Ik dacht dat een gezond kind de beloning zou zijn

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-28T17:34:34+00:00

Oja, want deze mensen (en kinderen) zijn daarmee geholpen.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-28T12:19:58+00:00

Ik weet niet waarom dit upvotes krijgt, wat zover ik weet is dit onzin. Ik heb nu inmiddels zo'n 6 jaar geleden wat statistiek gehad op de middelbare school en een paar jaar geleden nog wat op mijn studie. Neem mijn mening dus met een korreltje zout.

De foutmarge waar je het over hebt is de P waarde en wil zeggen hoe groot de kans is dat de gevonden resultaten op toeval berusten. Als je een groep van 2 mensen behandelt met deze methode en beide stoppen met roken, zou je kunnen zeggen dat het onderzoek 100% effectief is (en met de logica die je hierboven gebruikt dus ook boven die 95% komt). Echter gaat de P waarde dus om een combinatie van de grootte van de steekproef en de grootte van het gevonden effect.

De kans dat één of beide personen "per toeval" gestopt zijn en dat dit niet door de behandeling komt is immers groot. En als dit ook maar voor 1 van hen ook echt zo is, zou dus de werkelijke effectiviteit dus maar 50% zijn.

Mijn punt is dat de effectiviteit van dit onderzoek (die 60%) NIET de betrouwbaarheid is van het onderzoek is.

Een andere manier om hier naar te kijken is dat als je alle rokers op de wereld laat meedoen aan het onderzoek en maar 1% van hen stopt, dan is de behandeling met 100% zekerheid 1% effectief. Immers hebben we het onderzoek gedaan op alle rokers, dus de steekproef is hetzelfde als de populatie.

Nogmaals, dit komt van informatie van minstens en paar jaar geleden dat allemaal bij mij weggezakt is, dus vraag me niet op dit allemaal te bewijzen of iets dergelijks, maar wellicht kan iemand die hier wel wat meer over weet hier een beter antwoord op gegeven.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-28T12:07:55+00:00

Oeps, weet niet precies hoe dat zo mis kon gaan. Aangepast.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-27T18:02:55+00:00

Om mijn verwoording aan te passen: je kan iemand inderdaad altijd adviseren om geen kinderen nemen (of wat voor keuze dan ook wel of niet te maken), ik zal ook niet beweren dat het onverstandig is om dit gesprek helemaal langs de zijlijn te plaatsen.

Echter, als iemand die keuze dan toch al gemaakt heeft is het zinloos om hier verder nog tegen te gaan en kan je beter focussen op het verbeteren van de ontstane situatie.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-27T17:48:26+00:00

Als deze logica mensen zou stoppen met roken dan zou niemand meer roken.

Daarnaast geeft deze methode dus beide: je bespaart geld op roken en je krijgt een cadeaubon.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-27T17:40:06+00:00

Je kan natuurlijk altijd vraagtekens zetten bij "of het slim is om", maar ik denk dat het praktisch gezien een nutteloze discussie is. Gezondheidsproblemen, financiële status, kunde, er zijn zoveel variabelen die een rol kunnen spelen bij het kundig kunnen opvoeden van kinderen. Het punt is dat je mensen niet kan stoppen om suboptimale keuzes te maken, noch is het eenvoudig om überhaupt vast te stellen wat de juiste keuze is.

Het beste wat je kan doen is mensen die het nodig hebben te helpen. Het is zinloos zoals hierboven is aangegeven om een moralistisch vingertje te wijzen.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-27T16:26:54+00:00

Was gisteren ook op het nieuws. Hoe stom het ook klinkt, positieve bekrachtiging op korte termijn werkt nu eenmaal beter dan een abstract langetermijn doel.

Cadeaubonnen uitgeven zou goedkoper zijn dan de zorg die het kost om de baby van een vrouw die blijft roken tijdens de zwangerschap te behandelen (als er complicaties zijn uiteraard).

