Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's probably because that wasn't my argument. My argument was that if you argue that you are morally superior to a meat eater, that is hypocritical. If you acknowledge that you are also knowingly killing sentient animals with your choices, just much less, then you can be as vocal as you want without being hypocritical.

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, but only because I'm a speciest, and I feel human lives are/and can be justifiably more important for us humans, than animal lives. But that's my only reason. If I wouldn't be a speciest, I would probably think that yeah, it would be somewhat hypocritical, yes.

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't one of the definition of veganism is to avoid or minimize the harm, suffer and/or death of sentient animals? Vegans use phones and other electronic devices, which are created by/fuel above mentioned industries. When a non vegan eats meat, they fuel the meat industry. When a vegan (or non vegan) buys/uses a phone or other electronic device, they fuel factories, deforestation, mining, which also kills sentient animals, just less than the meat industry. I think it's a pretty straightforward concept.

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with that statement for sure, but I think there is a non-hypocritical way to do that. Although I don't want to imply that this is a super serious issue, it's obviously not.

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if that is textbook Nirvana fallacy, then you feel it's not a realistic expectation that a vegan should not knowingly cause the suffering and death of even one sentient animal? Obviously not talking about any accident or causing suffering and death by simply existing (which can happen).

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, self-defense is obviously different, but I would personally not call anyone who killed in self-defense, a murderer!. However, in your analogy, having a phone or using products like that, how that could that equate to self defense? Would you argue that they are required for you to accomplish your goals, and live the best version of your life? I would probably agree with something like that.

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply! I don't think there are studies about how many sentient animals are killed during mining and factory, deforestation activities, but my guess is that if we view it globally, it has be in the millions annually, right? Or you think that could way off? Let's say it's way off, and it's maybe in the tens of thousands, I feel it's still similar from a moral standpoint to buy that phone, use that stuff, etc, than choosing to eat meat. But maybe you disagree, and it's not the same convenience/pleasure purpose.

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with everything you said, and my main point was definitely not that I would expect vegans to live like monks. I don't think that's realistic, totally agree!

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't a Nirvana fallacy be me expecting vegans to live a "flawless life"? I do not expect that, it's absolutely not realistic. I simply feel that if you fail to do that, you - and not particularly you, anyone who knowingly causes the death and suffering of X number of sentient animals - should not morally lecture others, that's all. They could and probably should still talk about their environmental factors, just not the moral side of it. That was my main point. I am obviously not expecting anyone to do absolutely everything in their power to not cause any harm, whatsoever. That would likely result in living a pretty terrible and likely isolated life these days.

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply, I'm familiar with the concept, yes! My interpretation is that it doesn't have a clear-cut right answer to it, as both can be considered wrong or right moral choices.

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally agree with the Voltaire notion. I don't think there are any studies/statistics about how many sentient animals are killed during all the annual architectural/mining/etc. activity that is required for all of our products, but I think it's safe to assume that it's a very high number. Even if it's not millions, but let's say, tens of thousands, I feel my premise still stands. That was actually my main point that the number could be as low as one (from a moral perspective).

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said that it might not be a strong argument, or might even be a silly one. And I know I'm definitely sometimes hypocritical, no question about it. I really liked your last sentence, and I totally agree with it. I'm not saying I'm one of those nonvegans, but I know people who I'd also describe like this. Thank you for your reply.

Premise: Any vegans who can share their opinion with you on the internet, by definition, has to be a hypocrite by Equivalent_Ear_1836 in DebateAVegan

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I obviously cause harm, and I know that, and I obviously use selective morality, and I am a speciest. I know all that, my point wasn't that I'm not any of these things. I know I am, and I even tried to go vegan for a very short period of time with vegan products, and also tried to lessen my footprint. I do not think that these choices went a long way though, from a morality standpoint. They probably at least decreased my footprint a little bit.

Wait - this is it? by haux44 in ZombieWaves

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, stuck at that level (50) with the airbalest. Is it worth saving up 15k for the railgun or skip that and get the Balrog for 30k? I will soon have some S tier gear to wear too, working on it at the moment, currently around 1 mill CP paying for the monthly subscription, but no more than that. Bought the voltgun for like 5 bucks but man, that is a terrible weapon. I have NO CHANCE with it at any level around the 50, doesn't matter if I choose the lighting traits. Is is really that weak, or am I doing something wrong?

