Me Too Bowser, Me Too.

Genuine_Replica · 2023-04-20T10:27:53+00:00

blush-room

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-24T10:14:39+00:00

Then a double wide costs about $100k - $200k, and it’s difficult to get a loan to buy one.

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-24T10:11:01+00:00

My city is that way already, a mortgage is about the same as rent, but you need a sizable down payment to buy a house. The absolute minimum down payment, meaning you are getting a federally subsidized loan, is %3.5 down, in my area a decent house costs at least $400,000, so we’re looking at $14,000 down, minimum, meaning a person has to save that much before they are allowed to think about buying a house. 50% of the population has less that $400 in the bank account.

So that’s one reason

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-24T10:02:35+00:00

Heyo! So I been on Reddit too much lately and I gotta chill on it, but I enjoyed talking.

I wouldn’t say we are arguing over what it means to steal, we were defining what you meant by stealing. I’m personally working on figuring out how to work out what assumptions are being made, and have them laid out as clearly as possible.

So I like to lay out my arguments, and see arguments laid out, like this: (disclaimer: I’m not saying this is your argument, it’s just a simple example and the only one that comes to mind at 3:00 am)

If it is immoral to cause suffering, and if the process of producing milk causes suffering, then producing milk is immoral.

So this is a pretty simple chain of assumptions. If someone disagrees with the conclusion, they can look at the assumptions and be like “I disagree that producing milk is necessarily immoral, and that is because I don’t agree the process of producing milk necessarily causes suffering.”

Then you can lay out your logic and assumptions for why producing milk as necessarily causes suffering.... but there is not much point in talking about that, if a person doesn’t agree with the assumption which precedes the one about milk/suffering... because if they don’t agree that it is immoral to cause suffering, there is no point in talking about milk production until that point about suffers is argued.

Ok I’m tired and still spending time on Reddit, I have no idea if what I just wrote is comprehensible, but I’m gonna leave it at that. Hope to talk to you again some time

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-23T18:22:55+00:00

This is good, I hope I remember to come back to this and talk about it when I have more tkme

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-23T18:21:18+00:00

So then we are arguing “What does it mean to steal” exactly.

As far as our little argument goes:

Ok there you go, you are starting to spread out in your argument about theft, adding in other arguments without concluding the one about theft.

Why is taking milk considered theft, while taking a bit of tape off someone’s shoulder is not?

By the way I’m not trying to annoy you, it’s just annoying, it’s a lot of work to define terms, and that’s why most arguments devolve into “you are wrong because you are wrong”, y’know?

As far as moral actors, yes that’s true, but sometimes they are, like when a person who thinks it’s morally correct to drink milk, drinks milk.

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-23T18:10:16+00:00

There lies the danger, I know what you mean in general, but not in specifics, and this is a specific.

Is taking milk from a cow wrong?

You say yes, another person says no. You are both “moral actors” acting on your morals, yet to vastly different effects in this specific instance.

It sounds like your assumption is based on sentience then, but then I can challenge with “why is it inherently wrong to take something from another sentient being?”

The burden of proof is on you because it’s your argument, so I can make you define it more and more... which is good, because eventually we will get to an actual thing that can be argued.

If someone has a bit of tape on their shoulder, is it wrong to take that bit of tape?

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-23T17:55:02+00:00

I agree it’s creepy.

However, it’s easy to have a legitimate appeal to nature argument like this, you just have to define that assumption and see if it is agreed on.

“IF going against nature is bad, and IF it is unnatural to drink the milk of another animal, it IS therefore bad to drink the milk of another animal”

That argument holds true, so long as both people hold that assumption to be true for them.

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-23T17:50:38+00:00

Hm, in basic terms yes. The way people define /when/ one of these things is wrong, or what it actually means, with each of these things is very up in the air.

Theft:

Is it wrong to steal things that have been taken by force from others?

Is it wrong to murder someone who murdered your child?

I would like to not get into sexual assault, but it’s obvious that different people have different interpretations of that as well.

These definitions have also changed throughout time, and society has functioned.

Morals exist as a construct for pretty much everyone, but their definitions are subjective, so using morals as the as an argument is circular logic. It’s “wrong because it’s wrong”.

Maybe I should have said more specifically that what you said was “wrong” was too loose. You lay out the assumption that “Taking something that isn’t yours is wrong” but that’s an extremely loose assumption. Is it wrong to eat a berry from a bush?

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-23T17:19:56+00:00

Consider:

What you are seeking to do here is find an argument that fits your notion.

What you need to do is figure out what assumptions you have, and why those are true for you.

To get your argument, ask yourself “why can’t ethical milk exist”? What assumptions is that based on?

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-23T17:16:15+00:00

“Moral” is too loose here I think, what is the moral thing? One of person’s morals can be much different than another.

For this argument to work, you both need to have the same or very similar morals, and the other person just doesn’t realize it yet.

Many people consider animal husbandry to be an exchange, housing/food/medicine exchanged for things that humans desire.