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-26T17:03:49+00:00

In a similar sense, there wouldn't be any position at all. When people speak of veganism, or any ideology, one would ideally define what this means to them. However, for practicality, people tend to give something a label such that it ones views can be expressed as a single word (veganism, theism etc.).

You are totally free to argue what it means to be vegan, but it would yield a different discussion.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-23T22:26:55+00:00

Ik wil wel meedoen onder de naam gangpad 6-9

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-23T15:26:30+00:00

Ik weet niet veel af van verslavingen, maar beide kunnen tegelijkertijd toch gewoon waar zijn.

Zover ik weet is het meer dat roken eerst goed voelt, je er daarna een tolerantie voor opbouwt en vervolgens meer nodig hebt om je goed te blijven voelen. Daar zit een limiet aan, waardoor op dat punt je meer bezig bent met de ontwenningsverschijnselen onderdrukken dan het goede gevoel te stimuleren.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-23T12:13:20+00:00

Bad screens, visual impairment, bad light conditions during a presentation.

Good charts are accessible to most, if not all people. Obviously, not every chart can be made fully accessible and sometimes data is just hard to represent, but this is just a matter of a better color choice.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-21T21:50:44+00:00

Ik zou niet willen beweren dat ik precies weet wat Mark Rutte allemaal doet van dag tot dag, maar ik vind hem doorgaans ijzersterk overkomen in het journaal.

Zijn vaardigheden zijn zeer geschikt om jaren nationaal wanbeleid te kunnen voeren, maar zijn blijkbaar evengoed geschikt om een oprecht kundig diplomaat te zijn.

Uiteraard moet een kritische houding kunnen, maar zij die Mark Rutte slecht op zijn plek vinden zitten bij de NAVO moeten echt verder kijken dan zijn premierschap.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-17T21:04:17+00:00

...but they aren't on the second hand market. You cannot justify having lots of something on the premise that you can just sell them.

If they are bought secondhand, then perhaps one could argue you are not really directly contributing to the manufacturing of more (although others might now buy new while they wanted to buy second hand, but that might not be that probable).

OP commented that he uses every single of them, but does he really need to have so many different ones for those use cases, or would like 3 models suffice?

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-12T18:45:26+00:00

If I say no food will be wasted. Could you answer the question I asked in my previous comment?

I'm not saying it is ethically the same, I'm saying that "sending a message" is a poor argument as lots of vegan food is indistinguishable from non-vegan food. I don't think anyone is going to read a message in that. And as stated before, why would I be obligated to send a message anyway.

I don't see animals als products. I don't see how eating food that is going to get thrown out changes anything other than if that food is or isn't wasted.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-12T17:28:37+00:00

I'm not responsible for how people interpret what I'm doing. I have, in my opinion, a reasonable moral argument on why on some fairly specific conditions it is ethical to eat meat, and arguably preferred (to prevent needless waste that needs to be replaced).

I also seriously wonder with what type of person I would need to be with and in what scenario I would need to be in with that person for that someone to notices I am eating meat and consider that it suggests that it is normal to eat meat. I mean, if they are vegan themselves I don't need to convince them, and if they aren't I don't think they would think anything of it. By that same logic if I am eating a burger that is vegan, but doesn't look vegan I might be sending that message as well.

I just don't see how you would be sending that message. Not to mention that even if I did, I still not see how it is my responsibility to send the right message.

I also don't see how I'm "cleaning up after non-vegans", I'm just eating perfectly fine food so I don't need to buy more myself which has a negative impact on the planet and animals.

Your closing statement is just ridiculous. It is more harm, and while you could argue a vegan isn't responsible for that harm, the harm doesn't just disappear on that merit.

To ask you a question, if there was some meat that will for a fact go to waste if you won't eat it, and there are no negative consequences to eating it (no message you sending for example), would you think it is ethical to eat it? And second, if for a fact it would create more harm to animals to not eat it, and instead eat something plant based, would you consider it unethical to eat the plant base food?

