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

Showing 25 of 304 results for

domain:youtube.com

Lab-grown meat strikes me as like deciding that it's evil to draw pictures of Mohammed, but if you use a special light refraction method, you can have something that looks sort of like Mohammed but doesn't count as a picture for religious purposes, so Muslims lobby for use of this method and dozens of scientists spend millions of dollars figuring out how to get people to accept this method instead of normal photography.

It's simpler than that- the protesters are simply the classic story of the Golem who thinks he's a real boy. The protestors stupidly believe they are empowered by righteousness when in reality they are just walking LLMs who have been trained on a paradigm that was useful up until the point Israel needed to slaughter tens of thousands civilians and ethnically cleanse Gaza. Although it should be noted the paradigm is still very useful, the Golem is running amok on college campuses but is flexing as much political power as ever, directing legislation that continues down the European-style path of banning anti-Semitism, constantly flowing unlimited money to Israel, and controlling the media narrative.

All of this backlash is just reality hitting the protestors that they never had real power in the first place, and they do not now.

One of my thoughts on this issue is it highlights I am not a free speech absolutists. A quote from Godfather 2 highlights my view on this:

“Michael: The soldiers are paid to fight, the rebels aren't.

Hyman: What does that tell you?

Michael: They can win.“

When we had campus protests a decade ago I did not care. College kids being silly and they will grow up and take the corporate job and pop out a couple kids. Now I watch the protests and I see a future Supreme Court Judge, the executive team at Disney, and at worse a future HR executive whose rules I need to follow or I end up unemployed.

I do not care about your speech when I think it will just stay in academic circles or in fringe communities. Today I am increasingly pessimistic that it will stay only speech and instead fear that it will become the government. How does a liberal Democracy protect itself if it’s very values allow it to be attacked? Pacifism seems cool until the Mongol horde is outside your door.

It’s also made me greatly admire the Jewish community which seems capable of defending themselves while white people seem to just rollover when their interests are attacked. Judaism at its core is a people while White America’s core is the slave morality of Christianity. Conversion to Judaism in Christian white spaces is starting to become a small thing. Antonio Martínez García converted. There are rumors Milei wants to convert but has not for political reasons as the leader of a Catholic nation. If I was not a believer in Christ I would convert.

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.

This has got to be one of the most pointlessly evil bills ever. And I say this as someone who is very much not vegetarian.

You WILL kill ze pig. You WILL kill ze chicken. You WILL kill ze cattle. And you WILL be happy.

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.

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.

Free Market Conservatism strikes again. This is primarily about protecting the economic interests of agrarian elites, secondarily about visceral disgust, and little bit about aesthetic anti-environmentalism. Other reasons offered are not necessarily insincere, but they are... noncentral? Which is to say, having them conclusively disproven wouldn't change many minds.

Dean Black, a cattle rancher and one of the Republican Florida representatives who pushed for the bill’s passage, told NBC News that cultivated meat is a national security concern.

“Although the FDA has said that this type of product is safe, that doesn’t mean it’s healthy,” Black said. “In Florida, we don’t want our citizens used as guinea pigs.”

Far be it from Florida to allow its citizens to pursue unhealthy habits.

Justin Tupper, president of the United States Cattlemen’s Association, called the bill a “win” for similar reasons. Although he said he doesn’t fear competition, he is concerned about chemicals in the new product.

-

But Rossmeissl and Shapiro said there’s little merit to health concerns, because cultivated meat has near identical nutritional value to real meat. Furthermore, conventional meat often has fecal and intestinal pathogens, and antibiotic residues, that need to be cooked out for safe consumption, Shapiro said.

Ban their stuff before they ban ours.

I don't see why the do gooders couldn't undo this ban and ban real meat anyway if they have the kind of influence to enact a ban on real meat in the first place. "Get them before they get us" doesn't apply if you are not, in fact, getting them.

I don't really believe in first mover advantage for laws, laws get overturned all the time. What appears as first mover advantage is likely just durable public sentiment.

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.

Like there is no tactic that makes me instinctively hate someone more than a leftist who wants to mandate outcome B telling people that they shouldn't mandate outcome not-B because "mandates are wrong". It's pure "Darwin says whatever words make the meat puppets do what he wants," with zero respect for the target as a thinking human being.

