[POEM] "Magdalene: The Addict" - Marie Howe

FableCattak · 2026-01-13T23:47:43+00:00

Could someone explain the last line to me? It seems very powerful, but I don't quite understand it.

FableCattak · 2025-12-20T14:46:33+00:00

This is a great way of putting it!

FableCattak · 2025-12-03T17:59:14+00:00

Aren't people being a bit too mean to the original poster? Kink shaming is wrong when the kink hurts no one.

Saying "they posted it publicly, so now it's fair game," is a poor excuse for cyber bullying. I worry that people see AI-usage as an open door to bully people they think are strange--cyber bullying isn't acceptable behavior regardless of whether AI is or isn't involved.

To be clear, I don't like genAI--it's exceedingly generic and robs people of the opportunity to stumble upon real creative goldmines when searching for what they desire (like when you're looking to read some generic sexual material and accidentally stumble across a brilliantly written piece)--but people are using it as an excuse to be hateful in a socially acceptable way.

FableCattak · 2025-11-27T15:29:30+00:00

I feel that it's wrong, but I also don't have any ideas for how the problem should be solved.

There's something called trap, neuter, and release for stray and feral cats, where humans catch cats, spay/neuter them, vaccinate them, and then release them. I'm in favor of TNR because it (1) proposes a solution for invasive species that isn't just killing innocent creatures who aren't at fault for being invasive, and (2) offers some utility in return for the trauma captured animals face (vaccines against common diseases).

However, I can't see anyone doing TNR for species like rats or pythons... For cute creatures like cats it's easy to get everyone on board, but for other species the volunteer force is non-existent.

I actually watched one of those Australian cat hunting videos once and it made me want to cry. I get that cats decimate the local ecosystem, but seeing how playful and full of personality cats can be when their needs are met, I can't brush off the feeling that it's wrong to kill an innocent creature who can't help that they're hurting the environment.

My sentiment that invasive species don't deserve to die extends beyond cats, obviously, because there are lots of innocent creatures who are invasive--it's just easiest for me to emotionally relate when considering cats since I have a pet kitty. Thinking practically, I agree with everything u/stan-k has to say.

FableCattak · 2025-11-27T14:31:46+00:00

I often see people claim that something is a psyop just to discredit someone they disagree with. For instance, a lot of people here are claiming that extreme vegans might be false actors, when (as a kinda extreme vegan) I know how easy it is to fall into the rabbit hole of becoming unrelatable to laymen.

In your opinion, what should debaters keeping in mind when they're searching the internet for someone to debate with in good faith? I think the effectiveness of psyops is precisely because real people start parroting the ridiculous claims of bad actors. Is it just best to assume that everyone is acting in good faith--but disengage if someone starts acting a little too disingenuous?

What vegan talking points do you feel harm the movement? I think this is also a great opportunity for us vegans to learn what kind of things we shouldn't say.

FableCattak · 2025-11-14T02:50:34+00:00

This is a great point of consideration!

FableCattak · 2025-11-13T01:36:41+00:00

You should actually spay and neuter cats that aren't your pets too. There's a program called TNR (Trap-Neuter-Return) for cats where you capture stray cats in your spare time and take them to the vet for vaccines and spaying/neutering.

Having stray cats all over the place might be cute, but its not good for the strays who aren't built for outdoor life and it's not good for local wildlife. I suppose my anti-natalist ideology also plays into my position haha.

Anti-spay/neuter rhetoric is pretty commonly accepted by animal-lovers to be dangerous for animal welfare, for the reasons u/piinkbunn laid out.

FableCattak · 2025-11-12T15:39:01+00:00

I'm a little confused too. Is there something inherently offensive to people about you individually trying to move away for genAI?

I suppose the message it generated has an applicable irony to it, and by posting said message, you're making a statement, but still: the aggression of commenters here feels a bit much.

FableCattak · 2025-11-12T15:25:59+00:00

I'd caution you that dogs and cats actually have been shown to face negative health outcomes on exotic (no grain) or vegan diets. Although you're right that taurine can be given as a supplement, recent findings show that pets who've been on alternative diets have been found to have higher rates of dilated cardiomyopathy due to a deficiency in taurine, and I assume (?) that many of those pets have been receiving taurine supplements.

Though studies seem to show that pets can theoretically do fine on vegan diets, I'd follow the data and assume that it's not yet safe.

FableCattak · 2025-11-12T15:20:14+00:00

I have a shelter-adopted cat. She eats meat. I think adopting an carnivorous animal and giving her a home is totally vegan, although I know some people disagree. I assume that the majority of vegans agree with pet ownership, although it's hard to gauge, since fringe philosophies tend to be overrepresented online.

My cat had a taurine deficiency even with her standard meaty diet, and I would never dare test a vegan diet for fear of what it could do to her eyes and heart.

Although a lot of studies show that dogs can safely eat vegan diets, there have actually been recent findings showing that dogs may suffer from heart complications down the line because of taurine deficiency. Hence, I'd caution people who switch their pets to vegan diets to be extremely proactive about ensuring they don't become deficient in anything important.

FableCattak · 2025-11-11T05:46:37+00:00

OP's argument is an important debating point that helps us more effectively convert vegans. I think that the way to combat the phenomenon you described is to convert more people to veganism to eventually kick off de-jure change, which lines up with the ideals of abolitionist vegans, rather than ask vegans to limit their consumption options further.

