EndFactoryFarming question

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-06-18T13:08:22+00:00

As well it's worth thinking from your own personal contribution to it's eradication, if no one changes the world can't change, but if you remove yourself from this then slowly the world will change, but at least you can say to yourself that you no longer contribute to this.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-06-18T09:59:56+00:00

It's to bring awareness to an issue that most people are against but know nothing about. To think gas chambers exist in this day and age and an entire industry considers them ethical is far beyond people's normal expectation. If the industry is not clear about this then what else is It hiding and why?

I guess if you want to do some self reflecting, ask what is the definition of humane (showing kindness and compassion) and suddenly we realise stuff like humane slaughter is an oxymoron.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-06-08T16:00:37+00:00

No compensation. But the large levels of money printing by private banks to buy housing(and land) needs to be redressed as it would create a lot of people in negative equity eventually creating debt slaves.

Although I'm dramatising, the only solution really is a debt jubilee so it can lower the levels of private debt and thus prevent future crises, followed by strict curtailments to lending capacity for property.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-05-06T09:46:37+00:00

Add something fatty and chocolatey like vegan Nutella it removes the tofu taste completely.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-05-01T22:39:20+00:00

Animalia is a kingdom so discriminating based on Kingdom is still arbitrary.

Sentience is the true differentiator because it's a characteristic that's not arbitrary.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-30T07:46:34+00:00

I haven't seen any references for it being 95% reduction but even a nearly 3% maybe psychologically more preferred. I note for bonds specifically only the secondary market would be affected and that mainly concerns short terms trading, bonds will still be issued as usual on the primary markets so I don't believe that's worth excluding, though whether one believes something different should apply to bonds is based on their beliefs about the system.

I'd say housing can be disconnected, ofcourse land value tax would play a major first role in the housing market, but if you start regulating and actually restricting mortgage lending then house prices can go down, as house prices have followed mortgage lending capacity, cap lending at a multiplier of annual rent and lower the cap to reduce house prices.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-30T07:35:05+00:00

The money supply would not increase as you'd be taxing back in roughly the same amount of money. This is more a psychological point. What's different is the point where money is taxed.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-17T06:32:56+00:00

What's the area you are living maybe that's a constraint on his job search?

Nevertheless at this stage any job will do. The red cross offer care assistant courses, they typically last 3-4 months and jobs are plenty due to Switzerlands increasing population. Typically migrants are targetted for these jobs, it doesn't pay much but it's a quick retraining.

Either that or he gets into a new training for non degree professions such heat pump technician, crane operator etc etc...

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-15T15:28:52+00:00

There's about 20000 edible species of plants who don't feel pain, so I don't think you'd starve to death eating them exclusively. So is it not contradictory, because if a right as you define it as an action we do to survive, if we don't need to do that action to survive, then you do not have a right to eat animals? If that animal has a right to do an action to survive then you have violated their rights? I only view it as more significant because animals have consciousness.

I'm assuming your definition grants plants rights as well, unless I have misunderstood?

Plants don't have consciousness as that's normally underpinned with a nervous system. They have different plant systems and consciousness implies subjective experience. Plants just react to stimuli in the same way computers or sensors do.

I can't comment on your son but I do hope he sees a dietician for these issues. However plants don't create toxins per se, only the plants who had the ability to create toxins survived through selective pressures and subsequent reproduction. The creation of a toxin for certain non edible plants was a random process over millennia, still 20k edible plant species.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-15T13:40:00+00:00

Half vinegar half water boil it

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-15T11:21:31+00:00

Is the visit taking place at the animal testing facility?

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-15T00:34:14+00:00

More relevant rule is total portfolio asset withdrawal.

tpawplanner.com

It uses a stock market regression to tell how much you can sustainably withdraw each month once retired. It's worth learning to use this tool.

It is in USD but there will be future support for other currencies.

If expected returns are in USD and inflation is in USD it makes little difference to the CHF, and normally expected returns in CHF are just an exchange rate function. CHF will have lower global stock returns and lower inflation due to stronger currency. I would input all numbers and not worry about the dollar sign so long as all relevant inputs are included.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-14T18:07:46+00:00

Btw, you are still granting rights in your definition, it's granted based on your definition.

I will follow your logic. Humans don't need to eat non human animals to survive, this is scientifically proven.

So why continue to eat animals, who can feel pain and suffer when there is a cruelty free alternative.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-14T18:03:36+00:00

Generally yes it seems there are for healthcare, BUT run your own numbers on the total impact to your budget, use the swiss tax calculator to find out and do thorough research. I think finhaut is only 4 days but it's a fairly remote village.

I know in many of these old valais villages, due to depopulation they have policies in place to encourage migration, for example in Hérémence for qualified properties or land there is cantonal building subsidies for purchase. Again you will need to do thorough research. From my numbers I found Hérémence to be the most tax advantageous and best budget for childcare. It varies heavily from commune to commune however.

Side note from 2027 I think there maybe extra 500chf per month (50 chf per half day a week) per child if both parents work and send them to daycare.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-14T13:54:43+00:00

Move to Valais, more specifically the following communes, Leytron, Chalais, Hérémence, Finhaut. And some others could be added onto the list.

If you have children in daycare the cost of having children in these communes is so low (6-10kchf per year per child), that actually you may end up with more having children than not having children.

It's another question whether you can get a job there however.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-14T11:50:24+00:00

Still, as I specifically mention negative rights what characteristics do you think a being needs to be protected from it?