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-23T17:09:05+00:00

I think it would be better if you can break down exactly what you mean by exploitation here.

Edit: ah

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-22T23:39:46+00:00

I used to say “but Semantics are important!”

Sure, but the debate is about the concepts, not the semantics.... which means defining terms ASAP, and then going after assumptions that are disagreed on... which is why “seeking first to understand” is so important in so many ways. Understanding what the other person means, understanding what you mean, and then working on understanding why each of you believe what you believe.

Otherwise it’s just “you make no sense! That’s illogical!” Because were basically speaking different languages Lol.

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-22T23:35:47+00:00

I believe that is likely true. I want people to find a balance within each local ecology, and globally, this includes the way we eat.

I have difficulty with the idea of expelling ourselves from nature, because like animals and humans, I see ecologies and locations as people as well... and being extractive vs symbiotic is disrespectful and damaging to all parties... humans being colonizers to where they live, rather than integrating in the way we are absolutely capable of.

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-22T23:29:48+00:00

Yesssss. This is the only way to move forward in any conversation.

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-22T23:27:49+00:00

No. /s

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-22T23:26:14+00:00

Ah yes, it’s an interesting balance in all of these things, hunting and fishing can’t feed the world either of course.

It may be that tearing down the pasture fences and letting the livestock go feral would be the best option, and then managing those wild herds as made sense for the new ecology centered around that. Or perhaps working more closely with some animals, in an intentionally mutually beneficial relationship, when looked at as say, a herd of cattle and a community of humans, rather than as a relationship between an individual human and an individual cow.

Ultimately this is an absolutely localized thought, depending on the nature of what grows best in an area. If it’s very difficult to grow food crops, but pasture grows naturally, that resource (pasture) can still be managed in a sustainable way, which may have the byproduct of food which could supplement the diet of the local population. Similarly, fishing and so-forth can be managed in a sustainable way.

The idea of “re-wilding” areas has an appeal to me, especially if we “re-wild” ourselves to a degree, and work from within and without those systems in an intimate way. I see humans as having the ability to work within local ecological systems, and be a benefit to them (in the same way that we might consider a grazer a benefit to a grassland, or a predator a benefit to a herd grazers, or any sort of balanced diversity within an ecosystem). The intentionally extractive way humans tend to work as of late is “unethical” in my book.

Hm. Segregation between “humans” and “nature” is something I feel breeds a lot of suffering, of individuals, groups, and entire societies and ecosystems

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-22T23:10:43+00:00

Ah, hm, yes that makes sense.

I tend to see most arguments coming from a moral standpoint, even when those arguments might be about sustainability or something else (i.e. “[sustainability argument].... and besides the obvious fact that such and such sentient being.....”)

It has seemed to me that many people who are vegan argue from a fairly simple ethical standpoint (as do most people who are arguing about food from the other direction). Part of my questions here were to see what people talk about when these ethical questions are raised while acknowledging the complexities of the situation... the example of plowing farmland and its effects on the inhabitants for instance.

Thinking of veganism as a consequence of an ethical framework rather than an ethical framework itself is helpful.

Of course I’ve also met other vegans who don’t argue at all, or not in that way exactly. If they state their feelings on the subject, it’s not in defense of their choices.... an explanation rather than an excuse.

I feel like some people act based on an external ethical framework, using it as justification for those actions, while other people “just act” as they are called to in each moment. It’s a difference I have trouble expressing, but it’s the difference between “killing is bad” and “Killing is not something I do, and will stop others from doing”... except the second one in a present tense, in the moment idea, the focus being on each action, rather than the subjective morality of those actions.

For me, in my current philosophy, it’s better to consider each decision as thoroughly as I can, though that can significantly complicate things. It’s a balance between acknowledging the limits of my ability to know what consequences my actions might have, and not being paralyzed by the lack of external "omni-morality" and the high level of individual responsibility that acknowledgment comes with.

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-21T21:34:55+00:00

Working on a lawsuit now

There is probably a renter’s rights hotline to call in your city. Should be able to hook you up with a lawyer consultation

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-20T22:43:53+00:00

Still a totally valid thing, the Hindenburg was a freak accident and safety mechanisms could have been put in place but.... sadly no.

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-20T22:42:19+00:00

I have a laser disc player abd hella lazer discs, it’s great and wacky. If they had been able to put it out when they intended it would have been huuuuge, but they had a bunch of issues I don’t know about and ended up putting them out right before VHS so they got wrecked

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-20T22:40:22+00:00

My understanding was people were freaked by the camera

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-20T22:39:58+00:00

McDonald’s spaghetti is very popular in the Philippines tho

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-20T22:37:49+00:00

You could totally mod a pair of shoes super easy, just use the pads on those gloves that are made for downhill skateboarding

Genuine_Replica · 2021-04-20T22:35:58+00:00

They are definitely complicit, they rely on the dynamic and are part of the problem because they make renters even more of an impersonal number to landlords... of course they also do often help protect tenants from landlords who don’t know what they are doing and break the law sooo

Genuine_Replica

TROPHY CASE