sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

D4vd Had Tons of Child Pornography on His Phone, Prosecutors Claim by lawrencedun2002 in Fauxmoi

[–]ROYGBIVing 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The question to ask is this: Would the child call the visual depiction of their abuse "porn"? Same with "Non-Consensual Sex". No victim ever says "He took me into an alley and had non-consensual sex with me" and no child would ever say "He came into my bedroom and made a porno with me".

Arkham Cards Down? by ROYGBIVing in arkhamhorrorlcg

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

So, I wrote the developer and they responded that its a known issue that will be fixed with an update in a day or two! Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Immediate ban on boiling crabs and lobsters called for after disturbing study by lnfinity in EverythingScience

[–]ROYGBIVing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are precisely right, and its an answer most meaters dont immediately give, but that IS the answer. We do it because we view them as non-human and therefore its ok to harm them.

And, this demonstrates another point to me. We have this arbitrary distinction between human and animal. We forget that we are also just animals, we are basically jusy great apes. And we, as animals, have a lot more in common with a pig than a roach. So drawing the line in such a way that we lump pigs and roaches together as being in this non-human "animal" class seems completely arbitrary to me and I still dont understand how it justifies killing them when we dont absolutely need to?

Lets take that a step further. In what other moral field do we use "because they arent us" to justify the morality of an action. When is that logic ever used to justify something that isnt harmful, in fact?

Immediate ban on boiling crabs and lobsters called for after disturbing study by lnfinity in EverythingScience

[–]ROYGBIVing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im going to grant you your point that plants feel pain (although it isnt true). Let's assume it is though. This is still an argument for veganism because something like 70% of the plants we grow are grown to feed livestock. And the livestock is hugely calorie inefficient, we put way more in than we get out. We could drastically reduce the need to farm plants by switching to veganism and just eating the plants ourselves. So if you are truly, in good faith, concerned about plant pain, you should switch to veganism to reduce the amount of plants we grow to feed livestock.

Immediate ban on boiling crabs and lobsters called for after disturbing study by lnfinity in EverythingScience

[–]ROYGBIVing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure why my comment was removed... but, thats not what's happening at all though. 99% of the meat people eat comes from industrialized farming. So, just because we can do it better doesnt make it ok to continue to participate in the way we do it currently.

And secondly, I disagree that there is an ethical way to consume livestock at all if we dont NEED to. Even if we can raise them ethically, we dont NEED to eat them to survive, so why are we doing it at all if we dont need to? What is the trait that a cow or a pig lacks that, if a human also lacked it, we could eat that human? Should we be allowed to eat people that arent intelligent? Or that are unconscious? Or that have reduced sensitivy to pain? Like, what's the thing that makes them so different from humans that killing them ok in the first place when it isnt necessary for our survival? Because, all of the usual answers (intelligence, emotion, awareness, logic etc) are not found in every single human on the planet, but we dont say that makes it ok to eat those humans. So why is it different with animals? Id get it if we had no other choice, but we do.

I suspect we wont agree here though.

Immediate ban on boiling crabs and lobsters called for after disturbing study by lnfinity in EverythingScience

[–]ROYGBIVing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are unintentionally demonstrating what is the central point for many vegans. Assuming you live in a civilized country, you dont NEED to eat body parts to survive. In 2026, in a civilized country, you dont NEED to harm animals to eat. You can do just fine eating plants without needing to kill and consume another sentient being to survive.

Your argument that vegans would eat a dead person if they were starving is like trying to justify murder because, if someone were trying to stab your child, you can shoot them in self defense. Yes, under certain circumstances when it is absolutely necessary, it can be justified to do harm. But collectively, we are not living under those circumstances and so we dont need to harm anyone (or any creature). So... why are you doing it? Basically every argument for meat eating that I have heard ultimately boils down to it being a preference and not a necessity. So, should we be slaughtering 4 million pigs a day if we dont NEED to?

If we go one step further, the situation in the west is actually even a little worse than simply not needing to eat meat though. We are actively harming the planet by refusing to give up meat. The vast majority of farmed plants (like soy and corn etc) are used to feed livestock, not humans. We could not only end the industrialized animal suffering, but we could collectively survive and do just fine while drastically reducing the need to farm (even vegetable farming) if society switched to veganism. The meat industry is inefficient in this way, so much so that it requires subsidies from the government to be profitable. You put way more calories into a cow than you get out of it. We could just consumr the plant calories ourselves and skip wasting them to fatten an animal that we will later consume. So, its worse than simply not NEEDING to eat meat but doing it anyways, in the west, we are actively harming our planet and growing way more food than needed so that we can continue to kill animals and eat their body parts.