site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 314 results for

domain:youtube.com

the suffering is not an integral part of the process

I beg to differ. The spite I feel towards vegans improves the pleasure from eating meat. Also the suffering is a bulwark against becoming like that girl featured here recently, who had turned her apartment into a breeding colony for pest insects.

"Those", being the same government that just banned it?

This is only true in the sense that groups pushing gun rights are already talking about establishing a white ethnostate.

While consuming far more diesel than ever, far more artificial fertilizers, degrading soil faster than ever and using enormous amounts of antibiotics. Modern agriculture isn't sustainable, it is built on using slowly replinishing resources at a high rate.

Modern new left liberalism is a very radical ideology that doesn't get sufficient negativity for it.

No it isn’t. The world bank, WHO, rules-based-international-order of neoliberalism? That’s about as nonradical as you can get. Aggressively not radical. It files the sharp edges off the communists and the reactionaries in order to keep things running a little more smoothly.

A South Africa that didn't allow parties like ANC and those more extreme, and such politicians found themselves in prison, and parties and organizations with such agenda banned

How do you think that’s enforced? How do you make sure the right people get suppressed? For every apartheid SA there’s a lovely Cambodia or North Korea or Rwanda descending into bloodshed. The best situation we’ve found, empirically speaking, is to weaponize tolerance. That’s liberalism.

Personally I would have annexed Gaza (and the West bank too for good measure) and made everyone there a citizen. Then treat any terrorists as common criminals and punish them to the full extent of the law. This would also solve the Haredim problem in one fell swoop (or at least delay it for two generations) and crush the Israeli far right because now there are an extra two million people who'll never vote for them.

In this scenario everyone wins except for the terrorists and far right nutters; both of which are groups that deserve to have a boot stamping on their face for eternity.

Does a bear wanna kill me ?

Afaik, only 3 kinds of bears attack humans

  • Polar bears for food
  • Mother bears to save subs (a solo bear has no subs, so not a factor here)
  • Other bears when they scared
  • Sloth bears cuz they crazy

A Polar bear will need to be starved for weeks before it starts hunting the one other human in the forest. And they don't climb trees, so I can reliably protect myself in the short term. Most other bears can be avoided strategically.

The reason humans are scary is that a serial killer will want to start planning their kill from minute 1. You have to fight the human on even ground. On the other hand, the bear will take ages before it decides to engage with you. You can plan your engagement with it perfectly.

That's why a sloth bear is the scrariest. They can climb trees, eat more often, actively engage with humans and react with incredible aggression. Nothing I can do. Dead before sunrise.

Thankfully, Florida is not the only polity on the planet, and lab grown meat can still be marketed elsewhere when and if it becomes commercially viable. So this ban doesn't prevent the development of an alternative.

That would allow you to pretend you're not just another variety of socialist.

I'm sure that's what she tried doing before Mother Nature snuffed her out.

The issue is that we can't have 10 billion peole living a western lifestyle on a finite planet. The amount of water, artificial fertilizers, pesticides and antibiotics required for 10 billion people eating meat twice a day is simply not feasible. I don't think anyone is really enthusiastic over bug meat, it is simply an adaption to over population. Personally I would go for fewer people living on less industrially produced meat.

In this thread we're talking about a government action. It doesn't really make sense to say that the government banned something so that the government wouldn't mandate it.

Then you are incorrect. If I didn't commit to veganism when my wife wanted me too, then I am not going to because other people do. I have no qualms about eating cats or dogs either.

Fads come and go.

Because if things worked the way you think they do them presumably YOU and everyone else should currently support lab grown meat because it is currently not legislated against?

Its just not how things work.

The problem there of course is that Vegan groups don't speak for or represent the opinion of most people, probably even for most people who might think developing lab grown meat might be somewhat useful, but still are fine with also eating animals.

So you pre-emptively create a division that might not ever have been a problem. Now if I do think lab meat could be useful, you are driving me to have to side with the vegans, in order to oppose your ban! When my opinion is probably just sure, let's try it out, might be handy for feeding people and if it turns out to be cheaper then that's a good thing, but I am still gonna enjoy my regular ole cow-burger.

It's only a good tactic if the radical side really is strong enough to co-opt the moderates, and my experience is at least for veganism that is just not gonna fly. Otherwise you are actually spurring a coalition to form, that may have remained fractured.

I mean, sure, people are pragmatic and meta-pragmatic all the time. I don't really see the point of this anti-lab grown meat bill, since I think meat eating is so culturally dominant that it won't be wiped out within our life times just because lab grown meat becomes affordable and widely available. More likely, vegetarianism will remain a costly social signal of a minority of people until the diet becomes indistinguishable from meat eating in terms of price and flavor, and then when it is practically effortless a law might eventually pass that bans animal slaughter altogether.

It's going to be exactly what happened with slavery. Banning slavery when an entire regional economy depends on it is difficult to accomplish, and probably requires a war and imposition of force. Living in a world where everyone has 200 to 8000 energy slaves thanks to electricity and industrialization makes being anti-slavery very easy, basically without cost to the individual. I think I would be more likely to see the point of slavery if I had to fetch my own water, grow, prepare and cook my own food from scratch, clean my clothes by hand, wash my dishes by hand, etc.

@FCfromSSC was too nice to mod you (and to be clear, did not ask anyone else to either). But calling people liars is about as directly antagonistic as it gets. Even if you think someone is lying (and you may be right, people do sometimes lie about what they actually believe or what their intentions are or even about stated facts), you need to stop at "I don't believe you, for such-and-such reason." Emphatically and repeatedly calling someone a lying liar because you see the world through different lenses (and fwiw, if I were forced to adjudicate who's factually correct here, I'd be more inclined to side with you than FC) is not okay.