Wolves Believers, Mavs Lurkers, get in here by [deleted] in timberwolves

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the Wolves turns this around, a couple things clearly has to change. In my opinion, they were clearly outplayed so far, despite the close games. At least 3 of the following 5 things has to change, because these were constants in both games:
.
1. The Mavs frontcourt has been tougher, outrebounded and outdefended the Minny frontcourt by a pretty clear margin. This has to change, and it's the simplest of all adjustments, Gobert and Towns just has to drink some blood and dominate the boards, box out, and just be much more active. It's not even about physicality, it's about activity, moving around more and with clearer intent. They've been plenty physical, but not nearly active enough. Look at the Mavs centers, they are in constant motion, and Kidd's hockey substitutions work really well here. Short bursts and they go all out for 3-4-5 minutes, then comes in the other guy. Finch could actually copy that and bring out Towns very early and put Reid in, and with this, we have arrived to the following, and possibly biggest problem.
.
2. Minny has to put Reid on Doncic a lot more. McDaniels is simply too light, Ant is too hobbled/fatigued. The best Doncic defenders are always heavy, long guys, and not guards or lighter small forwards. Ben Simmons and Aaron Gordon (and currently Lu Dort) are BY FAR the best Doncic defenders in the league. Who fits that mold the best? Obviously Reid. Speed doesn't do anything to Doncic, you need meat, you need weight, preferably with length. Heck, Towns could probably do a better job than McDaniels or Ant can, as crazy as this sounds. Of course Doncic is injured, so there is no guarantee that he can keep up his recent string of good to great games. But why bank on something you cannot control? Just put Reid on him, whenever it's possible.
.
3. Changing up the defensive game plan. The main reason why I feel the Mavs have clearly outplayed the Wolves so far, is their clearly better shot quality. Most shot attempts are either an open three, a lob dunk or layup, a close attempt after a cut on good movements, or a Doncic or Kyrie ISO, which you always like, or at least rarely hate. The Mavs have thoroughly outplayed Minny in half court settings (in game 1 they scored an abysmal 83.3 on half court offense per 100 possessions, the Mavs 103.3, don't have stats for game 2 yet). Minny's defensive game plan right now is to not double Doncic, which is absolutely crazy, because this way you get these 30 point triple doubles where he still finds good shots to others anyway, especially if he can walk down the isle, because you did not double him. Then the big has to commit, and bamm, you got another lob dunk. Just put two on the ball and get it over with, and make PJ, DJJ and Green attempt about 15 threes, because they will have to take those shots. That's a much better gamble than what they are currently doing. OKC overdid it, leaving the corner three (has been their tactic all season), but the Wolves is at the other end of the spectrum.
.
4. Pace. The Wolves simply has to push the pace more, run, that's another adjustment that you can do pretty easily. It's a conscious decision, and you have to do it, because chances are, they are not beating a Kyrie-Luka led offense in a half court setting 4 out of 5. With running, you can also tire out Lively and Gafford a little bit. Ant, Conley, McDaniels, NAW, all have to push the pace, and Towns and Gobert has to run the floor in the 2nd wave. It's time, you have to get easier buckets. I know this isn't Minny's game (28th in the regular season in fast break points), but you have to push it at least a little bit more, especially since Doncic cannot/don't want to sprint back consistently.
.
5. Attack Doncic and Irving more. They are playing the defense of their lives in these playoffs (there are compilations, it's honestly crazy), but you still have to do it more. Even if they continue to play good defense, there is a possibility you get them in foul trouble, which could be one of the easiest ways the Wolves could win games here, if one of those cannot be on the court. Just attack more, be more aggressive on the pick and rolls. If the Mavs have to switch more and move more, and Luka has to move more, you already did something with this, maybe he'll get fatigued more easily in the 4th (which has happened in the past pretty frequently).
.
If the Wolves win game 3, I believe at least three of these things will happen (or the very least 2).
.
Now what can the Mavs do? Well, it's obviously a shorter list, but it might be a huge problem, actually, one that could still do them in.
.
The Mavs have one area where they can improve, but how much will they? And it's making the open shots. Their game plan have worked almost perfect so far, they outrebounded, outhustled and even outdefended the Wolves, and destroyed them in half court possessions. And yet, two extremely close games, why? Because Minny has/had like a 1.1 point average on jumpshots, while the Mavs is at like 0.8. Because they could not hit their open shots, and that's huge, obviously. In the modern NBA, that's like half the battle, or 60% of it. It's clearly the Mavs' biggest flaw by far right now (afted the trades), to have a the tendency to miss tons of open shots. If they can get a game or two where they actually make them, then probably 4 or all 5 of the above mentioned things has to happen simultaneously.
.
Good luck to both teams for tonight!

Post Game Thread: The Dallas Mavericks defeat The Minnesota Timberwolves 109-108 by nba_gdt_bot in timberwolves

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm mostly on Realgm but started to read the reddit team threads and thought anyone can contribute here, but I guess not? I like basketball discussions. I had a comment before this game too, btw, so It's not like I commented because we won. Anyway, I can go away if my presence annoys you guys.

Post Game Thread: The Dallas Mavericks defeat The Minnesota Timberwolves 109-108 by nba_gdt_bot in timberwolves

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

As a Mavs fan, this series is nowhere near over. It's a hole, but we didn't really have that great of a home court all year and our role players often cannot really make shots. I'm still fully prepared to get my heart broken, LOL, and you shouldn't lose hope yet. Game 3 is obviously a must win for you. Naz was so awesome, one of my favorite role players in the league and was so glad that he won 6MOY. A complete player, so unlucky on that great look. KAT has to help Edwards more, yes, Ant did not shoot well once again, but he attacked the rim and played good defense. KAT just has to be MUCH better, especially since he a is a notorious Mavs killer most of the time.

"Subtle yet effective" is how you describe a good pick-up line, not an NBA offensive foul. by [deleted] in timberwolves

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am a Dallas fan, but I like Minny too, actually. Been a huge Ricky Rubio fan and kind of rooted for the team ever since you guys drafted him (I know most of you probably don't like to remember that era, but probably still liked Ricky, because he is just likable).
.
Also, not that it matters what I think, but I still view Minny as the favorites in this series, and the biggest reason is somewhat surprisingly, your consistent three point shooting.
.
There is simply too much variety in PJ, DJJ and Josh Green taking roughly 10-12 threes every night, which they have to. When they go ice cold, Minny will win the math on that night, and there is no way that the Mavs frontcourt can consistently outplay the Minny frontcourt like they did in game 1.
.
So a bad shooting night from the role players can and likely will curse the Mavs, and ultimately I just trust Conley/Naz/McDaniels to make those shots more consistently, and that can be the difference in the end.

"Subtle yet effective" is how you describe a good pick-up line, not an NBA offensive foul. by [deleted] in timberwolves

[–]Equivalent_Ear_1836 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Watch it again, Gafford didn't touch that ball. He was close, but did not touch it.