.

You have to understand that the logic you are using here can be used to justify a bunch of awful things. The government banning gay marriage also has absolutely no impact on my life and doesn't hurt me the least bit, but I can still argue for the rights and wellbeing of people and animals who aren't like me.

What telling others what they should and shouldn’t eat is not u like those that presume it’s their responsibly to tell other who they can and cannot love.

This is word salad, but I think what you're getting at is that telling other people what they should and shouldn't eat is like telling gay people that they shouldn't be gay. That's not a similar argument, because being gay doesn't hurt anything and eating meat does.

Oreos are famously vegan. There's some dispute about the ethics of buying products with palm oil, and some sugar suppliers might use bone char to filter sugar, but the ingredients don't necessarily include any animal products

If one considers the act immoral, yet said act is legal- then one has no business telling the person that they shouldn’t do said act. It’s not their business regardless of what it is.

Do you really not see the problems with this? This discussion may be about eating meat, but you just made a general statement about when it is and isn't okay to tell people that what they're doing is wrong.

This is a literal defense of slavery. I'm not even misinterpreting it or taking it to a logical conclusion like that other comment I left, you are straight up saying that abolitionists are wrong when they tell slave owners that they shouldn't own slaves if slavery is legal in their region.

Edit: y'all can read through this thread if you like, but we literally got nowhere except for this guy blocking me. Either he cannot understand the problems with his underlying logic, or he is ideologically consistent and thinks that the Holocaust was totally fine because it was legal and it didn't hurt him.

Meanwhile, the weakest vegan in the comments

inb4 some room temperature IQ replies with "are you really equating eating meat with slavery?"

No, slavery is worse than animal agriculture. That doesn't mean that animal agriculture isn't wrong for the same reasons that slavery is. You're driving a demand for unnecessary harm to be done to sentient beings for a product you don't need to survive.

If someone wants to eat a steak, who cares?

The cow

Realizing now the mistake one makes when trying to remain neutral in a discussion where vegans are involved.

"Realizing now the mistake one makes when trying to remain neutral in a discussion where abolitionists are involved" ~ someone in 1850s Kansas, trying to remain neutral in a discussion about slavery and complaining about those damn abolitionists who can't see the nuance in owning people

So does my phone when the battery is low. Do you reckon I'm hurting it by not plugging it in right now?