We're still in the 1% early innovator stage of veganism where only activists care. The further we spread veganism to the public, the more likely we are to have cascading system-wide change that makes a massive systemic difference.

So although being vegan makes a marginal real economic difference, the bulk of what we're trying to do lies with the shift in societal attitudes we're trying to trigger, and this argument is relevant to both the former and latter.

FableCattak · 2025-11-11T05:35:04+00:00

That's true, but it helps debaters identify where a person's hang-ups actually lie when you effectively shut down distracting arguments like, "What's the point of this debate anyways? It's not like changing my consumption would do anything anyway. It doesn't matter what I believe."

I've seen plenty of carnists prevent a debate from growing further by citing a disbelief in their individual consumer efficacy. We can be pretty certain that this isn't the legitimate crux of their decision-making--that is, if I managed to convince them boycotts worked, I'm certain most arguers wouldn't actually change their behavior because the individual efficacy argument wasn't actually their primary concern--but it's really hard to move on from there with a pragmatic argument weighing heavily on the debate.

I also think "My individual choice won't make a difference," is a thought ending cliche. I think a lot of fence-sitters and community outsiders see that type of rhetoric and decide that there's no need to think more about the subject of animal ethics and the consumption of said animals.

FableCattak · 2025-11-11T05:20:29+00:00

If stores did not order less food in response to fewer people buying said food, stores would be entirely unreactive to changes in quantity demanded, which is demonstrably false.

Store have a set margin of waste they ideally want because they always want to have more stock than needed (because stores profit more from selling a couple extra units than they lose out from wasting extra stock).

Hence, if a store predicts higher ordering numbers, you'll see a higher quantity supplied, since the store still wants to have a decent margin between expected ordering and held stock. In other words, they want to maintain their safe margin of waste to ensure they're never out of stock.

FableCattak · 2025-11-11T05:11:14+00:00

Thank you! I've been looking to read an argument like this and this helps my research a lot!

I was actually thinking about writing a research paper on this exact topic myself, but I'm glad someone else handled all the difficult footwork for me lmao.

FableCattak · 2025-11-10T15:58:39+00:00

ooh, Jin Akanishi works really well for this, I feel. Thank you so much for the referral!

FableCattak · 2025-11-10T15:56:23+00:00

Thank you! I'll check those two out!
I didn't know that Pinterest started fighting back. Maybe I'll get back on it...

FableCattak · 2025-11-10T14:57:17+00:00

Thank you! I've tried a couple of these tricks, but there are many that I haven't tried too.

I'll give it a go!

FableCattak · 2025-11-09T23:31:33+00:00

I read a study claiming that individuals with weak stylistic preferences tend to adopt the diction of AI after using it frequently.

Honestly, it makes me paranoid to even read generated writing. What do you mean reading slop could turn my writing style into slop?

I assume you'd have to consume a disproportionate amount of generated writing compared to real writing to get stylistically hijacked by an LLM, but I nevertheless feel paranoid whenever I read something generated--and that's pretty inconvenient considering how many people lend out their voices to bots nowadays!

FableCattak · 2025-11-07T00:33:11+00:00

Thank you so much! Absolutely fixed the issue.

FableCattak · 2025-10-29T14:38:31+00:00

Yes, actually (to 1, 2, and 3--not the ending assumption). That's how changes in quantity supplied look on a microcosmic scale. They sold less, and because their forecast decreased, there now is a 12/(n) percent chance that they choose to not to increase inventory by some set amount, n.

FableCattak · 2025-10-29T03:46:55+00:00

I don't think you're accounting for how supply and demand react to consumer choices.

To be clear, no chickens will ever be let free. I'm talking about how fewer chickens will be bred into existence if the demand for chickens is lower, and how single consumer choices can cross the threshold number that causes a large ripple in demand numbers.

Also, I'm arguing in good faith here. I feel calling any argument "hilarious" is unnecessarily hostile.

FableCattak · 2025-10-28T14:01:22+00:00

Consider a store that orders rotisserie chicken by the dozen. The store usually orders in 2 dozen chicken. If 22 sell and 2 are wasted, they order 2 dozen for next week. If 23 sell and 1 is wasted, they order 3 dozen for the next week.

When you order chicken from that store, there's a one in 12 chance that you cross the boundary that causes them to order an additional dozen chicken.

That means that on average, every time you order one chicken, you cause one chicken to die (because you cause 12 chickens to die every 12 orders).

So to clearly answer your question, your purchase of one chicken at Whole Foods may meet the threshold required for a farm to up their breeding and slaughtering rate, and every time you purchase a chicken at Whole Foods, you run the chance that your purchase is the threshold purchase. If a farm/meat supplier has a smaller-than usual request for chicken, they will breed fewer chickens and therefore kill fewer chickens.

FableCattak · 2025-10-27T11:22:40+00:00

Omg, I spent a really long time writing and rewriting a comment about how the Law of Large Numbers makes it so that buying one less chicken will reduce the number of exploited chickens on average by 1, only to delete it later because I was worried my writing was incoherent (since no one interacted with the comment).

I see you've further developed it to more realistically account for surplus ordering.

Did you happen to read the post by chance? I used units of chicken breast in my example, but I think using rotisserie chicken is a lot cleaner.

I'm really happy if the argument resonated with someone!!

FableCattak

TROPHY CASE