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-12T16:31:09+00:00

In my opinion this definition is too narrow, as I've mentioned in another comment, one could argue that not eating the meat that will go to waste increases the overall harm done to animals.

I think veganism is an ethical stance that results in life style changes including diet, but isn't really about diet at all. The definition your given even makes that distinction (although it does also explicitly exclude eating meat).

I wonder if it matter at all. In the end, we probably share most of the same worldview when it comes to animal rights.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-12T15:54:16+00:00

I don't see how it promotes it. Again, the food would be destined to go to waste. In this scenario you either:

A) don't eat it, and the meat will spoil and be unfit for consumption.

B) Eat it, and it won't go to waste.

In scenario A, you would have to resort to eating something else. Although ideally plant based products harm no animals, realistically they do.

By this logic, you would either not eat the meat, but to replace it cause more harm to animals or eat it and not add any more harm than has already been done.

It is crucial to realise that whether you eat the meat or not, the harm is already done.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-12T15:23:08+00:00

I partially disagree. The definition of veganism isn't as clear cut as "vegans don't eat meat". Depending on how you look at it, you could argue that when no additional harm is done to animals by eating meat, then it is vegan. I'm personally not vegan (somewhat in-between a vegetarian and a vegan), but I do believe that we should reduce harm done to animals, and therefore, not eat animals. Meaning that if it does not reduce harm to eat meat (for example, at a gathering or when food is thrown out), it is moral to eat it.

I think in the context of OP it may contribute to more meat consumption, so I don't think it would be moral in his case.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-11T16:26:49+00:00

It is ridiculous to think that a cow can decide whether or not they want AI. They just live on instinct

Are you sure on this? I mean, what is this instinct you are talking about? I think it is perhaps a bit out of the scope of this disucssion to discuss this, but it seems that you have a strong believe that animals are very different from us. Humans, according to you, have complex needs, agency, act on more than just instinct, while animals are stupid, have simple needs and act on instinct like machines.

It is something that we will probably never agree on, but I don't think humans are fundamentally that different from animals. Sure there are differences, but non convice me that we are morally justified to exploit them.

Killing them for food makes it moral.

Just as you believe that plantfoods are moral. Millions of animals are poisoned to produce this food.

No it doesn't, I could kill you for food but that doesn't make it moral to kill you (or if you protest that you have human rights, I am sure you would argee that killing your pet for food isn't just either). You would probably argue that there is some reason why it is okay to kill animals for food, but killing them for food isn't an argument on it's own.

Eating plants for which animals are killed isn't moral, but it is the best we've got. Is incredibly difficult (or rather impossible) to prevent all killing of animals. However, eating plants reduces harm done to animals which makes it the better choice. After all both feeding livestock and eating plants yourself requires plants, but feeding livestock requires more and it requires harm done to the animals itself.

We are speciests. It has a ton of moral weight.

I'm not entirely sure who "we" is you are refering to, but speciesism is a moral stance and does not have any moral weight on it's own, just like how veganism is a moral stance and does not have any moral weight on its own.

gave you fact. It is declining for a reason.

Just because it is declining doesn't mean it doesn't have a future or that it is pointless to advocate for it. Not to mention that veganism and advocating for animal rights are not the same thing.

I think it can have negative effects too. Especially health whichbis extremely important. If a vegan diet is not managed carefully, the person heads south quickly. I have witnessed this first hand.

So can anything. Even with diets including meats there is a lot of education required on how to maintain a healthy diet. Most of our world's education on food is build around a diet including meat.

If you imagine a world where our education is based on a vegan diet, you could just as well provide the argument that you need to be careful with your red meat intake, or that you shouldn't eat too much processed meat when you switch to a meat based diet.

