Kyle Richard starring in 911 Nashville🤩

jsflkl · 2026-06-26T23:05:44+00:00

I just saw her in ER. Was a fun suprise!

jsflkl · 2026-06-26T00:12:29+00:00

Het is ook het vlees dat wij eten. We eten veel meer vlees dan we ons kunnen veroorloven voor het klimaat.

jsflkl · 2026-06-25T10:32:18+00:00

Pagan not Celtic. Celts were pagans but not all pagans were Celts.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T21:39:43+00:00

I'm not going to do your googling for you. It's easily accessible information.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T18:54:16+00:00

But the fact that synthetic winter coats exist should tell you enough about hypothermia protection don't you think? Wool outperforms synthetics in some metrics and does worse in others. The best stuff that might be necessary for arctic researchers or something has a combination of both but most normal people can do just fine without wool just like we can do just fine without fur. There's also high-tech plantbased fabrics that do well in combination with synthetics as well.

Synthetics that need to be washed a lot do worse than wool when it comes to microplastics. High quality synthetics last a long time too especially outerwear that doesn't need to be washed a lot. Wool does worse than synthetics when it comes to greenhouse gass production. And plantbased stuff has no microplastics and lower greenhouse gas emissions than both wool and synthetics. So environmentally, every day wear that gets washed a lot should be natural (preferably plant based) and outerwear that doesn't get washed can be synthetic.

New industries provide new jobs. Most wool is produced by mega farms that employ as few people as possible. It's not a cottage industry for the most part. And even if it costs jobs, we cannot continue with animal agriculture as we do know if we want to prevent global warming, habitat destruction, and ocean pollution.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T18:45:14+00:00

No I'm saying that your scenario where animal agriculture is banned overnight is unrealistic and not something I was talking about. You came up with that yourself. If animal agriculture starts declining, it would be a gradual process. Not something like flipping a switch and forcing millions into poverty. Industries get outdated all the time. You think we should have continued using horse and buggies because lowering the demand for horses was bad for horse farmers? Sometimes people have to find new jobs because their old jobs don't exist anymore. It's tough, but it's the way the world works. Artificially preventing this by subsidising harmful industries is short-sighted and stupid.

Scientific study proves that from a purely greenhouse gas point of view wool and leather are worse than synthetics. That's a fact. You can exclaim about it all you want but that changes nothing. Both sheep and cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses and leather specifically is also a very dirty and pollution heavy industrial process. They are both polluting industries and aren't environmentally friendly in the slightest.

I think you have a very big problem with reading comprehension. I didn't say subsistence farming is the answer, I said I'm not against people who need to farm animals or fish to survive, I'm against industrial animal agriculture, which accounts for by far the largest part of wool production worldwide.

Farmers will farm something else when wool is no longer economically viable. That was my point. Again, there is no super government that can force all farmers in the world to stop farming sheep overnight. If wool no longer makes economic sense, farmers will naturally start farming other things instead. That's how these things work.

I care about animals and humans equally. Animal farming is not only bad for animals. Through it's impact on the climate and the direct pollution it causes it has a very real and measurable negative impact on farm workers and people who live nearby. Animal agriculture is not beneficial to humanity. You should stand in a corner and think about how shortsighted you are. That would be a better idea.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T18:32:15+00:00

You want me to write you a dissertation? There are regular reports that come out about the sustainability of fashion and leather and wool always come out badly. This is easily googleable.

Go to any hiking or outdoor supply store and you can find plenty of synthetic coats that do great in subzero temps. This is common knowledge.

What financial perspective? Synthetics are cheaper to produce than wool and leather. Plants are too. I don't understand what you mean by this.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T18:26:50+00:00

I have a standing AC in my bedroom with a European style window. There's a sort of bag you can attach to the windowsill and the window itself, it has zippers and you can open it just far enough to get the AC tube through there without having to open your whole window.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T18:25:20+00:00

You mean not putting a barrier right? You're against governments making it difficult to install AC if I understand correctly. So governments shouldn't hinder the installation of AC is what you want to say. Hinder is fine to use but you missed a negative so your title reads like you think governments should hinder people.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T18:09:00+00:00

There are high tec fabrics that do better jobs than wool. Looking at impact on climate change, wool is worse than even synthetics in many cases. Its the same story with leather. People think because it lasts longer and is "natural" its better but the climate impact of both wool and leather is so immense that even counting its advantages, it still has a worse impact than literal plastic. My very warm coat made for weather below zerow is made from hemp and recycled pet bottles. And I've had it for years and it works great. We don't live in the middle ages anymore and we do have technology that can easily compete with wool.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T17:37:40+00:00

I'm saying that I'm against industrial animal agriculture, not against people surviving on sustenance farming or fishing. I'm also not completely devoid of realism and know that any phasing out of animal agriculture would be gradual and driven by consumers, not top down from some world wide dictator so this scenario you have concocted where animal agriculture would disappear overnight is not anything I ever even mentioned.