This seems like a very strange thing to say. A vegetarian leftist who wants to mandate the end of animal slaughter wants to do so because they think it is unjustified violence, comparable to murder. But they understand that their values aren't universally shared, so they come up with more limited animal welfare arguments grounded in more commonly held values in the wider society they belong to. That's not demonstrating "zero respect for the target as a thinking human being" - it's being pragmatic about how to achieve some limited version of their goals and build a coalition in a representative liberal democracy.

Like, if a pro-choice person A is talking to a morally pro-life, politically libertarian person B, of course A is going to appeal to B's political libertarianism when it comes to discussing how the government should legislate around abortion, regardless of what other disagreements they might have. This isn't trying to turn other people into meat puppets to do your bidding, it's respecting and understanding other people enough to try and meet them where they're at in order to achieve a compromise outcome both of you can accept.

In all of these cases, there's the same belief that the Americans being mind-controlled lack their own agency and that an utterly trivial investment on the part of foreign actors can create a completely inorganic belief system within the United States.

They can change the relative size and influence of existing movements even if they can't create movements from scratch.

"Destroy your opponent before they can destroy you" does not at all sound like the "reasonable answer". Especially since this won't literally destroy them, they'll still exist and be even more ravenous to seize the reins of power. It seems like the actually reasonable answer is to de-escalate and decrease the power and influence of the government so people can make their own choices about their own personal lives.

I don't even get why there are "sides". I don't care whether the meat I eat comes from a "farm" or a "lab", I just care whether it's cheap, tasty, and nutritious. Let them both try their best and we can judge them and eat them according to our own preferences. I'm on team freedom, and that means nobody gets shut down pointlessly just to "own" the other side.

You should try to elaborate on making it a bit more clear.

Yes, protesters are important for democracy, for if they didn't protest, what excuse for political action would there be ?

the Golem is running amok on college campuses but is flexing as much political power as ever

Are you suggesting these protesters were funded, all along, by the same people who are now using the protests as an excuse to pass anti-semitism legislation ? (that, if it passes, is probably going to be struck down as unconstitutional, pretty soon )

Um. Ok. I've updated.

Having updated, I yield to anti-dan that they are more than just technichally correct. They are also correct. I'll also yield to you, for now- that the grazing fields can't be repurposed. I'm skeptical of this but I don't have the means to do a counterfactual analysis on every field at this time.

But as for factory farms, clearly you have a much stricter definition. I acknowledge that most cattle are not factory farmed their whole lives, and that the cattle in feedlots have more elbow room than in chicken factory farms.

but whatever you want to call these things: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Five+Rivers+Cattle+Feeding-+Interstate+Feeders/@42.2862795,-113.3138525,1875m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x80aaf6984afed193:0x249cafeffb8a8530!8m2!3d42.2831921!4d-113.3150227!16s%2Fg%2F1thkxj9_?entry=ttu

definitely exist, and are representative of the largest cattle finishing operations. In fact this is one of them. Now. the number of months spent here vary.

This company for instance claims that their cattle spend spring and summer grazing, then they spend 120 days in the feed lot. https://www.lazyt.com/the-story-of-your-beef

That's still over a third of their lives. And these numbers are fairly standard. 97% of cattle are grain finished, and that typically means something in the range of 6-15 months grazing followed by 4-6 months finishing. Depending on breed and operation.

Not all feed lots are the same, but the highest volume ones do look like this.

There. Is that accurate?

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.

I would kill for a nice porterhouse.

You have that option, though it's quite difficult given the other work involved. Or you can just buy the ones where someone else has done the killing and all the rest for you. If you'd (literally) kill for a decent steak, there's no reason to be a vegetarian.

The average person is much more likely to get themselves killed in the forest through ignorance, misadventure, or just bad luck, than any encounter with man or beast. There is in fact a dangerous person lurking in the woods; it's you.

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

Isn't hiking/trekking supposed to be a communal/social activity?

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

The purpose of debate is not to convince the other side, it's to convince the audience. It is to their benefit that I address the claims you make, rather than allowing those claims to sit un-rebutted.

You're wrong, and I'm not going to stop pointing out when you're wrong.

@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.

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.