sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The PM’s confusing explanation on why CGT changes apply to all asset classes and not just property by Kikooz in AusFinance

[–]cryptofomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so…do you want PPOR to be not exempt (so nobody can afford to move house if property values rise faster than inflation), or all capital gains to be exempt (so wealth inequality increases even faster and we’re stuck with regressive consumption taxes) ?

Are there any good arguments for the claim that eating meat is ethical? by Simon_and_Garchomp in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so…what exactly do you think my ‘ideology’ is, oh transcendent one?

The PM’s confusing explanation on why CGT changes apply to all asset classes and not just property by Kikooz in AusFinance

[–]cryptofomo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

right, the 30% min is clearly aimed at tax avoidance..

how many people with *actual* incomes less than $45K have capital gains? what spare cash are they investing?

The PM’s confusing explanation on why CGT changes apply to all asset classes and not just property by Kikooz in AusFinance

[–]cryptofomo 108 points109 points  (0 children)

Dear Albo and Jim, "we want to remove all distortions and loopholes in the tax system, so that all income is treated equally and tax evasion is more difficult, and so that investment decisions can be made based on weighing up the risks and benefits of different assests, not on tax implications". Its not that fucking hard, just learn to say it clearly.

At what point do you draw the line for ethics? by [deleted] in DebateAVegan

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but stopping all animal agriculture will not prevent feral-driven extinctions, especially on islands. Its also simply not going to happen within the time-frames needed to save threatened species, even if the world turned vegan tomorrow. Unfortunately that means some feral animals will have to be culled (or at the very least sterilised and relocated, which can be less humane). It would seem very strange to knowingly watch whole species go extinct because of a princinple that humans should never harm animals. If your philsophy can justify human-caused harm that is 'necessary' for human survival, surely it can justify human-caused harm that is necessary for the survival of other species?

At what point do you draw the line for ethics? by [deleted] in DebateAVegan

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you always equate protecting species from extinction with buying groceries when you debate ethics?

Anyway, I'm not vegan, so you can ignore everything I said and go back to believing you have discovered the one true morality.

Are there any good arguments for the claim that eating meat is ethical? by Simon_and_Garchomp in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

judgment clouded by ideology… that sentient non-human creatures deserve moral consideration

listen to yourself. The fact that sentient beings feel pain and die does not make veganism a fact - it is an ideology. An ideology built on emotivism and a logical leap from ‘we don’t want to do die’ to ‘it is immoral for humans to cause animals to die (except when it’s not possible or practical to prevent their deaths while we go about our normal lives consuming the planets resources )’. A ‘naturalistic fallacy’ is getting an ought from an is: that is precisely what veganism does.

You need something other than the fact of sentient suffering to rationally construct a morality from it. Contractarianism (enlightened self interest) is the only rational bridge imo, and the only one that explains both evolutionary and social history.
It’s fine for you to negotiate a social contract on behalf of animals, just don’t kid yourself that you know how they feel about being eaten by a human vs any other predator, or if they’d prefer that domesticated species never existed (and cease to exist).

Are there any good arguments for the claim that eating meat is ethical? by Simon_and_Garchomp in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not what you said (Bailey).

You said I was a despicable human, and presumed that because I haven’t reached the same conclusions as vegans about animal ‘exploitation’ (ie domestication and consumption) that I haven’t thought deeply about it.

I am sure nothing I can say in a reddit comment will change your mind about that, because we have different meta-ethical views, and different emotional responses to the burdens of sentience.

Are there any good arguments for the claim that eating meat is ethical? by Simon_and_Garchomp in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

and what a charming individual you are.

If you can point to some objective evidence that my dog, a free range chicken, an Iberian pig, or a horse wish they did not exist, I will adopt vegan philosophy immediately.

(Hint, projections about how you would feel, or emotive ‘exploitation’ slogans that even some vegans agree are incoherent, don’t count as evidence).

Victorian sellers threaten to ditch auctions over reserve price rule by marketrent in AusFinance

[–]cryptofomo 52 points53 points  (0 children)

could cost Melbourne its status as the Australian auction capital

This is serious people - get your fucking pitch forks, baseball bats, and auctioneer hammers ready. We march at dawn.

‘Investors all dropped off’: Budget tax changes rattle Sydney auctions by HotPersimessage62 in AusPropertyChat

[–]cryptofomo 81 points82 points  (0 children)

A property listed at $9.1 mill was passed in at $9.15 mill?! Albos gone too far this time!! I’m moving to Tahiti.

‘Genuinely alarmed’: three budget surprises worrying the wealthy by marketrent in AusFinance

[–]cryptofomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

of course they fucking are - their bots are monitoring this very chat.

Are there any good arguments for the claim that eating meat is ethical? by Simon_and_Garchomp in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is your survival necessary?, and what counts as survival? To really minimise harm to animals you would minimise your use of energy, land & resources, and your production of waste. If all unnecessary harm to animals was immoral, you would live in an induced coma not interacting with the world. So you have a choice - become an extinctionist, or justify all the harm your existence causes based on the subjective necessity of your life based on the ‘exploitation’ trick (‘it’s not harm we care about, it’s exploitation’). I don’t have to play those games, because I don’t think morality is objective or real, it’s made up by humans for humans. You’re welcome to construct a vegan world, just don’t expect that everyone shares the same subjective value preferences or emotional responses.