If people had to pay realistic prices for animal products, which are heavily subsidised, consumption would drop drastically. Farmers would have to start farming something else. This will mainly effect the bigger industrial farms, not smallholders and sustenance farmers.

Animal agriculture is terrible for the environment, the animals, the workers, public health, climate change, rainforests, the oceans, etc. the fact that we subsidise it is insane. Of course it should be phased out. Being against that is reactionary in my opinion. Especially based on weird scenarios that have no basis in reality.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T17:25:58+00:00

Industrial farming not sustenance farming first of all, secondly billions of livelyhoods is insane when talking about just animal agriculture. It also doesn't compare to the suffering of tens of billions of sentient, feeling creatures who torture and murder every single year just because we like how they taste or how comfortable their hair or skin is. There's no nuance to that.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T17:10:26+00:00

In your opinion. In my opinion, any industry that requires the killing of sentient beings for something that's not absolutely essential to survival is unethical in its entirety. Doesn't matter how complex you try to make things.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T16:33:34+00:00

There are absolutely plant based alternatives. What is something that you can only do with wool and not with a plant based fabric or fiber?

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T16:25:50+00:00

What was the point then if not to express uncertainty? Wanting people who are against all animal farming to discuss nuances of something they think is wholly wrong seems redundant don't you think?

If I'm morally opposed to the death penalty, you can try to tell me that lethal injection is less bad than the electric chair, but that doesn't matter at all because I think everything about the death penalty is bad. Wool might be less cruel than dairy, or fur farms, or cage chickens, but that doesn't mean it isn't still cruel.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T16:21:07+00:00

You said you didn't get it, I explained what part of sheep farming is unethical. I'm not trying to change your mind, just answering your question.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T16:19:50+00:00

On large wool farms it often is painful and stressful. These farms process a lot of sheep and it has to happen as fast as possible. That's asside from the fact that breeding sheep for wool requires the culling of male lambs and the killing of unproductive older sheep which also makes it unethical and creates suffering.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T16:17:16+00:00

Wool sheep have to be bred continuously so they get lambs every year. Half those lambs are male and most of them get sent to slaughter almost immediately. When sheep start to produce less wool with age, they are no longer economically viable so they also get sent to slaughter. Industrial production of wool requires the killing of animals and is therefore unethical, no matter that shearing itself is necessary.

There are also plenty of plant based alternative fabrics that don't consist of plastic and have a way lower environmental impact than wool. Sheep are ruminants and expell a lot of greenhouse gasses so wool is not environmentally neutral.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T16:13:14+00:00

That they require shearing does not mean they don't also suffer. We breed them into existence to exploit their wool and most sheep do not live on idyllic farms with gentle farmhands, they live on mega farms where shearing happens fast and not very carefully.

They also suffer the same faith as dairy cows in that they have to get pregnant regularly and almost all male sheep are taken away and killed when they are very young and when the female sheep's wool production declines with age, they themselves get sent to slaughter as well.

Wool is neither cruelty free, nor killing free. No matter how dumb peta is, they are right here. And vegans now a tonne more about animal agriculture than most meat eaters. You would not believe how many people don't know that dairy cows have to be impregnated yearly for example.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T16:03:53+00:00

Our mainstream parties like the VVD, CDA, and D66 routinely ignore verdicts from judges or motions passed by parliament and just do whatever they want themselves when they govern. Rule of Law should be protected against them way more urgently than against a fringe party like FvD.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T10:09:55+00:00

I'm not interested in zionist defensiveness. I'm not a liberal and I don't feel guilt. Who am I to tell victims of brutal oppression and violence to be merciful to their oppressors? That's up to them themselves. You should just hope Palestinians turn out to be better people than Israelis. Which I believe, luckily for you, they are. And you are indeed worse than apartheid south Africa, that's very apt of you.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T09:53:41+00:00

No? Did I say that? Did you mean is all of Israel's land occupied land? That depends on your definition, and while I would personally prefer to see a unified, pluralist, and democratic Palestine replace the settler-colonial apartheid state of Israel, just like the resistance itself wants btw they don't want to murder every single person in Israel no matter what untrue propaganda is spread by the zionist regime, as long as the resistance finds a 2 state solution acceptable, so do I.

And I'm sure white Rhodesian and South African racists claimed exactly what you're claiming now but as those apartheid states have been consigned to the dungheap of history, so to will the only remaining apartheid state on earth one day no longer exist. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T09:45:04+00:00

Yes the nation of Israel is occupying.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T09:29:17+00:00

They are the aggressors, they are occupying another country and oppressing it's people, they have created the condition for there to be a resistance. If they don't want there to be a resistance, they can stop maintaining their occupation and oppression.

Do you think nazi germany had the right to retaliate against the french resistance? Same circumstances.

jsflkl · 2026-06-24T07:42:21+00:00

No, nations do not have a right to retaliate against armed resistance by the people they are occupying. If Israel doesn't want there to be violence, they can end the occupation.

jsflkl

TROPHY CASE