You have 4 AAQCs and no prior warnings. But I'm still giving you a 1-day ban to emphasize this point. For someone who spams reports on every other poster in the Motte who ever expresses an arch sentiment like you were watering your lawn, you really should know better, or at least act like you do.

If you have specific counterfactuals that you want considered, I think we'll be better off doing the study ourselves. We should be able to get numbers on acreage and on gross industry input and output and run napkin math.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Reports_By_Date/

Hmm. Yep ok. I can see why most people just let someone else do the several days of data science this is going to take. I still think gwerning it yourself is going to be your best bet at coming to a reasoned opinion you can trust though.

The primary reason that people who are vegan/vegetarian (for non-religious reasons, and even plenty of those) condemn the consumption of meat is because their heart aches at the idea of eating cute little animals, with souls,

The primary reason why people don't like pictures of Mohammed is because their heart aches at the idea, except for religious reasons.

I am agnostic on lab-grown meat. If it tastes good, is cheap, and is of comparable healthiness to legacy meat, I will eat it.

I'm sure that if non-picture pictures of Mohammed were good enough, non-Muslims would be agnostic about using them. It's not as if non-Muslims think that pictures have to be real pictures, as long as they look fine and serve their function. Same as for the meat.

Is that actually true? The cows in the fields by the side of the highways of middle America, yes. sure. But what percentage of our meat comes from them and what percentage comes from the shoulder to shoulder cows in factory farms?

The US department of agriculture tends to be biased in a pro farming direction right? So this should be a reasonable source.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-glance/

Cattle feeding operations are concentrated in the Great Plains region but are also located in parts of the Corn Belt, Southwest, and Pacific Northwest regions. Feedlots with less than 1,000-head capacity comprise most of U.S. feedlot operations, but they market a relatively small share of the fed cattle. Conversely, although feedlots with 1,000-head-or-greater capacity are less than 5 percent of total feedlots, they market 80–85 percent of fed cattle. Feedlots with a capacity of 32,000 head or more market around 40 percent of fed cattle. The industry continues to shift toward a small number of very large, specialized feedlots focused on raising high-quality cattle for a particular market, such as markets requiring cattle not treated with hormones and not fed beta agonists. USDA, NASS provides monthly Cattle on Feed reports.

Now... you may be wondering- what's a specialized feedlot? Do these cows really never graze? My searches indicate that feedlots generally aim to rapidly fatten cows on cultivated grains, but sometimes, cows are started in their youth on grazing, before being moved to concentrated feed lots for grain-finishing.

I'm not quite invested enough to do a full research essay quantifying the number of calories that come from "free" grass. But it seems safe to say that-

Most cows don't eat cultivated plants for their entire diet. They graze on "free" grasslands.

Is just false or misleading... At least in the United States. If your country's industry is a pastoral utopia then power to you.

Ok yes. The grain finished ones are starting on grasslands, you may well be the best kind of correct (technically correct). But then they bulk up on grains. What we really care about is how much non-free grain we use per cow and how many people we could feed with that land and labor. In fact... the 'free' grasslands also have opportunity costs, since land is a finite and often fungible resource for farming.

This whole "red-blue tribe" obsession and talk is utterly useless, imo. It's long turned into an excuse to vigorously engage in naked tribalist politics while hypocritically professing to speak about and above such.

Getting that off my chest, of course the heads of industry "lean right." They "lean right" everywhere. What pro-union socialist heads of industry can you name? Honestly, trying to do away with simplistic political memology, what do you think California is? Some Communist monolith? The is the state of Nixon and Reagan, "right to work" laws, and prop 13. There's millions of people of every political stripe.

This doesn't constrain their future actions. It's just as easy to repeal this law and ban real meat as it was before the ban. Maybe if it were a constitutional amendment or something you'd have a point.

EA had 46 billion dollars in committed funding in 2021, and was growing at 37% per year, according to 80000hrs. If you could find white nationalists with that kind of clout, quoting them would be quite reasonable. And even I would be worried enough by that point to avoid getting a tan in case they won.

I remember a teacher from grade school who was very passionate about it, and dismayed by the ongoing process of 'less singing, more listening to music' and then, radios. She said it is a special sort of experience, that people should learn it. I hated singing then, only did it a little in the Scouts. Now I wish I'd tried giving it a go.

She was also extremely against street food and eating on the move, calling it uncultured. "If you're going to eat, you should sit down, take your time. It's a special occassion. Don't rush it, enjoy it." If only she knew...

With hindsight, I understand her attitudes and her exasperation much more. All she feared came to pass, and more. I think it's fortunate that people die, because were some of early 20th century guys around and hale, we'd probably have art/culture related terrorism.

Also hated most of rock music, calling it primitive and just bad. She was very fond of Queen and held them as an example of actually good popular music.

How fast do you want someone on board? Do you care about the stack or do you just need someone great at a couple?

I could find similar quotes online by white nationalists planning their own long march through the institutions. That doesn't mean I should assume any policy proposal such people might agree with is being directed by them and must be fought tooth and nail to keep us off a slippery slope towards racial separatism. Playing culture war whack-a-mole makes you look crazy to outsiders and weakens one's position, whether you are a wokescold arguing about Halloween costumes or a conservative grandstanding on behalf of steak and bacon.