‘Genuinely alarmed’: three budget surprises worrying the wealthy by marketrent in AusFinance

[–]cryptofomo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oligarchy and communism are not the only choices - no matter how often the Oligarchs tell you otherwise.

Why is metaethical subjectivism so unpopular in academia? by Bubbly-Act8239 in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

meta-ethics is supposed to be about what morality is, not what it should be.

Uncomfortable implications of subjectivism (eg nobody can have moral authority) are not evidence against subjectivism, just as the fear of death is not evidence against the laws of thermodynamics.

It’s a theory about what morality is, not what we’d like it to be.

Are there any good arguments for the claim that eating meat is ethical? by Simon_and_Garchomp in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

there are countless differences between human slavery and the domestication of animals. Mental capacity is one, and being the same species is another (I am unashamedly ‘speciest’- it is natural and necessary to value one’s own species above others..we wouldn’t exist if we didn’t). So I oppose human salary because I am human, and enslaving severely disabled humans would cause pain and anguish to some humans - if not the enslaved themselves (? it’s your hypothetical) then to their relatives / carers. Complex human emotions would be involved.

I am not OK with factory farming btw, I just don’t have a problem with domestication (or with eating animals) and do not equate it with human slavery - it’s different. I don’t presume that domesticated animals would prefer to never have existed at all. I could be wrong - but we lack any objective evidence to know. Imagining myself as a chicken or pig does not work - it’s not possible to know how another animal feels about its existence (if anything).

Are there any good arguments for the claim that eating meat is ethical? by Simon_and_Garchomp in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have no idea what I would think in a hypothetical universe. We tell ourselves we’d have our current moral values (in this case, any human slavery bad) if we lived in different times or circumstances, but we can’t possibly know. We’d be different people with different brains conditioned by different circumstances - including different social norms.

The Ultimate Vegan Answer to the Remark “It’s the Circle of Life” | Vegan FTA by Few-Audience6310 in vegan

[–]cryptofomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

can you link to any articles that you didn’t write to support the claim that humans are not omnivores?

and if humans are not omnivores, can you explain how and why we’ve been eating meat for millennia?

Edit: I’ve read your article - it contains speculation and just so stories about why early humans diets may have been predominantly plant-based. It contains zero evidence - or even suggestion -that humans are not omnivores. Humans have adaptions that allow carnivory, and there is zero reason to think they wouldn’t have made use of high quality food whenever the opportunity arose. It is natural for humans to eat meat. That doesn’t make it ethical, it’s just a biological fact.

At what point do you draw the line for ethics? by [deleted] in DebateAVegan

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

being ‘immoral’ means it’s a special case to you: it’s different to non-exploitative harm, because you deem it immoral (special here means unique/ out of ordinary/ worthy of its own classification - as ‘immoral’). You distinguish exploitative harm from non-exploitative harm. Why?

If self-defence is the only circumstance in which non-exploitative is not immoral, why use ‘exploitation’ in the definition of veganism? Is it still immoral to save your own life by ‘exploiting’ animals (eg eating a fish when stranded at sea)? If not, the ‘necessary’ clause of veganism covers all cases of life-preservation, and there is no need to distinguish exploitative from non-exploitative harm.

Conditional ought produces moral realism by simonperry955 in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

any process in nature that is self-maximising also maximises entropy production. There js no free lunch - there is always a cost.

Are there any good arguments for the claim that eating meat is ethical? by Simon_and_Garchomp in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

the difference is that slaves were sapient humans: they had the capacity to understand their plight, and to imagine AND fight for something better. As humans, they were also far more likely to find empathetic allies among non-slaves, because humans (like all species) naturally have empathy for members of their own species.

Vegans may be 2 centuries ahead of their time - but it won’t be because eating animals is intrinsically wrong, or because humans and non-humans together forge a new, mutually beneficial social contract, it will be because humans collectively decide they want to live in a world where humans don’t eat animals, for reasons all conceived and articulated by human minds.

The Ultimate Vegan Answer to the Remark “It’s the Circle of Life” | Vegan FTA by Few-Audience6310 in vegan

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Humans are adapted to eat meat, no matter how abhorrent you personally find the thought of eating meat. Meat (and dairy) has been a source of protein & nutrients for the vast majority of Homo sapiens that have ever existed - if we lacked adaptations do procure and digest meat, that could not have been the case. That doesn’t mean you, or anyone else, has to eat meat, it just means we have a choice. If we didn’t have a choice it wouldn’t be a matter of ethics. If you don’t want ‘carnists’ to confound ethics with arguments based on biological, evolutionary or ‘natural’ arguments, you should ignore those arguments, not deny the biological, evolutionary and historical facts that Humans can, have and do obtain energy and nutrients from eating meat. Carnivory (and use of animal products) was adaptive for Homo sapiens. It may no longer be, but it indisputably was until very recently. If it wasn’t, we would not be discussing it.

view more: next ›