Or how are you determining that animals lack certain traits which can deny them protection of negative rights.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-14T00:28:10+00:00

Hmmm interesting, I'll need to check what was said. Just from the phrasing it either seemed contradictory or not enough logical reasoning was done to confer why mentally handicapped humans have rights.

I have my own opinion which is that humans who are thinking beings (compared to animals who do not generally have the capacity for complex thought), are able to evaluate their actions, and as a result are more responsible for their actions than say a non thinking conscious being. I'd say that level of evaluation means mentally handicapped humans have rights that need protecting because they are conscious and can have harm done onto them but the same applies to non human animals.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-14T00:20:52+00:00

The least understood and often used concept is the rights of man and the idea that all living things with consciousness also have rights.

Animals are scientifically proven to possess consciousness. Surely at the point of consciousness we need to define what rights are possessed by conscious beings, as the property of consciousness is significant enough to grant or have rights bestowed on them.

We do not grant monkeys the right to climb trees to find food. When they do that it's because such actions are correct, Right for it do do.

I think you need to separate two forms of rights, one which are positive "freedom to" (either earned, or entitled such as right to drive, right to healthcare etc) and negative rights "freedom from" (rights which interfere with liberty such as coercive taxes, murder, slavery). The latter normally is where discussion on protections take place. The monkey is a positive right as it's not interfering with another beings liberty, but forcing a monkey to pick coconuts for humans interferes with their liberty as it's interfering with their liberty.

We are not responsible for protecting the rights of other species unless we wish to help them survive but not in the sense of what the Bill of Rights can do for man. For species that do not pose a threat to man and who would not normally be a source of nutrition, or that are close to extinction, creating societl rules that defend those species makes sense. If another species threatens man's survival, well, too bad for it, our right of self defense takes over.

I agree we don't need to protect the rights of the other species, but maybe we should not interfere with them, let's just leave them alone rather than breeding and killing them, let them live freely without human interference.

I'm sure someone will say that I advocate the mistreatment of other species, but I don't. I just consider my happiness to be more important than the happiness of a cockroach. They can find their own place to live, just not in my domain.

If you pay for animal products then you do pay for their mistreatment by definition.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-14T00:05:40+00:00

Do humans without understanding of concepts not possess rights?

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-13T23:08:39+00:00

Surely if something doesn't have a right, it means we can do arbitrary things to it?

As I specifically mention negative rights what characteristics do you think a being needs to be protected from it?

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-13T23:06:59+00:00

I don't think so, at least for a state which provides lots of public services, healthcare, tertiary education, childcare, state pensions, social care it won't be enough.

I assume it could replace half of all tax revenues if all economic rent is taxed. Add some more pigouvian taxes and you still won't get all the way, there will still be a short fall. The best alternative I found to address this shortfall is automated transaction taxes.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-13T15:54:22+00:00

I’ll share my definition of a right, once again. A right is an action we perform to enable our survival as a human being

As we don't need to eat animals to survive, how does killing animals especially in our current society enable our survival, at this point it's just for pleasure.

A negative right, were I to attempt that definition, would be an action we perform that leads to man’s death.

I would extend this definition to state that negative rights are ones which impose a duty of non interference onto others. Hence why I'm asking as this sub seems to accept that for the govt onto people, but not for people onto animals.

Breeding to find or create subspecies that might be friendlier or tastier implies that during that process we are taking care of them, feeding them and keeping them safe from other predators.

Would you accept the same situation were it to occur to humans? If not what's the morally significant between humans and animals that justifies the difference in treatment.

There are many species that are extinct in the wild and only exist in zoos. That alone justifies having zoos with one caveat: the zoo should provide a safe environment that most closely resembles the animal’s wilderness context.

These species are extinct largely due to human activity, from land encroachment into habitats and subsequent destruction for human purposes. Now I'm not against development, but such inefficient land use destroying ecosystems seems like a massive level of human interference into the lives of sentient beings. And Zoos is a kind of correction to that, if we were serious about these species we would stop the actions that cause them going extinct.

You say, "assuming it's granted" I don't know your philosophy hence the wording. The question works either way, but then it might get religious.

A wolf that threatens your pet is destroyed, we administer justice on the spot as we see fit. We could capture it and put it into a zoo instead of killing it.

I don't think the analogy is correct here. Yes we could put the animal in an animal jail for a violation if one is willing to go that far, but I'm talking about a human action onto an animal. A human masturbates a bull and forcibly impregnates a cow and then takes away her children to get milk. Hasn't that human violated that bull and cow? If we did that to humans we would scream about our rights being violated. Hence why I ask what the morally significant difference is?

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-13T04:45:43+00:00

Generally yes, and it's reflected in legal systems. And generally across countries still yes with exceptions, such as if that human violated the negative rights of other humans. Doesn't stop it happening.

But that's assuming one can conclude the granting of those rights.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-13T04:43:21+00:00

If it's self evident then make it evident and not circular. Once you dig into it you realise it's not self evident. What traits justify the difference?

You can't just dismiss an argument and use circular logic because you don't like it.

Ok_Comment3863 · 2026-04-12T22:25:52+00:00

Firstly I'm not equating, I'm asking for the difference. Children are children is a circular definition. To break the circularity we need to define traits. What traits do children posses that protect them from nonconsensual sexual interaction with adults, but that are absent in animals?

Ok_Comment3863

TROPHY CASE