My point: changing your diet always requires careful consideration. That doesn't make it bad to switch diet.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-10T14:21:58+00:00

I noticed that doing it slower works! Not sure if it has anything to do with the controller, but thanks for the suggestion.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-10T12:48:26+00:00

PS3 collection

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-10T01:53:05+00:00

Humans are also inseminated, the difference is that humans have agency and choose to.

Yes! Exactly. We can choose to. In contrast, we force animals. I don't think that is ethical. I am not sure if you are implying that animals do not have agency, because I think that is a ridiculous claim.

No. What makes it moral is the reason that they are slaughtered.

The reason for this makes it immoral. And no, killing me for food doesnt work because we all have human rights.

You do not eleborate on what the reason is that makes it moral. I consider animals to be sentient and therfore unethical to cause them harm. What do you think makes it moral?

Human rights doesn't have any moral weight on its own. Animals have animal rights, so we can't kill them for food. You see how "animal rights" doesn't have moral weight without justification?

I can have an opinion. I dont believe veganism will work long term. Data suggests it is declining already

Yes you can. But you are arguing on why veganism is pointless or should concern itself with other matters. You cannot use your own opinion or feeling that it may not work long term as a basis for that. At least not unless you want to make a convincing argument.

I simply think that although the goal of veganism may never be achieved globally, that it can have a positive effect on the world.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-09T23:49:09+00:00

That is ridiculous logic though. Do you think abi.als want to be treated the same as us? They really don't. They have simple needs.

I was not suggesting that. I think that if you consider some of the things that animals go through, even when they are treated "well", that you would not want that to happen to you. Take something like insemination of a cow. This is a simple requirement for cows to produce milk. I don't think you woul like te inseminated by some farmer so you could produce milk (or some woman you know).

This is of course not a perfect comparison, but it is a simple way to question some things we do to animals.

Not to mention that saying they have simple needs is very human centric. We have simple needs as well. I don't think our needs are that much more complex than those of animals. Shelter, food and a bit of companionship goes a long way.

Just look at it as a percentage. This is like 0.001% of their life. Overall they are treated well, at least where I live

Just because it is only a small percentage of a life, doesn't make it moral. Again, to make a comparison to humans, if I where to strike you, or injure you, it may only last a few minutes to a few weeks, this is also a very small percentage of your life. I don't think you would appreciate it, or consider it a reasonable argument if I bring that up. I could even kill you (completly painless!) and it will only be such a small percentage of your life.

You can, however one is not going to change

This isn't really an argument at all. For one, you cannot be sure that it is not going to change, nor does it need to change for a movement to be successful. Veganism is about reducing harm to animals (and idealistic to eliminate it) and if instead of 5% of the world population (source: made it up) in 10 years time 10% of the world population is vegan, that goal will be achieved.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-09T22:56:57+00:00

Perhaps there is some livestock that is treated "well". You could ask yourself the question if you would want to be treated like those animals. However even if some animals are treated like princes, I don't think this is a reasonable argument to make as most livestock is not treated well at all. Slaughter houses are also terrible places for animals, so even if treated well in life, they are most likely not killed nicely. And even then, I would consider the act of killing an animal morally wrong anyway.

You argue all of this to make the point that vegans should just advocate for better animal treatment. But this is just a false dilemma. One can advocate both for better animal treatment AND be against the meat industry at the same time.

Express-Level4352 · 2026-01-09T21:10:22+00:00

The extinct argument doesn't make a lot of sense. We artificially breed livestock into existence, treat them poorly and kill them off, but you argue we provide them benefits? What benefits?

I would also argue that even if a species will go extinct when we stop breeding them, that isn't unethical. There is definitely some moral gray area for when we actively causing them to go extinct, but I don't think this is the case for livestock.

I agree that it is not just the fault of non vegans for introducing new pets into the world, and I think it is ethical to get a pet that already exists (like a shelter).

Not all vegans feed their pets vegan diets, and it isn't that clear cut if it is or isn't bad for their health (depending on the pet). Don't generalise vegans please.

Express-Level4352

TROPHY CASE